Methods of Improving and Increasing the Vocabulary of High School Students - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: IMPROVING READING OF GRADES 9-12 Improving Reading and Vocabulary of Grades 9-12 School Reading problems in the higher level relate mostly to comprehension and vocabulary. Therefore, reading interventions and materials should be appropriate to help struggling readers. This paper reviews three articles to determine applicable interventions for improving vocabulary of Grade 9-12 students. Reading aloud, SSR and material content were some of the considerations identified. Improving Reading Skills of Grades 9-12 Reading strategies are an important consideration in teaching. There are strategies ideal only for children and there are those applicable only for grownups. In teaching Grades 9-12, teachers will find issues relating mostly to comprehension and vocabulary. This paper reviews three articles that investigated effective reading strategies for improving vocabulary of Grade 9-12 students. One article worthy of attention was written by Douglas Fisher (2007). In this paper, Fisher reports the five-part program that the teachers and administrators of Hoover High School developed and implemented in order to improve the vocabulary performance of students in state-administered tests. According to Fisher (2007), Hoover High School was a low-performing school with a population of 2,300 students at the time of study, all qualifying for free breakfast and lunch and 76% speak a different language apart from English. To improve vocabulary at the school level, the school implemented vocabulary routines and instruction. The first component of the program was wide reading. This component consisted silent sustained reading (SSR) and independent reading for content area subjects. The school identified and purchased appropriate reading materials, among these were historical accounts of WWII. In addition to these resources, the school assigned teachers who could provide relevant information to students regarding the materials they read. The students devoted 20 minutes per day to SSR and just read any material they wanted. This method was not enough, thus additional time was provided during content area instruction for independent reading. The second component of the program was reading aloud. This strategy is very common for beginning readers. Nevertheless, Hoover High School used it because of its tested effectiveness to learn content and vocabulary. In this method, the teacher read aloud a passage for 3-5 minutes at every class. Again, the school had to purchase materials specially designed for the procedure, including Richardson’s (2000) “Read It Aloud! Using Literature in the Secondary Content Classroom,” Trelease’s (1993) “Read All About It! Great Read-Aloud Stories, Poems, and Newspaper Pieces for Preteens and Teens.” These materials, along with other interesting books, were purchased using the school’s site book funds. School administrators conducted observation of read aloud sessions. Consequently, to enhance interest of teachers in implementing read aloud sessions, professional development funds were also utilized to pay teachers to observe other teachers during read alouds. The third component composed of content vocabulary instruction. This was the usual vocabulary instruction in which teachers used graphic organizers, semantic maps, tables, etc. One issue that aroused teachers’ attention on this component was deciding on what vocabulary words to teach. To address the problem, several questions were raised to qualify the words, such as “Will the word be used in other subject areas? Will the word be used again during the school year?” This kind of questions served as guide to teaching specific vocabulary words. The fourth component was academic vocabulary development. For this component, the school team consulted Coxhead’s (2000) “Academic Word List” and Marzano and Pickering’s (2005) “ELL Students and Academic Vocabulary” and came up with 570 academic words to teach their students. The last component was called the “words of the week” (Fisher, 2007, 346). For this part, the teachers introduced five words per week, identifying its root, prefix and suffix. To aid retention, the students created posters for classroom walls, the student government posted the words on the school e-board, and one of the staffs posted humorous sentences using the words on the school bulletin. Moreover, students were asked to perform rap every Thursday and the school administrators walked around in school, asking students of the meanings of the words for the week. The outcomes of the five-part intervention in Hoover High School were remarkable. Specifically, vocabulary scores improved by 20 percent in the 9th grade, 32 percent in the 10th grade, and 45 percent in the 12th grade in 2005, after the four-year intervention. Comprehension and overall reading assessment also improved significantly. Another article that reports effective reading strategy to improve vocabulary of adolescents is Lawrence’s (2009) Summer Reading: Predicting Adolescent Word Learning from Aptitude, Time Spent Reading, and Text Type. In this article, Lawrence involved 191 urban adolescents who mostly qualified for free lunch. Despite economic status, the students’ performance was not affected as economic status did not intervene with the ability of students to improve reading. Rather, reading aptitude, time or season spent reading (fall v. summer v. spring) and length of time were identified as factors relating with improvement. Importantly, Lawrence (2009) noted that quality of reading material affected vocabulary improvement. Those who read books such as novels improved better than those who read online. In addition, students showed least improvement in reading during summer compared with reading during fall and spring. This could still be attributed to the kind of materials the students read, implying that academic materials encountered during school days were more worthwhile than teen reading materials read during summer. Based on the reading activities of the students, it was clear that free or individual reading and SSR were implemented. Similar with Fisher (2007), Lawrence illustrates the benefit of free reading as promoted by Krashen (2004) who believes the most effective tool to rid of illiteracy is free voluntary reading (FVR). This approach is simple in that it allows students to read anything they want without obligation of writing a book report or theme. As seen in Lawrence (2009), students were free to choose their reading material and length of time for reading. They were not forced to read on certain topics but the materials they read were documented. In another study Lawrence, White and Snow (2011) conducted, curriculum-based texts were used to improve vocabulary. The intervention was applied to the control group composed of 697 adolescent students in five low-income schools. The said intervention, called Word Generation, consisted mainly of curriculum-based vocabulary instruction. Teaching generated words happened in major subjects such as English, Math, Science and Social Studies. Writing was given priority every Friday, during which students were asked to write freely based on given prompts. Content-specific words were generated and “launched” on Mondays in English classes. In this activity, teachers and students read aloud a paragraph containing a civic dilemma which students inferred through reading, highlighting the words and discussion. Follow up lesson occurred next in Math class, in which students re-encounter the words and the controversies linked with it. Consequently, in Science class, students re-encountered the words as teachers linked them to the instruction topics. At this time, students were expected to revoice comments to display vocabulary use. The same was done in the Social Studies class but to heighten use, debates were performed to allow students to “model clarity and word use” (Lawrence, White and Snow, 2011, 2). At the end of the week, the writing class served as a culminating and assessment means to demonstrate improvement in vocabulary. The Word Generation intervention lasted from 20-22 weeks. At the end of the intervention, students were tested using a 48-item multiple test containing the vocabulary words. Findings showed that the improvement was equivalent to two years of incidental learning across all grade levels. Regression analysis was used to determine improvement of the control group based on pre and posttest. As a result, boys showed more improvement than girls, and income level did not have a significant effect on the outcomes. The results of the third study clearly show that content of material for instruction is an important factor to consider. Likewise, follow up activities are important for vocabulary learning and retention. Analyses The three studies present commonalities and uniqueness. Importantly, they illustrate effectiveness of the interventions used. Common interventions such as reading aloud and SSR are worthy of highlighting in order to help teachers and support groups to improve vocabulary of Grade 9-12 students. Reading Aloud The use of reading aloud was mentioned in the first and second studies. This intervention requires the teacher to read passages aloud to students. The passages contained the target vocabulary words used in context. This activity may be very effective as it allowed direct instruction of pronunciation and meaning. Nevertheless, what probably makes this strategy effective is the maximum use of learning faculties (i.e., listening, speaking and even writing). Taking from Gardner’s (--) Theory of Multiple Intelligences, one can say that reading aloud is effective because it maximizes the use of learning faculties/abilities. Furthermore, relying on the students’ listening and speaking abilities must be more interesting to the students because the teachers’ way or speaking, added to their authority, captured their attention during the recitation. Free Reading/SSR Similar to reading aloud, free reading activity or SSR occurred twice in the presented articles. Specifically, SSR occurred in Fisher (2007) while free reading activity was evident in Lawrence (2009). In particular, the correct use of SSR and free reading was implemented in both studies in that students were allowed to read individually and freely at a given time. Likewise, they were given the freedom to choose the material they wanted, which is a unique feature of the intervention. Nevertheless, the use of free reading and SSR in Lawrence was more valid because it was not combined with other interventions. Unlike other studies (e.g., --) that combined SSR with other teaching methods, Lawrence (2009) applied the intervention in isolation, thus providing us a more credible view of the effectiveness of the intervention. However, Fisher (2007) presents a more compelling use of SSR as it provided students with relevant materials for increased and more meaningful vocabulary. Likewise, guidance from teachers during SSR, as implemented in Fisher, is also a unique approach to promote better reading. The results of the two studies imply the need of schools to fund SSR or individual reading. Taking from Fisher (2007), schools should have a collection of books and periodicals which students can access anytime of the day in order to promote the love of reading and improve reading skills. The students’ achievement in the vocabulary tests also underlines the effectiveness of the intervention. Material Content Another factor for consideration in applying a reading intervention is the content of the material to be used. In Fisher (2007) and Lawrence, White and Snow (2011), we noted that the intervention worked because the vocabulary words to be learned were pre-determined and well chosen. In particular, the administrators at Hoover High consulted a number of texts in order to identify the correct vocabulary words to be taught. Similarly, Lawrence, White and Snow (2011) carefully identified the vocabulary words in their 22-week study although lesser resources were used for the said study. Nevertheless, taking words from content and using them appropriately in major curriculum subjects must have taken a lot of effort and time on the part of the authors and subject teachers. Therefore, teachers who wish to adopt Word Generation to improve vocabulary skills of their students must work hand in hand in order to make the intervention effective. A great deal of planning and collaboration are required to achieve what Word Generation authors have done. Material content also proved to be important in the second study. Lawrence (2009) noted that reading teen material of the participants did not help them improve their vocabulary. In addition, boys showed less improvement because they dealt more with expository writing found in the Internet compared with girls who read more novels and narratives. In sum, the kind of reading material that students read should be monitored if the purpose of the intervention is to improve vocabulary and comprehension. Otherwise, if the focus is only to promote love for reading, SSR and free reading should be given more consideration. Reading interventions to help struggling readers in Grades 9-12 greatly differ from those applied in the lower levels. However, one intervention proves effective in both kinds of learners: reading aloud. This intervention is used more commonly among beginners but as reflected in the three studies, reading aloud is still effective among higher level students. This only shows the truth that interaction, teacher-participation in the learning process, and listening are important facets of vocabulary instruction. References Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34:213-38. Fisher, D. (2007). Creating a schoolwide vocabulary initiative in an urban high school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3): 337-351. Gardner, Howard (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. NY: Basic Books. Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading. NH: Heinemann. Lawrence, J. (2009). Summer reading predicting adolescent word learning from aptitude, time spent reading and text type. Reading Psychology, 30:445-465. Lawrence, J., White, C., Snow, C. (2011). Improving reading across subject areas with word generation. Create Brief. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/publications/briefs/improving-reading-across-subject-areas-with-word-generation.html Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D. J. (2005). ELL students and academic vocabulary. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Richardson, J. S. (2000). Read it aloud! Using literature in the secondary content classroom. DE: International Reading Association. Trelease, J. (1993). Read all about it! great read-aloud stories, poems, and newspaper pieces for preteens and teens. NY: Penguin. Read More