Читать книгу Blended Vocabulary for K--12 Classrooms - Kimberly a. Tyson - Страница 10

CHAPTER 2

A New Model for Effective Vocabulary Instruction

Many esteemed educators and researchers have proposed models for (or components of) an effective vocabulary program. While instructional strategies are important, models allow educators to think conceptually about what components they must include in a comprehensive approach to vocabulary. This chapter summarizes some of the most widely used models and proposes a new one we have synthesized from them, combined with areas of need that we have seen in school settings.

A Review of Existing Models

Before we propose our blended model, we first want to share some background information on three extant models from which we have drawn various aspects. We’ll highlight the benefits and some of the struggles we’ve seen educators encounter in their use of these models.

Marzano’s Six-Step Model

Robert J. Marzano (2004) recommends a six-step process for teaching vocabulary in his book Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement. The steps are as follows.

1. The teacher provides a description, explanation, or example of the new term.

2. Students provide a linguistic explanation by restating the new term in their own words using an example, description, or explanation of the term.

3. Students create a nonlinguistic representation of the term, which may include constructing a picture, pictograph, or symbolic representation, or acting out the term.

4. Over time, students periodically engage in activities that help them deepen their knowledge of the vocabulary term while recording those terms in a print or online vocabulary notebook.

5. Periodically, teachers ask students to discuss terms with one another.

6. Students, over time, engage in game-like activities that allow them to play with the terms and reinforce word knowledge.

In our work with teachers, we’ve frequently helped them embed this framework as a regular part of a schoolwide approach to vocabulary. This set of steps appeals to both teachers and students. For example, embedded within the model are recursive learning and multiple exposures to words, fundamental factors in effective word learning. The model also puts students in charge of their own word learning by having them develop nonlinguistic representations of words, maintain word journals, and play with words.

Step 1 begins the process with direct instruction, in which teachers use student-friendly definitions. Steps 2 and 3 allow students to start making the words their own through both linguistic and nonlinguistic representations. The remaining three steps provide for using and reviewing the words over time, engaging in varied activities with words, including games, and authentic application of the words. The steps unfold over time, making learning new words a seamless and recurring part of the learning process in any discipline. In sum, this framework has many positive aspects, and we know teachers who embrace it enthusiastically.

We have worked with teachers who earnestly seek to implement the entire framework with fidelity. However, some teachers find they tend to put steps 4, 5, and 6 on the back burner or don’t get to them as frequently as they do steps 1, 2, and 3. Other teachers mistakenly think they should do all six steps when teaching specific new vocabulary words instead of teaching words over time. Also, teachers often express confusion about how many words they can teach at a time with the six steps. They feel that they may spend far too much time on only a few words versus teaching a larger number of words, perhaps more superficially. As we try to convey throughout this book, we think effective vocabulary instruction has a great deal to do with intentionality and purpose. In chapter 3, we’ll unpack how to select words for in-depth instruction. Although the framework is useful for teaching some words in depth, keep in mind that not all words need a six-step approach.

Graves’s Model

Michael Graves’s work focuses tightly on literacy in general and on vocabulary in particular. His work is well respected in literacy circles, and other vocabulary researchers almost always reference it in publications. Graves (2006) proposes a solid four-part model for vocabulary instruction, which we briefly outline here.

1. Provide rich and varied language experiences: This includes students experiencing words through reading, listening, speaking, and writing across grade levels, content areas, and genres. Reading aloud to students and providing time for them to read materials of choice are an important part of this component.

2. Teach individual words: This element focuses on teaching new words explicitly. Teachers may use various instructional strategies during this planned instruction, including nonlinguistic representations and cooperative learning.

3. Teach word-learning strategies: This component includes teaching word analysis strategies, inference strategies, and the effective use of resources such as print and online dictionaries.

4. Foster word consciousness: Create an environment rich in print and language opportunities that engage students in playful activities with words, and serve as an exemplar of good vocabulary use.

In contrast to Marzano’s model, the first part of Graves’s model provides for many indirect means of learning words, whereas Marzano’s approach is more of a direct instruction model. Marzano does not address read-alouds, independent reading, or word consciousness in his model. These exclusions do not mean, however, that Marzano doesn’t think incidental word learning builds vocabulary; he includes incidental word learning from reading in all of his publications about vocabulary. In his six-step model, he simply focuses on the transition from direct instruction to guided practice to independent word learning and practice and leaves most of the recommendations about reading to other researchers.

The second part of Graves’s model aligns most directly with Marzano’s entire six-step cycle. It is important to note, however, that Marzano specifically calls for both nonlinguistic representations of words and cooperative learning throughout steps 3 through 6. You probably recognize from the comparison thus far that the Graves recommendations are more comprehensive.

The third part of Graves’s model has been a crucial part of the vocabulary instruction many of us received in school and of the instruction we’ve provided, especially if we have been English language arts or reading teachers. Studying word parts like roots and affixes, making inferences from context within the selection, and using glossaries and dictionaries are all important vocabulary expansion strategies. However, they often receive too much time and emphasis in classrooms—to the detriment of the other areas to which Graves calls our attention. In addition, word-learning strategies can easily become workbook or worksheet focused and disconnected from integrated vocabulary instruction.

The fourth part of the model, fostering word consciousness, is one that educators often overlook or relegate to a status of “if we get around to that,” and it’s a shame. All adults in a school building can serve as wonderful models of word use, and they can also continually show interest in and enthusiasm for word learning. A teacher who is endlessly curious about words creates students who are curious about—and not afraid of—words.

Beck’s Model

Third, Isabel Beck and colleagues (2013), whose work is cited in appendix A of the Common Core State Standards for English language arts (NGA & CCSSO, n.d.), recommend the following five steps in what they call robust vocabulary instruction.

1. Contextualize words: Put simply, this means presenting new words in context, not in lists. Students should study words in the context in which texts present them.

2. Provide friendly explanations: These employ general terms that students can readily understand, not gobbledygook dictionary definitions. We often call these student-friendly definitions. Teachers can reference the dictionary definition, but it is not the focal point of this step.

3. Provide another context for the word: Make sure students know that the context in which they found the word may not be the only context in which they can use it. Providing varied contexts helps students connect to the word.

4. Provide opportunities for students to actively process word meanings: Have them connect the known to the unknown. Ask questions that use more than one target word at a time to help students see relationships and contrasts between words. Providing similar and contrasting relationships (using, for example, language such as is like and isn’t like) between words is quite helpful for students to move word knowledge from unknown to known.

5. Provide many encounters with the words over time: Revisiting words and providing multiple exposures are paramount in word learning. Encounters need to include multiple applications of the words, meaning that students use the words in different contexts, different ways, and so on. The more the words pop up in the students’ reading, writing, speaking, listening, and viewing, the more likely students are to remember them.

Beck’s step 5, encounters over time, connects directly to Marzano’s steps 4, 5, and 6. Additionally, Beck’s step 4 mirrors the second part of Graves’s model.

These three models overlap significantly, and we can glean much good advice from them. We have certainly returned to their ideas over and over for guidance and inspiration in our own teaching careers. However, we feel that teachers, as part of the learning communities they represent, should take the best from what others have researched and proposed, consider the model we describe in the following section, and devise instruction that will work best for them and their students.

The Blended Vocabulary Model

We propose a new, three-dimensional model to represent a comprehensive approach to vocabulary learning. It is a flexible model that brings together the best aspects of several existing structures, including those from Marzano, Graves, and Beck. Distinct advantages include allowing for many effective strategies within its structure, the ability for teachers to add past successful lessons to the model, and the easy applicability of its components to a schoolwide or districtwide vocabulary effort.

Briefly, our model consists of three parts. Why only three? Because three is concise (and precise) enough for busy teachers to keep in mind as they provide instruction in all the concepts and topics they teach on any given day. Three also implies a sense of balance, like a three-legged stool. With three components, it’s difficult for one component to greatly overshadow or outweigh the others. The components we recommend include the following.

1. Modeling: Model robust vocabulary and interest in words. All adults with whom students interact during the school day should do this.

2. Explicit instruction: Teach students targeted words and proven word-learning strategies so they can tackle learning words on their own. Use digital tools as part of instruction, review, and practice.

3. Incidental learning: Provide for incidental vocabulary learning. Acquiring vocabulary through incidental experience occurs through a print-rich environment and various literacy experiences, including read-alouds, independent reading, and school and community events like dramatic performances, family literacy nights, and poetry slams, to name just a few. Setting up experiences such as these provides the backdrop and support for student-led, incidental word learning.

See figure 2.1 for an illustration of how the model functions.

Figure 2.1: The blended vocabulary model.

As noted previously in this chapter, this model draws from key aspects of the Marzano (2004), Beck et al. (2013), and Graves (2006) models, which also overlap and align in multiple ways. See table 2.1 (page 22) for a quick reference and comparison of the key aspects of each of these models and our blended model.

Modeling

Part 1, modeling, calls attention to what many excellent teachers of vocabulary do almost seamlessly. These teachers speak to students in ways that other teachers may not. For example, Angela once knew a teacher who would use all sorts of synonyms for basic or overused words with her students. If she needed a student to take the attendance information or some other document to the office, she might say something like, “Jackson, please ambulate to the main office and deliver this for me,” or “Please convey this document to the authority who is noted at the top.” She strived to use unfamiliar and sometimes far more sophisticated words to replace words like walk, go, take, say, good, and nice. Because she often accompanied unfamiliar words with a known task or exaggerated gestures, her students quickly grasped a basic definition. They enjoyed figuring out what she was saying, and many of them also delighted in using the terms they had learned in their other classes. Other teachers were impressed that these students, many of whom struggled mightily in reading and writing, learned useful, rich words through such indirect means. This is a great example of an intentional, embedded method of promoting rich word learning.

Table 2.1: A Comparison of Four Vocabulary Models

Another part of modeling is attending to unusual or unknown words when they appear in text a class is reading aloud, in a video they are viewing, or in announcements coming over the loudspeaker—anywhere students see and hear words. That’s where teachers can find an opportunity to model enthusiasm about words and, if the moment is right, provide students with a quick synonym or summary for a word so that they can begin to understand it, at the least, on a surface level. In the current climate of demanding standards, abundant content, and countless hours of testing, teachers often say they don’t have enough time to teach. Remembering to be a good model of word learning takes very little extra time during the day. Instead, it’s an integrated approach to excite enthusiasm for word learning that can go far in enhancing literacy learning for our students.

This portion of our model aligns most closely with Beck’s advice about providing many encounters with words over time. Teachers who remember to use certain synonyms for words like walk and talk, for example, will support their students in using the same more precise and less common words. This segment of our model also follows Graves’s suggestion to foster word consciousness. Teachers are, in our opinion, perhaps the best models of being interested in and delighted by words.

Explicit Instruction

The second part of the model involves explicit instruction, including the support of digital tools. Explicit instruction is obvious in Marzano’s model beginning with (and perhaps appearing most prominently in) the first step, where the teacher provides a description, explanation, or example of the new term. Graves urges teachers to teach both specific words and word-learning strategies, which are encompassed in our model. And lastly, Beck’s steps focus squarely on explicit instruction as they direct teachers to contextualize words, provide student-friendly definitions, and provide additional contexts.

As Marzano (2004), Graves (2006), Beck et al. (2013), and others cited in this book have noted, explicit vocabulary instruction is rare in U.S. schools. With the development and publication of the Common Core State Standards—and with the resulting political backlash against them—one thing is certain: the CCSS have come under intense scrutiny. This focus has helped draw attention to vocabulary acquisition and use like no other standards document in history. Teachers everywhere (and many parents) now know about Isabel Beck’s three-tiered framework of classifying words. Because Beck’s classification system is now widely known, it follows that educators now ask themselves, “Which words should I spend the most time and energy explicitly teaching?”

As we conducted research for this book by scouring academic journals, online sources, and published professional books on vocabulary learning, we noted that references to digital tools and their impact on literacy learning are somewhat sparse (though they are growing). While we may lack direct research on many of these tools, we have observed firsthand the positive impact they make in teachers’ explicit instruction and students’ engagement. Classroom researchers continue to supply empirical evidence to provide implications and support for integrating digital tools into direct instructional activities and independent practice (Hutchison & Colwell, 2014).

While we have some advice in chapter 3 about how to select words wisely, this part of the framework is about providing effective direct instruction. It includes teaching specific words—choose these wisely based on the standard, the task, and various other factors—and strategies to employ with unfamiliar words. It also includes teaching word parts and morphology so that students understand how to unlock unknown words when they encounter them. Students also need to learn how to use context, particularly in informational text, to help them determine meaning.

For teachers who are not readily familiar with or comfortable with technology, the task of selecting appropriate tools to support these learning goals can seem daunting. There are many ways to become familiar with online tools and, perhaps of greater interest, to learn how other educators select digital tools to use and for what purposes. The following tips and resources will help you begin developing your own curated selection of digital tools to best serve you and your students. Visit go.SolutionTree.com/literacy for live links to these resources. See appendix A (page 107) for extensive descriptions and reviews of some tools we find especially useful. However, keep in mind that existing online tools may evolve and disappear over time, and new tools will emerge. Knowing how to find and evaluate new and evolved tools will enable you to continue using the most effective, current, and relevant tools available, regardless of these inevitable changes. Consulting the following resources will enable you to do just that.

Education Organization Websites

To begin, we suggest following several popular educational organizations and individual educator blogs that frequently provide recommendations and reviews of online tools and apps. Some of our favorite groups and organizations include the following.

• TeachThought (www.teachthought.com)

• Edutopia (www.edutopia.org)

• Edudemic (www.edudemic.com)

• International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE; www.iste.org)

Blogs

Individual blogs we follow include Vicki Davis’s CoolCatTeacher (www.coolcatteacher.com) and Mr. Nussbaum (www.mrnussbaum.com), written by a classroom teacher who provides comprehensive reviews of games and apps. Kimberly also frequently blogs specifically about digital tools and apps that support literacy and vocabulary at Dr. Kimberly’s Literacy Blog (www.kimberlytyson.com).

Social Media

In addition to blogs, many teachers use Twitter and Pinterest to find recommendations, reviews, and classroom solutions (often referred to as hacks). If you’re not familiar with either of these social media outlets, you can download Kimberly’s popular cheat sheets for Twitter (Tyson, 2012e) and Pinterest (Tyson, 2012d) and get up to speed in no time. Those already active on Twitter can still learn new ideas and tools by joining a Twitter chat group such as #web20tools, #sigetc, or #iPadchat. Each of these groups has weekly or biweekly chats specifically about technology and shares ideas for using digital tools in the classroom. If you’re a Twitter newbie, you can check out many educator chat groups and the times they meet using Kimberly’s Cheat Sheet: 101+ Twitter Chat Groups for Educators {12 Days of Literacy} (Tyson, 2013d). You’ll find simple steps outlining how to join a chat group, follow hashtags, and contribute to the online conversation.

These resources as well as others will help set you on the path to selecting digital tools that support your curricular goals. For those teachers who are new to integrating technology, the Technology Integration Planning Cycle for Literacy and Language Arts (Hutchison & Woodward, 2014) may be a useful planning tool to navigate selecting digital tools and aligning them to instructional goals. Choose which resources work best for you as you discover more about digital tools that support a comprehensive approach to vocabulary expansion.

Incidental Learning

The third part of the model is about doing all you can to encourage incidental learning of words. We know that students will never learn enough words from direct instruction and modeling alone to adequately address the vocabulary gap. As educators, we must intentionally build word consciousness in a variety of ways. Students also need to learn words incidentally within a print-rich environment that supports and encourages word learning. Incidental word learning includes opportunities to engage in independent reading, listening to peers use interesting words, and engaging in games and playful activity. The best incidental word learning occurs in a robust, literate environment across classrooms where print and ebooks, newspapers, word walls, labels, anchor charts, and posters provide rich context and exposure to words.

We also encourage schools to ensure that students are able to attend dramatic performances, host events like poetry slams at coffeehouses where both students and community artists can interact, and hold family literacy nights that surround everyone with words in a pleasurable context. For example, several elementary schools in Kokomo School District in Indiana host popular vocabulary parades each year where students dress up in costumes ranging from simple to outrageous—each representing a vocabulary word. This fun, engaging idea, which reinforces nonlinguistic word learning, originates from the book Miss Alaineus: A Vocabulary Disaster by Debra Frasier (2000).

Incidental word learning, the third element of the blended vocabulary model, aligns with the three previously mentioned models of word learning. For example, it aligns with Marzano’s model when he suggests using games that enable students to play with words and be exposed to unfamiliar words while engaging in game-like activities. Beck suggests providing many encounters with words over time, which includes reviewing words and developing word awareness through read-alouds, print, and conversation. Graves’s model directly aligns with providing incidental word-learning opportunities when he suggests providing rich and varied language experience and building word consciousness through direct and indirect activities.

The powerful vocabulary and constant enthusiasm that the teacher models, the explicit instruction the teacher provides, and the time and structures the teacher creates for incidental vocabulary learning all combine to form a model that is well defined and research based yet adaptable to unique situations.

Recap

Models for teaching vocabulary are a viable component of a schoolwide or districtwide framework for teaching vocabulary. They help educators develop a common language and understanding around essential or core components of effective vocabulary instruction. In this chapter, we’ve reviewed three valuable models for vocabulary instruction and proposed a new, three-part model suitable for guiding effective direct and indirect word-learning opportunities to help students build broad, rich vocabularies.

NEXT STEPS

Consider the following questions individually or discuss them with colleagues or in literacy leadership team settings.

Teachers

• Review the frameworks for vocabulary instruction in this chapter. Were you already familiar with any of them?

• Do you see any advantages or disadvantages of aligning with a specific model for vocabulary instruction? Why or why not?

• What component or components of the models are most important to you?

• What resonates with you regarding the three-part blended vocabulary model? How does this model align with your current vocabulary instruction?

Literacy Leadership Teams

• Do you think aligning your school with a model for vocabulary instruction is important? Why or why not?

• Look closely at the chart summarizing the four models for vocabulary instruction (table 2.1, page 22). Discuss similarities and differences as outlined within this chapter. Which model aligns best with your schoolwide goals? Why?

• How could you present a model or models to teaching staff and allow time for discussion?

• The blended vocabulary model provides a new way of thinking about vocabulary instruction by integrating digital tools to support practice and review. How does this model support your goals for word learning?

• Discuss how the literacy leadership team can support teachers as they implement instructional strategies that align with one of the models to support schoolwide vocabulary development.

• Consider creating a shared Google Doc or wiki or hosting a Twitter chat to encourage discussion and go deeper into frameworks, content, and strategies.