Vocabulary development, instruction and comments about 'assessment'

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

A request was made for the recommendation of a helpful assessment resource for 'vocabulary' via another forum and Dr Kerry Hempenstall responded thus:

It is fair to say that the field of vocabulary assessment is less well developed than some of the other dimensions of reading. A great deal of the research employed experimenter-designed tests, and hence there has not arisen a clear consensus about which type of vocabulary assessment is most helpful in relation to reading development. According to the NRP, standardized tests should only be used to provide a baseline, as they offer only a more general measure of vocabulary. For evaluating instruction, more than a single measure of vocabulary should be utilised, preferably measures associated with the teaching curriculum.

[NRP: National Reading Panel]

Kerry also provided the following summaries from research:

“One quandary in vocabulary research is the best method of measurement. In this review, only two studies used standardized measures as both pretest and posttest measures. The measurement of vocabulary is a hurdle in vocabulary research. The depth of understanding may be just as important as the sheer number of words known. As evidenced in the varied effect sizes, measures that are sensitive to small increments in learning and that capture the multidimensional aspects of vocabulary knowledge are needed. A component of vocabulary that is often ignored is the retention of word knowledge. Few studies utilized delayed posttesting—thus, knowledge of which strategies support long-term learning of words is mostly unknown. Therefore, measures must be sensitive to the breadth and depth of word knowledge, while also determining the difference in short-term learning and long-term maintenance.” (p.266)
Hairrell, A., Rupley, W., & Simmons, D. (2011): The state of vocabulary research. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(4), 253-271.

“A first priority should be to devote explicit research attention to the distinctions among various aspects of vocabulary that we have discussed in this essay, rather than simply using a global definition of vocabulary or some general concept of word meaning. One of the major issues is the type of vocabulary that is being taught and tested. For example, often reading vocabulary is intended to be assessed, although the instrument used might measure expressive vocabulary, or vice versa. Similarly, the term vocabulary is used almost interchangeably as we move between writing, listening, speaking and reading without making either conceptual or operational distinctions. … research is needed to determine whether any single assessments can represent the various aspects of vocabulary we have identified (and, perhaps, some we have not) or whether we need individual and targeted assessments for each of the types of vocabulary. Without that information, progress in vocabulary research will be limited.” (p.294)
Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282–296.

In standardized tests, one way of assessing vocabulary is to have the student select a definition for a word from a list of alternatives. Another is to ask what various words mean (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003). A third is to select the word that doesn’t belong in a list either spoken or written (brown, big, red, green, yellow; Brigance, 2000). In the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised/Normative Update (1998), three subtests comprise the Word Comprehension test: Antonyms, Synonyms, and Analogies.

The most commonly employed vocabulary test is one of receptive language, using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-3; Dunn & Dunn, 1997). There is no reading involved; the task is to identify the one picture of four that matches the word spoken by the test administrator. A similar protocol is provided in the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2001): Receptive Vocabulary subtest. Another option is in the Vocabulary subtest of the various Wechsler scales (WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, WAIS-III: Wechsler, 2004; 2002; 1997). The Wechsler task is to provide definitions for various, progressively more complex words

.

“The most widely used experimenter administered tests for measuring children’s vocabulary size in English are the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4; Dunn & Dunn, 2007), the Receptive and Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Tests (EOWPVT-4; Martin & Brownell, 2011a, 2011b), the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT-2; Williams, 2007), and the Comprehensive Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test (Wallace & Hammill, 2002)

.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

The following findings about vocabulary experience and growth by Hart and Risley (1999) are tremendously important for parents and for educators - this is a 'must read' for everyone concerned with literacy and education as it shows the difference the experience from birth to the three year old toddler makes:

Hart and Risley (1999)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 1FP1A2gz1g

But, more important was to find such great diversity among American working-class families. Some working-poor families talked to their babies as much as professionals. But, some affluent business families talked as little as those on welfare. And their amount of talk – not their social class or income or race -- predicted their children’s intellectual accomplishments.

Do read the whole piece - it's not long!

This information is so important that surely all schools and other bodies interested in literacy, educational and life outcomes should be sharing this information loud and clear with parents and prospective parents.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

The National Reading Panel on conducting the national inquiry in America (2000) identified five essential elements of effective reading instruction, commonly known as the “Five Pillars”:

1) Phonemic Awareness

2) Phonics

3) Fluency

4) Vocabulary

5) Comprehension.

With regard to vocabulary, whilst children acquire an increasingly large vocabulary through their wider life experiences and reading (implicitly), they can also be taught targeted new words and their meanings explicitly.

See the findings of the National Reading Panel here:

http://www.iferi.org/evidence/

*Teaching vocabulary words—teaching new words, either as they appear in text, or by introducing new words separately. This type of instruction also aids reading ability.

[Dick Schutz]

Of course, "vocabulary" is a necessity and "vocabulary development" is desirable. The thing is, Diane McGuinness notes that children's general lexicon up through the schooling years increases at a far more rapid rate without any explicit instruction or assessment than schools can possibly expect to increase it. So the bulk of "vocabulary instruction" is a waste of instructional time. What doesn't increase "naturally" is student's technical lexicon. This is the stuff that "subject matter" is made of, and it has to be taught/learned explicitly. There is a specific set of terms that define each "school subject," but since teachers as well as scholars are largely unaware of this corpus, a lot of kids a lot of time don't understand what the teacher is saying.

Important also to note is that vocabulary size is of no concern in reading instruction. Any child who can speak in complete sentences and participate in every day conversation has the vocabulary and the other "reading essentials"that are prerequisite to learning/teaching how to handle written language/text.

The bottom line is that it's risky to rely on what goes for "research" in instruction. It's not that the "research" is "wrong." It's that apart from education, we rely on R&D--not on R alone. And on science & technology--not on science alone.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

I think that teachers can increase children's vocabulary explicitly and teachers should aim to do so.

One danger is that phonics provision can be pretty shallow if vocabulary development (teaching) is not included but just the technical practice tends to dominate.

The impetus for the 'broad and balanced curriculum' which so many people in education state as their aim is in danger of putting too much pressure on teachers to provide shallow lessons (not just phonics and literacy) because the timetable and the school-day is squeezed so much.

Day after day of shallow teaching and moving on too fast and trying to cover too much are dangerous states of play in over-pressurised schools.