• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Carp powerpoint.ppt 1

Carp powerpoint.ppt 1






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 5

https://mat2011pirner.pbworks.com 5



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Carp powerpoint.ppt 1 Carp powerpoint.ppt 1 Presentation Transcript

    • Vocabulary Strategies to Improve SAT Scores Leonardtown High School Christine Chadwick, Stefanie Glorioso, Daniel Morris, Marc Pirner
    • JustificationSIP: Improve SAT scores- “Offer the entireschool testing skills and vocabulary words” 35 Strategies for developing Content Area Vocabulary by “Content area achievement depends closely on students’ mastery of specialized vocabulary”Our Strategy: Semantic Mapping
    • Content Area Examples• English- students write the way they talk (or text), emphasis on vocabulary to help overall academic English• English- explicit academic vocabulary instruction is not being observed in some classes• Government- there are many words and concepts that are specific to government that are fundamental to learning / high performance in social studies• Chemistry- there are many vocabulary words that are highly specific to chemistry that are need to be successful in the sciences
    • Problem and Population• Students could improve their verbal SAT scores and content area achievement with more explicit vocabulary instruction.• Population: • Honors Chemistry • English 11 and 12 Standard and CM • Government 10 CM
    • Semantic Map• Structured word map• write the vocabulary word in the center • connect words that are synonyms, antonyms, definitions, examples, parts of speech etc.• Gives students • context rather than dictionary definition • usage rather than memorization• more vocabulary• Example of student work
    • Benefits of Strategy• Allows for a visual/spatial representation of vocabulary• Students see the relationships between concepts and vocabulary• Requires higher order thinking skills• Can help activate prior knowledge
    • Research questions• Affective Question: • Do the students feel comfortable using content area vocabulary?• General Questions: • Are the students using the vocabulary? • Are students’ vocabulary scores rising?
    • Data collection plan Pre-post Tests Observation Student Work Do students feelcomfortable using X X X content vocabulary?Are the students using the X X X vocabulary? Are vocabulary X X X scores rising?
    • Pre-post Assessment I• Half of the questions on the pre-post assessment will look like the following question: • (Vocabulary Word) • A. I have never encounter this word before. • B. I have seen this word before. • C. I can define this word. • D. I have used this word before• Other half to check student understanding of each vocabulary word.
    • Pre-post Assessment II• 10 vocabulary words• Words will be used in context• Students will determine whether the word is used correctly• Selected response format• Post assessment- vocabulary quiz
    • Observation guidelines• Specific items to observe: • If the students used vocabulary words • When and how often students use vocabulary words in speech and writing • Tally of how many times students use vocabulary words• Questions to think about during observation: • Do students hesitate when attempting to use vocabulary words?
    • Timeline• Each group member will complete every step on the decided day in their respective classrooms. • October 18: pre-test 1 will be given with the vocabulary for the week. • October 22: post-test 1 will be given for the same vocabulary. • October 25: pre-test 2 given with vocabulary for the week. • Week of October 26: strategy implemented • October 29: post-test 2 will be given for the same vocabulary • November 8 and 9: analyze data
    • English 11 Results Quantitative Data• Vocabulary words • Student view on used correctly vocabulary knowledge• Pre-post 1: p=1.846E-12 • Pre-post 3: p=3.787E-23 Significant Significant• Pre-post 2: p=0.308 • Pre-post 4: p=3.376E-16 Not Significant Significant• Post-post 1: p=3.153E-11 • Post-Post 2: p=6.182E-5 Significant Significant • The semantic maps • Semantic maps made a made a significant significant difference in difference in increasing increasing student self view vocabulary scores. of vocabulary knowledge
    • English 12 Results Quantitative Data• Vocabulary words used correctly • Student view of vocabulary use• Pre-post 1: p=0.102 • Pre-post 1: p= 3.16x10^- Not Significant 5 Significant• Pre-post 2: p=2.37x10^- • Pre-post 2: p=1.28x10^- 4 Significant 10 Significant• Post-post 1: p=0.0516 • Post-post 1: p=8.51x10^- Not Significant 3 Significant • The semantic maps • The semantic maps made a significant made a significant difference in difference in increasing increasing vocabulary vocabulary scores. scores.
    • Chemistry Honors Results• Vocabulary Words Correctly Used • Pre test 1: Post test 1 Ttest p.= 2.03x10-6 • This shows that the students made significant improvements on their knowledge of the vocabulary words from the pre test to the post test. • Pretest 2: Post test 2 Ttest p.= 8.95x10-13 • This shows that the students made significant improvements on their knowledge of the vocabulary words from the pre test to the post test. • Post test 1: Post test 2 Ttest p.= 0.0769 • There is no statistical significant difference between the two post tests, but is approaching significance..
    • Chemistry Honors Results• Student View on Vocabulary Knowledge • Pre-test 1: Post test 1 Ttest p.= 3.55x10-9 • This shows that the students made significant improvements in their knowledge of the vocabulary words from the pre test to the post test. • Pre-test 2: Post-test 2 Ttest p.= 1.37x10-16 • This shows that the students made significant improvements in their knowledge of the vocabulary words from the pre test to the post test. • Post test 1: Post test 2 Ttest p.= 0.0215 • This shows that the students felt they knew the words more after they did the semantic maps than when they did not use any type of formal strategy.
    • Experiment Variation• With this variation of the experiment, the same test was given 3 different times:• Pre-test- first time they see the test• Post-test – second time- still no intervention• Final- third time after semantic mapping• Data is compared between pre-post, pre-final, and post- final to determine whether or not the intervention was successful
    • Government Results• Vocabulary words used correctly• Pre-post: p= 0.341761 • Students view on Not significant vocabulary knowledgePre-post: p=• Pre-final: p= 0.000149 0.003989 SignificantPre-final: p= Significant 1.34406E-12 Significant Post-final: p= 2.80948E-07• Post-final: p=4.75131E-05 SignificantThe semantic Significant mapping technique made a significant difference in• The semantic mapping increasing student comfort with technique made a vocabulary. significant difference in increasing vocabulary scores.
    • Findings from observations• Few observations were made: • rarely using vocabulary words in English or Government class • used more in practice in Chemistry • used when explicitly asked to• Students recognized words when used by others
    • Overall Findings• Vocabulary scores increased from Post 1 to Post 2• Student view of vocabulary use increased• Rare student use of vocabulary words in the classroom setting, more confidence and use in Chemistry• Recognition of vocabulary words when used
    • Answers to research questions• Are the students using the vocabulary?• Students use vocabulary rarely• Students reported using vocabulary words more often after the implementation of semantic mapping• Therefore- semantic mapping increases student use of vocabulary words
    • Answers to research questions• Are students’ vocabulary scores rising?• Yes, scores are rising in English and Government, but not in Chemistry • could be due to a lack of vocabulary routine in Chemistry.
    • Discussion• This strategy yielded overall positive results although reimplementation would help to provide more reliable results• Reasons data could be flawed: • Faulty selected response questions • Strategies were not implemented identically in all classrooms, nor did they follow a specific procedure • difficulty of vocabulary words varied across data sets • Timing of the tests • Deviation from observation guidelines• Too many words in a short amount of time for Chemistry
    • Next steps?• Implications for Future Research: – strategy should be implemented identically across all content areas – use fewer vocabulary words of relatively equal difficulty – could be broken into two separate studies –One study on vocabulary scores –specify use as a study tool –One study on student view on vocabulary use
    • Back to the big picture• Semantic mapping is one of many study tools• Students need to learn about different study tools • encouraged to use other visuals as study tools to study for the SAT.