Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition

727
views

Published on

Otterby, D. L. (2009). Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition. United States: ProQuest LLC.

Otterby, D. L. (2009). Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition. United States: ProQuest LLC.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
727
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Instructional Strategies to Enhance English Language Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition Debra L. Otterby Seattle Pacific University
  • 2. 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
  • 3. 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*?
  • 4. 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.
  • 5. 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
  • 6. 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 Research Question 2 12 Research Question 3 12 Research Question 4 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
  • 7. 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
  • 8. 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 Research Question 1 60 Research Question 2 60 Research Question 3 60 Research Question 4 60 Hypothesis 1 61 Hypothesis 2 61 Hypothesis 3 61 iii
  • 9. 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
  • 10. 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
  • 11. 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
  • 12. List of Figures Figure 1. Pretest and Posttest Means for three levels of the factor Condition 67 vii
  • 13. 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
  • 14. 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,
  • 15. 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.
  • 16. 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,
  • 17. 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
  • 18. 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
  • 19. 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.
  • 20. 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).
  • 21. 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
  • 22. 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.
  • 23. 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.
  • 24. 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? Research question 3. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the planned comparison between Read/Explain and Read? Research question 4. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the 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. Hypothesis 2. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain. Hypothesis 3. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain and Read.
  • 25. 13 Hypothesis 4. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically 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.
  • 26. 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.
  • 27. 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
  • 28. 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).
  • 29. 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.
  • 30. 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).
  • 31. 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
  • 32. 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.
  • 33. 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
  • 34. 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.
  • 35. 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
  • 36. 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
  • 37. 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.
  • 38. 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
  • 39. 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
  • 40. 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
  • 41. 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,
  • 42. 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
  • 43. 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,
  • 44. 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
  • 45. 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
  • 46. 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.
  • 47. 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.
  • 48. 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
  • 49. 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
  • 50. 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
  • 51. 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,
  • 52. 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:
  • 53. 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
  • 54. 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.
  • 55. 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).
  • 56. 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
  • 57. 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
  • 58. 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
  • 59. 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
  • 60. 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
  • 61. 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
  • 62. 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:
  • 63. 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,
  • 64. 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.
  • 65. 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
  • 66. 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.
  • 67. 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.
  • 68. 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
  • 69. 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
  • 70. 58 no time restrictions, but generally, students needed about 10 to 15 minutes. In the third session, students completed The Reader Self-Perception Scale (Henk & Melnick, 1995). The researcher received permission from the International Reading Association to use this scale in English and paid for permission to reprint it. To ensure participants had a thorough understanding of the statements in the survey using either their first- or second-language reading skills, the researcher also requested and received permission to have the scale translated into Spanish and Tagalog with a disclaimer the association was not responsible for the accuracy of the translation. The researcher paid a locally owned interpreting service $421.80 for the translations. The researcher followed Henk and Melnick's recommended procedure to explain the directions, and then students completed the Likert-style scale. There were no time restrictions, but students needed about 10 minutes. Analysis of the data was not included in this dissertation. In the subsequent four sessions, the approximate schedule was as follows: 1. Prior to reading the story aloud, the researcher gave each participant a folder with the posttest enclosed and provided a pencil. The folder was set aside and left closed until after the read aloud. The researcher introduced the reading passage by telling its title and author. One brief sentence about the story was shared. The process for choosing an answer on the multiple-choice posttest (A, B, C, or D) was reviewed. 2. The researcher read aloud the passage that included nine target words. For three target words, explanations were given using in-flight definitions (Elley, 1989), followed immediately by an orthographic cue, showing students the written spellings. Each of the three spelled words was printed on computer
  • 71. 59 paper using a font size of 120, and the paper was folded in a triangle to make it stand upright so all students could see it. Three other target words were explained using the same in-flight definition process, but students were not given an orthographic cue. The remaining three words were neither explained nor spelled as they were the control. Each reading lasted approximately 7 minutes. For consistency, all in-flight definitions were prewritten into the researcher's script (see Appendix E). 3. When the researcher finished reading the passage, students opened their folders and answered nine multiple-choice vocabulary questions. They placed their folders upright to give them privacy from other students and the researcher. This allowed them the opportunity to answer the questions at their own pace without the researcher watching them. There was no time limit, and this portion of the session lasted about 5 minutes. Conclusion In summary, the design of this research was quasi-experiment. The sampling procedure was convenient because a special population was needed and included 50 English language learners in Grades 5 through 9 who qualified for a state-sponsored program. The participants completed a vocabulary pretest and answered questions on a reading survey. Then, the researcher read aloud four reading passages, and after each one, participants completed a posttest.
  • 72. Chapter 4 Results Introduction This chapter identifies the research questions, the hypotheses, and the variables. The central findings of the statistical procedures, including descriptive statistics, repeated-measures analysis of variance, and planned pairwise comparisons are presented. Finally, the results are summarized and used as the focus for the discussion in the next chapter. Research Questions and Hypotheses These research questions were used to develop the hypotheses that were then tested statistically. Research question 1. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ across the three levels of the 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? Research question 3. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the planned comparison between Read/Explain and Read? Research question 4. Do the means on the vocabulary posttest differ for the planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read?
  • 73. 61 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. Hypothesis 2. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain. Hypothesis 3. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain and Read. Hypothesis 4. One null hypothesis is assumed. H0 = There is no statistically significant difference on the vocabulary posttest between Read/Explain/Spell and Read. A Priori Decisions Prior to viewing the results, the researcher made the choice of which statistical test to report—the standard univariate F, alternative univariate, or multivariate. Since there were more than two levels of the factor Condition, it was inappropriate to report the standard univariate ANOVA F because the assumption of sphericity would most likely have been violated. The alternative univariate test could have been used because it takes into account the sphericity assumption; the F statistic is used, and the/? value is calculated using an epsilon statistic that adjusts the degrees of freedom. Instead of these two options, a multivariate test was chosen because the assumption of sphericity is not an issue, and statisticians have tended to prefer it due to its conceptual link to follow-up tests, meaning multivariate statistics and pairwise comparisons determine if the population means for two sets of scores are simultaneously equal to zero (Green & Salkind, 2005). In other words, if ai denotes the extent to which condition 1 deviates from the overall
  • 74. 62 mean (ai = ju - ju), then "all treatment (group) effects are zero: that is, cti = ot2 = (X3 = 014 = a5 = 0" (Cardinal & Aitken, 2006, p. 9). Also, prior to viewing the results, the choice of follow-up tests was made. Planned pairwise comparisons that used paired-samples t tests with a Holm's sequential procedure were chosen because this procedure controls for Type 1 error across multiple pairwise tests. The Holm's sequential has greater power and is preferred over the Bonferroni method (Green & Salkind, 2005). Variables For the repeated-measures ANOVA, there was one within-subjects factor and one continuous dependent variable. Within-subjectsfactor—predictor variable. The factor Condition had three levels: (a) Read/Explain/Spell; (b) Read/Explain; and (c) Read. Because this study used a within-subjects design, all 50 participants received all levels of the factor and were measured repeatedly on these levels. Dependent variable. The dependent variable was a continuous variable, the vocabulary posttest. Descriptive Statistics of Participants The 50 participants were English language learners in Grades 5 through 9 who qualified for the state's Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program. While in this program, they were assessed annually on their oral language communication skills using subtests of reading, writing, listening, and speaking to determine their overall proficiency level: (a) Level I, Beginning/Advanced Beginning; (b) Level II, Intermediate; (c) Level III, Advanced; and (d) Level IV, Transitional. The participants had proficiency levels
  • 75. 63 ranging from Intermediate to Transitional, and 82% were considered Advanced. According to the state's criteria, this indicated they were able to initiate conversations, to read, to write, and to use descriptive sentences (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007). The distribution of participants among the five grade levels was unequal with approximately one half of them in two grade levels. Overall gender was fairly equal; however, by grade level there were inequities, most obviously in Grade 7 where all participants were male (see Table 4). Table 4 Distribution of Participants by Grade, Deleted Cases, and Gender Grade n Deleted Cases Male Female 5 6 7 8 9 Totals 13 14 7 7 9 50 0 0 1 0 1 2 6 7 7 4 3 27 7 7 0 3 6 23 These participants spoke nine languages, but the most common were Tagalog and Spanish, 40% and 32%, respectively. Between 4% and 8% of the students spoke Armenian, Korean, Taiwanese, and Vietnamese. The remaining students spoke Cambodian, Chamorro, and Chuukese (see Table 5).
  • 76. 64 Table 5 Home Languages of Participants Grade Languages 5 6 7 8 9 Total Percentage Armenian Cambodian Chamorro Chuukese Korean Spanish Tagalog Taiwanese Vietnamese 1 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 2 1 1 1 4 16 20 2 3 4 2 2 2 8 32 40 4 6 Data Snooping Prior to conducting statistical procedures using posttest scores, the researcher analyzed the data to ensure the SPSS file was complete. In the data file there were approximately 4,500 cells of information—50 participants and 92 data entries per participant. Therefore, a process of checking and rechecking occurred to ensure data were entered accurately and all cells were filled.
  • 77. 65 Descriptive Statisticsfor the Vocabulary Pretest andPosttest Three levels of the factor Condition (Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read) were analyzed, and variables were computed using pretest and posttest scores. The descriptive statistics for these variables are detailed in Table 6. Table 6 Descriptive Statisticsfor the Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest Condition N Pretest Read/Explain/Spell 50 Read/Explain 50 Read 50 M .355 .353 .362 Variance .030 .033 .031 SD .173 .183 .175 Skewness .334 .275 .377 Kuitosis .213 -.606 .318 Posttest Read/Explain/Spell 50 .788 Read/Explain 50 .573 Read 50 .483 .024 .034 .021 .154 .184 .145 -.841 .063 .394 1.629 -.714 -.310 Note. N= 50. The 50 participants received all levels of the factor and were measured repeatedly. Maximum score = 9 for each level of Condition (Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read). Analysis of the normality of the curves was explored through skewness (outliers) and kurtosis (degree of peakedness). These indices should be as close to zero as possible; however, an absolute value less than 1 is generally considered to indicate a relatively normal distribution (Sink, 2005). The curves for Read/Explain and Read were normal; however, Read/Explain/Spell was more leptokurtic. Even though parametric statistics
  • 78. 66 tend to be robust even when distributions do not meet the assumptions of the analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), a nonparmetric procedure for repeated-measures designs with an intervention was used to confirm this was not an issue (Green & Salkind, 2005). One Wilcoxon test evaluated whether vocabulary learning was greater using either Read/Explain/Spell or Read/Explain, as measured by the posttest. The results indicated significant difference, i = -5.672, /? = .000. A second test evaluated whether vocabulary learning was greater using either Read/Explain/Spell or Read, as measured by the posttest. The results indicated significant difference, z = -6.040, p = .000. These Wilcoxon tests showed that even though the distribution curve for Read/Explain/Spell was slightly leptokurtic, significant difference was found even when nonparametric procedures were used. Statistical Analyses A factorial ANOVA and a repeated-measures ANOVA were conducted; both results were equivalent, so the researcher chose a repeated-measures ANOVA and used only the posttest scores. A multivariate test was conducted, and the findings were reported using Wilks's lambda. Planned pairwise comparisons that used pair-samples t tests with a Holm's sequential procedure were chosen, and effect sizes were reported using pooled Cohen's d. Assumptions. Because multivariate statistics were used, three assumptions needed to be met so that the ultimate difference in the levels of the factor could be attributed to the mean scores with the residual variability due to random error (Green & Salkind, 2005). First, the assumption that scores were multivariately normally distributed in the population had to be met. Within this assumption, individual scores must be normally
  • 79. 67 distributed for any combination of the other scores. Second, the assumption that each case was a random sample from the population must be met. Third, the assumption that scores for each subject were independent of other subjects' scores had to be met (Green & Salkind, 2005). Repeated-measures analysis of variance. A repeated-measures ANOVA was the omnibus statistical procedure used to analyze posttest scores for the three levels of the factor Condition. Using the General Linear Model and repeated measures function of SPSS 14 for Windows, the results of multivariate tests were reported using Wilks's lambda, a statistical test for equality of group means (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003); however, interpretations were given in terms of a F ratio (Vogt, 1999). The results showed a significant overall effect, Wilks's A = .24, F(2, 48) = 75.35, p = .00. Because of these findings, Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected, indicating the means on the vocabulary posttest scores were significantly different among Read/Explain/Spell, Read/Explain, and Read (see Figure 1). CD 5 Figure 1. Pretest and posttest means for three levels of the factor Condition.
  • 80. 68 Because significance was found, the effect size was calculated using multivariate eta squared as it is associated with Wilks's lambda, multivariate rj = 1 - A. The results showed an effect size, 1.00 - .24 = .76. This indicated that 76% of the variance in the posttest was accounted for by the factor Condition. The remaining 24% was the unexplained variance. Plannedpairwise comparisons. Even though the omnibus test showed there was significant difference among the three levels of Condition, these differences were not specified, so three planned pairwise comparisons were conducted using a paired-samples t test procedure to determine if the mean difference between two variables was significantly different from zero. The first test was conducted to compare vocabulary learning between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain. For this comparison, the results indicated the mean for Read/Explain/Spell was significantly greater than the mean for Read/Explain, t(A9) = 8.529, p = .000 (see Table 7). The second paired-samples t test was conducted to compare vocabulary learning between Read/Explain and Read. The results showed the mean for Read/Explain was significantly greater than the mean for Read, t(49) = 3.512,/? = .001 (see Table 7). The third paired-samples t test was conducted to compare vocabulary learning between Read/Explain/Spell and Read. For this comparison, the results indicated the mean for Read/Explain/Spell was significantly greater than the mean for Read, /(49) = 12.018,/? = .000 (see Table 7).
  • 81. 69 Table 7 Planned Pairwise Comparisonsfor the Factor Condition Using Posttest Scores Condition Levels df t p d Read/Explain/Spell & Read/Explain 49 8.529 .000* 1.267a Read/Explain &Read 49 3.512 .001* .543a Read/Explain/Spell &Read 49 12.018 .000* 2.039a Note, "pooled Cohen's d. *p < .05. Because significant difference was found for each of the three paired-samples / tests, Null Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 were rejected, and these conclusions were drawn: 1. Vocabulary posttest scores were different between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain. 2. Vocabulary posttest scores were different between Read/Explain and Read. 3. Vocabulary posttest scores were different between Read/Explain/Spell and Read. Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure. When conducting multiple comparisons, the probability of committing a Type 1 error, rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true, increases. To correct for this, a Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure was used because of its capability to assess each paired comparison at a different alpha level (Green & Salkind, 2005).
  • 82. 70 First, the three pairs were ranked from smallest to largest according to their p values, and then each pair was examined using a sequential procedure. Two of the comparisons had/? values of .000 so their ranked order was inconsequential. The pair Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain was examined using the first Holm's procedure, a = .05 / 3 = .02, and the pair Read/Explain and Read was examined using the second Holm's sequential procedure, a = .05 / (3 - 1) = .025. The/? value for the third comparison between Read/Explain and Read was .001, and it examined using the final Holm's sequential procedure, a = .05 / (3 - 2) = .05. The results showed there was significant difference between each of the paired comparisons even when the Holm's sequential procedure was computed. Effect sizes usingpooled Cohen's d. Effect size can be calculated using either t values or means and standard deviations. Because paired t tests were used, it was not appropriate to use t values (Becker, 1999). Instead, means and standard deviations were used. Cohen's d calculates the difference between means, M - M2, divided by either of the groups' standard deviation, a, if their variances are homogeneous. However, the standard deviation of a sample population tends to be a biased estimator, meaning it underestimates the population standard deviation (Vogt, 1999). Therefore, pooled Cohen's d was used: d = M - M21 cyp0oied, where apooied= V[(a 2 + a 22 ) / 2]. For example, the effect size for the first planned comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain was calculated using a web-based calculator that divided the numerator (the difference between the means of Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain) by the denominator (the square root of the average of the squared standard deviations for Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain).
  • 83. 71 Regardless of the sign, lvalues of .2, .5, and .8 are interpreted as small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively (Green & Salkind, 2005). Also, when d=, the group means for the two comparisons are exactly one standard deviation apart. The effect size for the first comparison between Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain was 1.267, which was considered very strong and was interpreted as, on average, a student receiving the Condition Read/Explain/Spell performed better than a student receiving Read/Explain. This indicated the mean of the intervention group (Read/Explain/Spell) was at the 94.5 percentile of the other group (Read/Explain) (Becker, 1999). For the second comparison, the effect size was .543, which was considered medium. This indicated that, on average, a student receiving the Condition Read/Explain performed better than a student receiving the Condition Read, and the mean of the intervention group (Read/Explain) was at the 71.0 percentile of the other group (Read) (Becker, 1999). For the third comparison, the effect size was 2.039, which was considered very strong. This implied that, on average, a student receiving the Condition Read/Explain/Spell condition performed better than a student receiving the Condition Read. This indicated the mean of the intervention group (Read/Explain/Spell) was at the 97.7 percentile of the other group (Read) (Becker, 1999). Conclusion The findings using a repeated-measures ANOVA showed there was statistically significant difference on the vocabulary posttest among the three conditions. Furthermore, the planned pairwise comparisons showed Read/Explain/Spell was more effective than either Read/Explain or Read. The large effect size for Read/Explain/Spell
  • 84. 72 demonstrated the practicality of reading aloud, explaining words, and showing spellings, especially for English language learners in their middle/junior high school years.
  • 85. 73 Chapter 5 Discussion Introduction This chapter reviews the purpose of this study and the rationale for conducting the research. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are proposed, and the implementation of reading aloud coupled with explanations of words and an orthographic cue is discussed. Finally, the limitations are explained, and recommendations for future research are detailed. Purpose of Research When adolescent English language learners have their initial exposure to a second language, typically in an English-only setting in the United States, they must simultaneously learn to communicate their basic needs and to grasp cognitive academic vocabulary in subject-specific courses. Added to this, English language learners must understand and comprehend academic vocabulary when assessed on mandatory tests in core curricular areas. Therefore, research that investigates instructional interventions as one facet to promote vocabulary learning for English language learners is of importance. This study explores research-based first-language instructional strategies that have the potential to promote vocabulary learning for second-language learners in their middle school years. It is of interest to determine which intervention best facilitates 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. To do so, the researcher chose to build on certain aspects of two recent studies: (a) learning vocabulary from read alouds
  • 86. 74 and explanations of target words (Penno, Moore, & Wilkinson, 2002); and (b) learning definitions from seeing the spellings of words (Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008). Because neither of these studies focused on second-language learners, it was necessary to extend their research to validate whether or not these instructional practices were of benefit to English language learners, particularly those who qualified for a state program. Theoretical Implications As stated earlier, the theoretical framework for second-language vocabulary learning has yet to be well developed (Read, 2000). The importance of conceptualizing this construct, however, has been noted by members of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Youth and Children who have claimed there is a need to use theory to inform instructional practices for English language learners (August & Shanahan, 2006). This has included understanding theories for the purpose of "improving strategies teachers use when reading aloud to young children" (August & Shanahan, 2006, p. 562). Integral to the current study is the assumption that reading aloud to English language learners benefits vocabulary learning. Thus, reading aloud was embedded in all levels of the intervention. Even though the researcher's major hypothesis that increased vocabulary learning would occur when reading aloud was coupled with explaining words and using an orthographic cue, it is notable that students made a slight gain from pretest to posttest for the condition that included just reading aloud. The findings in this study also support two assumptions and provide evidence of construct validity: (a) Direct instruction in which target words are explained promotes second-language vocabulary learning (Read, 2000); and (b) the use of an orthographic cue is a means to connect the spellings of words to their pronunciations and meanings
  • 87. 75 (Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008). First, direct instruction of target words was embedded in two of the three levels of Condition (Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain). Results from the posttest show more vocabulary learning occurred using Read/Explain/Spell and Read/Explain than Read in which there was no direct instruction of target words. This demonstrates the vocabulary posttest has construct validity because it measures the hypothesis that direct instruction (giving explanations of target words) increases vocabulary learning for second-language learners. Second, showing the spellings of words is provided in one of the Condition levels (Read/Explain/Spell). Results from the posttest indicated more vocabulary learning occurred when an orthographic cue was provided than when it was not. This provides evidence of construct validity because the findings support the theory that orthographic cues are a means to connect the spellings of words to their pronunciations and meanings. Other Theories to Conceptualize Vocabulary Learning As stated in earlier chapters, suppositions regarding second-language vocabulary learning have yet to be conceptualized in a theoretical framework. However, one construct from first-language theory that has gained acceptance in second-language theory is the view that vocabulary knowledge is either receptive or productive. Receptive vocabulary is associated with listening and reading, and productive vocabulary is linked to speaking and listening. Theorists argue that even though receptive knowledge of vocabulary is of importance, students have not mastered vocabulary learning until productive knowledge of words is evident. The rationale for this stems from the notion that students may be able to recognize word meanings, yet they are unable to use vocabulary productively when speaking and writing.
  • 88. 76 This construct is problematic because of the difficulty assigning students' awareness, understanding, and use of words to an either-or delineation of reception or production; instead, it should be viewed as continuum with a "fluid boundary and a great deal of interaction between receptive and productive vocabulary" (Read, 2000, p. 154). Others concur regarding dichotomizing vocabulary into receptive and productive knowledge, citing that a continuum of knowledge is more representative of how vocabulary has been learned and then used (Hatch, 1995). Possibly, an accurate conception of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge is more cyclical and recurring in nature, such that vocabulary learning requires both reception and production, and this cycle continues throughout one's life. Manyak (2007) has proposed another construct that may explain vocabulary learning. Of four components of effective literacy instruction for English language learners, one is language-rich instruction that includes the development of oral language and academic vocabulary. For oral language development, Manyak advocates the importance of ensuring ELLs have access to fluent speakers, have frequent modeling, and receive feedback. Therefore, there may be social-cognitive theories, such as these and teacher modeling (Bandura, 1997), that better explain vocabulary learning. Another principle that may explain vocabulary learning is the similarity between a student's first and second language and his or her level of proficiency. Koda (1997) has proposed that students' first language may be an avenue to process second-language word recognition. Proctor et al. (2006) found that students' first-language literacy skills, such as fluency, transferred to their second language. Gathercole and Baddeley (as cited in Nation, 2001) have provided this supposition:
  • 89. 77 An important factor influencing vocabulary learning is the ability to hold a word in their phonological short-term memory. A variable influencing this for second language learners must be the learners' ability to 'chunk' the spoken form of a word into meaningful segments which in turn depends on LI and L2 similarity and the learners' level of proficiency in L2. (p. 41) In the current study, 82% of the participants had proficiency levels that were considered advanced, so it is possible this influenced their vocabulary learning. Another possibility for learning vocabulary has been the use of keywords. Pressley, Levin, and McDaniel (1987) examined many of the keyword methods and stated, "All relevant evidence supports the conclusion that classroom instruction in keyword mnemonics improves the associative learning of children" (p. 111). One strategy has involved students making associations between a word and its definition. For example, in the current studyfurnace is a target word and its definition is a.place where things are heated. Students could use the first part offurnace (fur) to create an image of fur being heated or burned in afurnace. When students subsequently see furnace on a test, they could retrievefur from their memory because it is acoustically the same asfur infurnace, and this could provide the connection to aplace where things are heated. If students have been taught how to use keywords, then possibly this better explains how they learn vocabulary. One final theory is of merit because of its implications. The supposition that reading achievement can be predicted from difficulties in auditory discrimination has been discussed for nearly 40 years. Two researchers Deutsch and Karger (as cited in Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin, 1990) studied low-income children, especially those who
  • 90. 78 could not speak standard English. They found the ability to differentiate between sounds predicted early reading achievement. Therefore, there is the possibility that students in the current study who are able to distinguish between sounds have higher reading achievement. Pedagogical Implications Vocabulary learning. In this study, the effect sizes from the planned pairwise comparisons indicate the practical significance of reading aloud to English language learners when it is coupled with word explanations and the use of an orthographic cue. Educators can be encouraged this is a worthwhile practice for the following reasons. It is fairly simple to implement, yet educators need to make a conscious effort to read aloud to English language learners, and for difficult words, provide them with simple, concise explanations and show them the spellings. Monetarily, this strategy does not require costly instructional materials so implementation should be fairly simple. It is noteworthy, however, that the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Youth and Children recommends professional development in the area of reading aloud (August & Shanahan, 2006). Therefore, personnel in charge of staff development in a school district should encourage educators to receive training and to include this strategy in their schoolwide learning improvement plans. Additionally, there are implications that vocabulary learning influences listening and reading comprehension, which in turn increases vocabulary learning, demonstrating its cyclical nature. Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) have postulated that listening comprehension is a more effective means of learning vocabulary at the beginning of Stage 3 reading to learn, which for native speakers occurs between ages 9 and 13 in
  • 91. 79 Grades 4 through 8. Then, a transition occurs to the use of both listening and reading comprehension at the end of the stage. Likewise, listening comprehension has been shown to remain strong through Grade 8 when reading comprehension finally approaches the same level as listening comprehension (Biemiller, 2001). Most recently, listening has been defined as an avenue to gain understanding and to interpret information for English language learners in Grades 6 through 8 (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2007). Possibly, when adolescent second-language learners are learning word meanings for the first time, it is worthwhile to use the strength of their listening comprehension skills to foster vocabulary learning, and one strategy is reading aloud. Then, as ELLs learn more vocabulary, instruction can improve their listening and reading comprehension skills. Vocabulary knowledge has been shown to correlate with improvement in reading comprehension. At the end of a 2-year study, Carlo et al. (2004) reported that second-language learners in Grades 4 and 5 performed as well as or better than an English-only control group when instruction focused on the depth of vocabulary knowledge and strategies for word comprehension. The researchers found that during a 15-week intervention period if instruction concentrated on word-learning strategies using fewer words as opposed to learning useful words, both vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension improved. Therefore, the instructional practice of reading aloud coupled with explaining and showing the spellings of words is a simple and cost effective means to increase vocabulary learning for English language learners and has the potential to influence listening and reading comprehension.
  • 92. 80 Mandatory testing. English language learners face several dilemmas regarding state- and federally mandated testing. First, they are not given time to acquire an adequate vocabulary in order to do well on tests. After residing in the United States for a short period of time, ELLs are required to demonstrate their knowledge in core subjects using a language they have yet to master; however, research studies since the early 1980s have shown learners of a new language require 2 to 3 years to acquire fluency using words that are contextualized via representative pictures or gestures. They need nearly 5 to 7 years to learn academically challenging words in textbooks, trade books, newspapers, or other printed materials that are decontextualized, meaning visual clues are not embedded in the text (Cummins, 1994). This process of becoming proficient in a second language and acquiring academic vocabulary may require more years because adolescent second-language learners must simultaneously learn a new language their classmates already know and must understand new concepts in academically challenging subjects (Collier, 1987, 1989). Second, complex language occurs in assessments and becomes a constant obstacle for ELLs to overcome (August & Shanahan, 2006). Therefore, ELLs should be afforded whatever time they need to do well on tests; however, many tests are timed. Garcia's (1991) study found time contributed to Hispanic students performing lower than monolinguals on reading tests. Participants were interviewed, and many ELLs felt they did not have enough time to read and to answer questions, so toward the end of the testing period, they answered the questions without reading the text. Third, most mandatory testing involves the use of norm-referenced assessments. August and Shanahan (2006) claimed the use of standardized tests to assess English
  • 93. 81 language learners' knowledge, ability, and achievement was an inaccurate measurement because these tests have been normed on a different population. They contended "a number of researchers have pointed out that few English-language learners, if any, are included in the norming sample for standardized tests developed in English" (p. 585). This raises concerns regarding the use of such measures for assessing English language learners. In the state where the current study was conducted, statewide mandatory tests in reading, writing, and math for students in Grades 4, 7, and 10 are criterion-referenced; however, in other grades, norm-referenced tests are used. It should be recognized that English language learners can demonstrate their knowledge if they have the opportunity to be tested using their native language. Even though there are certain accommodations, such as providing bilingual dictionaries, having dual-language tests, and administering tests orally, these are not consistently provided, and their effectiveness has not been researched extensively (August & Shanahan, 2006). The adverse results of being tested have been validated by Collier (1987) using cross-sectional data collected from 1977 to 1986 that included 1,548 ELLs who arrived in the United States between the ages of 12 and 15. They encountered the most difficulty reaching grade-level norms in academic achievement when their entire learning experience was in their second language. When standardized tests were examined, it was estimated that as many as 6 to 8 years were needed to reach national grade norms of native speakers. These results have implications regarding English language learners in the current study because nearly 60% are in English-only classrooms, and they are exempt from mandatory testing for only 1 year; they are not given 6 to 8 years to reach national grade norms.
  • 94. 82 In light of mandated testing, it is important for researchers and educators to find instructional strategies that promote vocabulary learning so ELLs find success on challenging assessments in core curricular areas. Possibly, one such strategy is the use of an intervention that improves vocabulary learning: read alouds coupled with word explanations and the use of an orthographic cue. Limitations of the Research Even though there are many advantages to choosing a repeated measures design, the disadvantages include certain threats to internal and external validity. Researchers must control as many extraneous variables as possible so the dependent variable can be attributed to the intervention. In turn, this strengthens the power of the treatment. If certain variables are not controlled, the observed changes may be due to other factors. Through careful planning at the initial stages of this research study, internal threats were addressed, thereby minimizing the possibility of other explanations regarding treatment effects (Abrami, Cholmsky, & Gordon, 2001). Threats to internal validity. One potential threat to internal validity concerns the number of levels of the independent variable. Because this study had three instead of two levels of the factor, threats such as maturation, regression, instrumentation, testing, and history were reasonably reduced (Abrami, Cholmsky, & Gordon, 2001). One of these threats maturation has been defined as physical or psychological changes that may influence students' progress and can be controlled by ensuring there is a control group (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). For example, in this study there was the possibility that students' confidence increased after listening to the first two stories and particularly to word explanations and spellings. They may have, then, listened more
  • 95. 83 carefully during the third and fourth stories, thereby affecting their posttest scores. To control for this, the researcher chose a repeated-measures design because all participants received all levels of the factor, serving as their own control group. If this study's design had included observations, the extraneous variable instrumentation would have been a potential threat to internal validity because the observer might have either consciously or subconsciously deemed students' work more favorably during subsequent observations. Because the measuring instrument was a posttest rather than sequential observations by the researcher, this threat is minimized (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). The extraneous variable testing is challenging to control because the focus of this study is investigating certain instructional strategies that have the potential to increase vocabulary learning. To determine this, the researcher needed to include the same set of target words on the pretest and posttest so that differences in scores could be analyzed. Therefore, there is the possibility the participants became test-wise, also known as order effects, meaning they performed better on the posttest because they had experienced or practiced the words on the pretest (Cardinal & Aiken, 2006). Subject effects are not a threat to internal validity because a within-subjects design was used, meaning all participants received the hypothesized effective intervention. This eliminated certain effects if some participants had been assigned to a control group: (a) compensatory rivalry, or John Henry effect; (b) resentful demoralization, the Hawthorne effect; and (c) compensatory equalization treatment (Vogt, 1999).
  • 96. 84 Threats to external validity. In addition to controlling internal threats, other threats must be addressed. External validity, known as generalizability, is the extent to which the results of a research study are relevant or valid to other individuals or situations (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). First, population validity is an issue in this study because a convenience sample is used. Therefore, the results are probably generalizable to like populations. It would be inappropriate to infer the instructional strategy that was shown to be the most effective for English language learners in this study is equally effective for all second-language learners. Second, ecological validity focuses on whether or not the findings in a subsequent study can be attributed to a researcher's ability to replicate the environmental conditions established by the original researcher. To improve this study's ecological validity, the researcher has thoroughly explained the methodology and the results. Recommendationsfor Future Research The ever-increasing interest in second-language research, especially concerning vocabulary learning, is encouraging. The findings in this study are evidence that reading aloud coupled with explaining words and showing their spellings is an effective instructional strategy for English language learners in middle school. Because a convenience sample is used, "repeated replication of the findings is much stronger evidence of their validity and generalizability than is a statistically significant result in one study" (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 176). Thus, to provide others the opportunity to replicate this study, the researcher's detailed explanations have been provided in Chapter 3. If this study is replicated, an additional delayed posttest is
  • 97. 85 recommended to investigate whether or not vocabulary learning of target words is sustained over time. It is also recommended that replication of this study using a multi-sensory approach may be worthwhile. While listening to stories, students could have the written text so they not only hear the words, but also see visual representations of them. An additional recommendation includes examining vocabulary learning for multi-lingual students. Even though most students in the United States speak one and possibly two languages, students in other parts of the world speak three and four languages. Of interest is whether or not the strategies investigated in this study for second-language learners transfer to third- and fourth-language learners. Of further interest is an in-depth investigation using specific groups of English language learners, such as those who have recently exited the state program, to determine if reading aloud coupled with explaining words and showing their spellings continues to be an effective instructional practice. One final recommendation in second-language research is the inclusion of cultural aspects that have the potential to influence children's academic success. If the classroom is viewed as a microcosm of society, then children bring cultural experiences from their home to the classroom (Barrera & Bauer, 2003). Likewise, they are shaped by social and cultural—even political and historical—contexts in their schools. The teacher's role within the classroom has been an influential force regarding minority children's academic development. Even though the Coleman Report of 1966, a large-scale survey of schools and children, identified family background as a major contribution to children's verbal achievement, Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) argued
  • 98. 86 that specific findings in this report showed schools and teachers rather than family background had a significant impact on minority children's academic development. Despite this, educators and policymakers chose to interpret family background rather than teachers as a major influence. Jencks (as cited in Chall et al, 1990) concurred after reanalyzing data from the Coleman Report. More recently, members of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Youth and Children have analyzed five qualitative studies regarding literacy development and the relationship of teachers' beliefs or attitudes regarding language, culture, and achievement (August & Shanahan, 2006). Among their findings, they cite teachers' respect for English language learners' culture enhances self-esteem. Teachers' theoretical beliefs are aligned with their instructional practices for English language learners. For example, teachers who believe a skill-based approach is most effective use this instructional practice in their classroom. Interestingly, however, teachers do not associate their theoretical beliefs, their method of instruction, or classroom materials as possible explanations for reading difficulties among English language learners; instead, they hold the students' cultural and language backgrounds as responsible. The relationship between home language use and literacy outcomes for second-language learners is still vague, according to members of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Youth and Children. Even so, literacy experiences at home are related, not consistently, though, to superior literacy outcomes. Most encouragingly, parents are willing and often times are able to assist their children so they find academic success, and this is an underutilized factor (August & Shanahan, 2008). In light of these findings, research on second-language learning should include cultural investigations.
  • 99. 87 Conclusion The acquisition of vocabulary knowledge is not a goal in itself; rather, having vocabulary sufficient for oral and written communication has been shown to be one of the essential building blocks for listening and reading comprehension. For English language learners, vocabulary knowledge stands as a potential roadblock or highway to understand and to engage actively and productively in meaningful dialogue with others; to comprehend text; and to articulate one's thoughts in written form. To foster growth in vocabulary learning for English language learners, educators can employ the instructional practice of read alouds coupled with word explanations and an orthographic cue; however, it should be recognized that meaningful and lifelong learning includes the breadth and depth of vocabulary instruction.
  • 100. 88 References Abrami, P. C, Cholmsky, P., & Gordon, R. (2001). Statistical analysisfor the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, R. H., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on reading. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressier, C, & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50-57. August, S., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. August, S., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2008). Developing reading and writing in second- language learners: Lessonsfrom the report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. New York: Routledge. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barrera, R. B., & Bauer, E. B. (2003). Storybook reading and young bilingual children: A review of the literature. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children (pp. 253-267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001a). Inviting students into the pursuit of meaning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 225-241.
  • 101. 89 Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001b). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10- 20. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2002). Questioning the author: Making sense of social studies. Educational Leadership, 60, 44-47. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approachfor enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521. Becker, L. (1999). Effect size calculators. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/Psy590/escalc3.htm Bethel, J. P. (Ed.). (1959). Webster's new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Author. Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential [Electronic version]. American Educator. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2001/vocab.html Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 415- 421. Cardinal, R. N., & Aitken, M. F. (2006). ANOVAfor the behavioural sciences research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 102. 90 Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressier, C, Lippman, D. N., et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188-215. Chall, J. S. (1987). Two vocabularies for reading: Recognition and meaning. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 7-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Whypoor childrenfall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second languages for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641. Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531. Cummins, J. (1994). Acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Spangenberg- Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 36-62). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ehri, L. C, & Wilce, L. S. (1979). The mnemonic value of orthography among beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 26-40. Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-197. Elley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67.
  • 103. 91 Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., & Share, D. (1993). Effects of listening to story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in diglossic situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 70-79. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research an introduction (7l ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371-392. Garcia, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbookfor reading research, Vol. Ill (pp. 813-834). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gove, P. B. (Ed.). (1968). Webster's new dictionary of synonyms. Springfield, MA: Merriam. Graves, M. F. (1987). The roles of instruction in fostering vocabulary development. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 165-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSSfor Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hatch, E. M. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48, 470-482.
  • 104. 92 International Reading Association. (2001). Second language literacy instruction: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author. Intervention Central, (n.d.). Reliability statistics and CBA reading probe generator. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/okapi.php Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2007). A formative experiment investigating literacy engagement among adolescent Latina/o students just beginning to read, write, and speak English. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 512-545. Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services 2000-2001 summary report. Washington, DC: The George Washington University National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs. Koda, K. (1997). Orthographic knowledge in L2 lexical processing: A cross-linguistic perspective. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language acquisition: A rationalefor pedagogy (pp. 35-52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language acquisition: A rationalefor pedagogy (pp. 20-34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Macy, S. (Ed.). (2002). Scholastic children's dictionary. New York: Scholastic. Manyak, P. C. (2007). A framework for robust literacy instruction for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 61, 197-199. McKenna, M. C, & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York: Guilford.
  • 105. 93 McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2003). Taking advantage of read-alouds to help children make sense of decontextualized text. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children (pp. 159-176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Direct and rich vocabulary instruction. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame'enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction (pp. 13-27). New York: Guildford Press. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Kucan, L. (2005). Choosing words to teach. In E. H. Heibert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 209-222). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills; Newark, DE: International Reading Association; Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Nagy, W. E. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 64-83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C, & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237- 270. Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 106. 94 Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction—reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2006). Test and item specifications for grades 3—high school reading WASL. Olympia, WA: Author. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2007). Annual report of the state transitional bilingual instruction program: Educating English Language Learners in Washington state school year 2004-05. Olympia, WA: Author. Paivio, A., Khan, M., & Begg, I. (2000). Concreteness and relational effects on recall of adjective-noun pairs. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 149-159. Penno, J. F., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Overcome the Matthew Effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23-33. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357-383. Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1987). Remembering versus inferring what a word means: Mnemonic and contextual approaches. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 107-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 107. 95 Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246-256. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Robbins, C, & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 54-63. Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 175-191. Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 221-238. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Dual coding theory. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models andprocesses of reading (5* ed.) (pp. 1329-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 184-200. Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 361-375. Sink, C. A. (2005). Assessing skewness and kurtosis indicesfrom SPSS printout. Seattle, WA: Seattle Pacific University. Swedberg, N. A. (2004). Explaining word meanings in informational text read aloud by parents: Is there a value-added effect on word acquisition? (Doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2141.
  • 108. 96 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson. Teale, W. H. (2003). Reading aloud to young children as a classroom instructional activity: Insights from research and practice. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children (pp. 114-139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Ulanoff, S. H., & Pucci, S. L. (1999). Learning words from books: The effects of read aloud on second language vocabulary acquisition. Bilingual Research Journal, 23, 409-422. United States Department of Education. (2005). Biennial evaluation report to Congress on the implementation of the stateformula grant program. Washington, DC: Author. Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics & methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools (2n ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • 109. 97 Appendix A Letters of Consent—English, Tagalog, and Spanish IRB Number""'07081)609" Valid Through: 04 Aniii 2009 [Logo of School District] INFORMED CONSENT Learning Vocabulary W o r d s Principal Investigator; Ms. Debra L Otterby, Seattle Pacific University doctoral candidate Phone: 360.710.0586 Email: debrao9@msn.com PURPOSE Your child is invited to be in a research study with 43 students in [School District] who are learning English. Your child will listen to stories, get help with difficult words, and answer vocabulary questions about some words. Your child will also answer questions about reading. PROCEDURES Ms. Otterby, the Principal Investigator, was a teacher for 23 years and will conduct the study. It will take place at your child's school. Your son or daughter's scores on the vocabulary questions will not affect his or her grades in school. Class 1: Your child will answer questions about some vocabulary words. This will take about 1 5 minutes. Here is a sample question: 1. candle A. a cold, windy day B. a stick of wax that you bum to give light C. a fireplace that keeps you warm D. a good smell from cooking in the kitchen Class 2: Your child will answer questions about reading. Your child may skip any question he or she does not want to answer. This will take about 8-1 2 minutes. Your child will not have to study at home. Classes 3-6: Ms. Otterby will read four stories to your child. After each story, your child will answer nine vocabulary questions. Each class will take about 20 minutes. Your child will not have to study at home. $&®i@m'$*wemm ifem&m® UrnmiM* Seatlk Pacific( I H I V I I I l J t V
  • 110. 98 BENEFITS If your child is in this study, he or she will help teachers understand how to teach vocabulary better. If your child has to take the reading portion of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), this study will help him or her practice for it. PARTICIPATION AND ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION You can help your child decide whether or not to be in this study. If your child is in the study, he or she may drop out at any time, and vocabulary questions will be returned to your child or destroyed. Also, the Principal Investigator may decide not to have your child continue in the study. PRIVACY/CONFIDENTIALITY Your child's name will not be used in any report. Your child will be assigned a number to make sure information is private and confidential. Information and data will be put in a secure place that is not at the school. Information and data may be used in other research, presentations, or for teaching, but your child's name will not be used. SUBJECT RIGHTS If you or your child has questions at any time, please call Ms. Debra L Otterby, the Principal Investigator, at 360.710.0586 or email her at debrao9@msn.com. If you have questions about the rights of your child in this study, please contact Seattle Pacific University's Institutional Review Board Chair at 206.281.2174 or IRB@SPU.edu. You may also contact Dr. [Name], Director of Research and Evaluation for [School District], at [phone number] or [email address]. CONSENT By signing this form, you are saying that you understand it well enough to make a decision, and you are agreeing to let your child participate in this study. The Primary Investigator and Seattle Pacific University still have a responsibility to do this study in a w a y that follows the rules for research involving children in schools. I have read the above information and allow my child to participate in this study. The Principal Investigator will give each child two copies of this form. One is to be signed and returned, and the other is for you to keep at home.
  • 111. Parent/Guardian's Name (print) Parent/Guardian's Signature [School District] Director of Research & Evaluation [Name & Signature] Principal Investigator Name & Signature Ms. Debra L. Otterby Copies to: Participant (2) and Principal Investigator (1)
  • 112. 100 IRIS Nurnbci~"0708b"60i) _ Valid Through: 04 April 2009 SeattlePacificO S t » E « S H * [Logo of School District] PAGBIBIGAY-PAHINTULOT Araling Talasalitaang-lngles Punong Tagapagsaliksik: Bb. Debra L Otterby, kandidata para sa pagsasanay ng pagdalubhasang doktoral, Seattle Pacific University Telepono: 360.710.0586 Email: debrao9@msn.com LAYUNIN Inaanyayahan naming ang inyong anak sa isang pagsaliksik-aralin, kasama ang 43 pang mga kamag-aral ng Salitang Ingles sa [School District]. Mangyari lamang, na ang inyong anak ay makikinig sa mga kuwento, tutulungang matutunan ang mga mahihirap na salita, at sasagutin nila ang ilang mga katanungan tungkol sa ilang mga salita sa Talasalitaang Ingles. Sasagutin din ng inyong anak ang tungkol sa pagbabasa. KAPARAANAN Si Bb. Otterby, ang Punong-Tagapagsaliksik, na nakapagturo na ng dalawampu't tatlong (23) taon, ang magsasagawa ng pag-aaral na ito. Gagawin niya ito sa loob ng eskwelahan ng inyong anak. Ang mga iskor ng inyong anak sa mga katanungan sa Talasalitaang-lngles ay hindi makakaapekto sa kanyang magiging grado sa eskwelahan. Klase 1: Sasagutin ng inyong anak tungkol sa ilang mga salita sa Talasalitaan. Tatagal ito ng mga kinse(15)minuto. Mga halimbawang katanungan: 1. KANDILA A. isang araw na medyo malamig at mahangin. B. kapirasong sebo na sinisindihan para magka-ilaw. C. isang lugar sa bahay na nagbibigay ng init. D. masarap na amoy mula sa pag-luto sa kusina. Klase 2: Sasagutin ng inyong anak ang mga tanong tungkol sa pagbabasa. Maaring lagtawan niya ang mga tanong na ayaw niyang sagutin. Tatagal ito ng mga walo hanggang labindalawang(8-l 2)minuto. Hindi kailanganin ng inyong anak na mag-aral pa sa bahay.
  • 113. 101 Klases 3-6; Babasa ng apat na kuwento si.Bb Otterby.:. Pagkatapos ng mga kuwento mangyari lamang sagutin ng inyong anak ang siyam(9) na katanungan. Ang bawat klase ay tatagal ng 20 minuto. Hindi kailanganin ng inyong anak na mag-aral pa sa bahay. PAKINABANG Ang pagasali ng inyong anak sa pag-aaral na ito, ay makakatulong na malaki sa guro upang maunawaan ang tamang pagtuturo ng Talasalitaan-lngles. Kung sakaling kukuha ng examen ang inyong anak sa wikang-lngles ng "Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)," sa bahagi ng pagbabasa. At gayundin sa inyong anak; malaki ang maitututulong ng pagsali niya sa pag-aaral na ito, bilang pagsasanay upang ma-ipasa niya ang examen. PAGSALI AT IBA PANG PARAAN NG PAGSALI Matulungan ninyong desisyunan ng inyong anak kung sasali o hindi sa ganitong pag-aaral. Kung sasali siya, maari siyang umayaw o huminto anumang oras, na gugustuhin ninyo. Ang mga tanong sa Talasalitaan ay maaring ibalik sa inyong anak o di kaya, pwedeng sirain na ito. Gayunpaman, maaring desisyunan din ng Punong-Tagapagsaliksik na pahintuin na sa pagsali ang iyong anak, kung inyong marapatin. PRIBADO/KONPIDENSYAL Hindi maaring gamitin sa anumang paraan ang pangalan ng inyong anak sa anumang klaseng report. Bibigyan siya ng tanging numero upang mapangalagaan ang kanyang pribado at konpidensyal na kaalaman. Lahat ng kaalaman tungkol sa kanya ay ilalagak sa isang ligtas na lugar-hindi sa eskwelahan niya. Maaring gamitin lamang ang mga kaalamang ito sa iba pang pag-aaral, pagsasaliksik, o di kaya sa pagtuturo, pero di-kailnaman gagamitin ang pangalan ng inyong anak sa anumang bagay o kagamitan nito. KARAPATANG PANSARILI Kung may mga katanungan kayo o ang inyong anak, maari lamang tawagan ninyo, anumang oras si Bb. Debra L, Otterby, ang Punong-Tagapagsaliksik sa 360.710.0586 o sa kanyang email: debrao9@msn.com. Kung may tanong kayo tungkol sa mga karapatang-pansarili ng inyong anak, maari lamang kontakin ninyo ang Seattle Pacific University's Institutional Review Board Chair sa 206.281.2174 o IRB@SPU.edu. Maaring kontakin ninyo si [Name], Director of Research and Evaluation for [School District], sa [phone number] o [email address].
  • 114. 102 PAHINTULOT Sa pamamagitan ng inyong lagda sa kasulatang ito, sinasabi ninyo na lubos na naintindihan ninyo ito upang madesisyunan at binibigyan ninyo ng pahintulot ang inyong anak na sumali sa pag-aaral na ito. Tungkulin ng Punong-Tagapagsaliksik at ng Seattle Pacific University na gawin ang nararapat ayon sa batas at kaparaanan ng pagsasaliksik tungkol sa mga bata sa mga eskwelahan. Bibigyan ng Punong-Tagapagsaliksik ng dalawang kopya nitong dokumento. Isa na dapat ninyong pirmahan at isauli sa eskwelahan at ang isa para sa sariling kopya ninyo sa bahay. Nabasa ko ang lahat na nakasaad sa itaas at pinapahintulutan ko ang aking anak na sumali sa pag-aaral na ito. Pangalan ng Magulang/Tagapag- alaga (limbag) Pirma ng Magulang/Tagapag-alaga Petsa [School District] Director of Research & Evaluation [Name & Signature] Principal Investigator Name & Signature Ms. Debra L. Otterby Mga Kopya: Kasali (2) at Punong-Tagapagsaliksi (1)
  • 115. 103 1KB Number 07080609 Valid Tlirouiiri: 04 April 2009 Ef*SW9**# t?»»-»a«^*,*M^«t tfc*1 ***!** w>C3.ttlC raClllC [Logo of School District] CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Aprendiendo vocabulario Directora de Investigacion: Sra. Debra L Otterby, postulante doctoral de Seattle Pacific University Telefono: 360.710.0586 Correo electronico: debrao9@msn.com PROP6SITO Su hijo ha sido invitado a participar en un estudio de investigacion con 43 estudiantes que estdn aprendiendo el idioma ingles en el [Distrito Escolar]. Su hijo escuchara cuentos, se le dard ayuda con palabras dificiles, y contestant preguntas de vocabulario sobre algunas palabras. Su hijo tambien contestara preguntas sobre la lectura. PROCEDIMIENTO La Sra. Otterby, Directora de Investigacion, fue maestra durante 23 afios y sera ella quien hard el estudio. Este se hard en la escuela de su hijo. La calificacion de su hijo en la escuela no se vera afectada por la puntuacion que el o ella reciba en las preguntas de vocabulario. Clase 1: Su hijo contestara a preguntas acerca de algunas palabras del vocabulario. Esto llevara como 1 5 minutos. Aqui hay un ejemplo: 1. vela (candela) A. un dfa frfo, ventoso B. un palito de cera que enciendes para dar luz C. una chimenea que te mantiene calientito D. un rico olor de comida en la cocina Clase 2: Su hijo contestara preguntas acerca de la lectura. Su hijo se puede saltear cualquier pregunta que no quiera contestar. Esto llevara como de 8 a 12 minutos. Su hijo no tendrd que estudiar en casa. Closes 3-6: La Sra. Otterby le leera cuatro cuentos a su hijo. Despues de cada cuento su hijo contestara nueve preguntas de vocabulario. Cada clase se llevara como 20 minutos. Su hijo no tendra que estudiar en casa.
  • 116. 104 BENEFICIOS Si su hijo participa en este estudio, podra ayudar a su maestro/a a entender como ensefiar mejor el vocabulario. Si su hijo tiene que hacer el examen de lectura del WASL (Evaluacion de Aprendizaje Estudiantil del Estado de Washington), este estudio le servira de practica. PARTICIPACION Y ALTERNATIVAS DE PARTICIPACION Usted puede ayudar a su hijo a decidir participar, o no en el examen. Si participa, su hijo se puede salir en cualquier momento y las preguntas del vocabulario seran destruidas, o se le devolveran a su hijo. La Directora de Investigacion tambien puede decidir que su hijo no siga en el estudio. PRIVACIDAD/CONFIDENCIALIDAD El nombre de su hijo no se usara en ninguno de los reportes. A su hijo se le dara un numero para asegurar que la informacion es privada y confidencial. La informacion y datos se mantendran en un lugar seguro fuera de la escuela, y podran ser usados en otra investigacion, presentaciones, o para ensenanza; pero no se usara el nombre de su hijo. DERECHOS DEL SUJETO Si en cualquier momento su hijo tiene preguntas, por favor Name a la Sra. Debra L. Otterby, Directora de Investigacion, al 360.710.0586, o envie correo electronico a debrao9@msn.com. Si usted tiene preguntas acerca de los derechos de su hijo en este estudio, por favor Name a Institutional Review Board Chair (Junta Moderadora de Revision Institucional) de Seattle Pacific University al 206.281.2174 o IRB@SPU.edu. Tambien puede hacer contacto con la [Name], Directora de Investigacion y Evaluacion del Distrito Escolar al [phone number] o [email address]. CONSENTIMIENTO Al la firma de este documento, esta usted diciendo que ha entendido lo suficiente como para tomar una decision, y que acepta que su hijo participe en este estudio. La Directora de Investigacion y la Seattle Pacific University (Universidad de Seattle Pacific) aun tienen la responsabilidad de hacer este estudio de acuerdo a las reglas de investigacion que involucran a menores en las escuelas. He leido la informacion arriba descrita y permito que mi hijo participe en este estudio. La Directora de Investigacion dara a cada menor dos copias de esta forma. Una es para ser firmada y devuelta, y la otra es para dejar en casa.
  • 117. 105 Nombre del Padre o Guardian (letra de molde) Firma del Padre o Guardian [Distrito Escolar]: Nombre y Firma de la Directora de Investigacion y Evaluacion Nombre y Firma de la Investigadora Sra. Debra L. Otterby Con copia para: 2 para el participante y 1 para la Directora de Investigacion
  • 118. 106 ID Appendix B Vocabulary Pretest Vocabulary Questions Directions: Circle the letter (A, B, C, or D) that is the best definition for each word. Here is an example: 1. candle A. a cold, windy day B. a stick of wax that you burn to give light C. a fireplace that keeps you warm D. a good smell from cooking in the kitchen ventures A. travels B. sleeps C. builds D. digs 3. henceforward A. for the present time B. in the future C. in the past D. of today 5. abandoned A. artificial B. rocky C. helpless D. empty A. B. C. D. va A. B. C. D. answered without respect demanded attention from others listened carefully to stories tried to convince someone gue extremely fortunate very certain too severe not clear 6. muezzin A. person who lives in the country B. person who heals others C. person who prepares a feast D. person who says prayers continue to the next page
  • 119. 107 obstacles A. experiences that are very good B. lessons that teach you about life C. things that make doing something difficult D. people who are not kind 8. darned A. mended B. knotted C. saved D. wasted generation A. a group attending a performance B. a group living in the same place C. a group born at the same time D. a group competing in a game 1 0. gossiped A. talked about other people B. inquired about the weather C. invited people to a feast D. waited for everyone to listen 1 1. proclaimed A. attended B. announced C. asked D. realized 1 2. calico A. old newspaper B. cotton cloth C. strong metal D. new sheepskin 1 3. neckerchief A. scarf or cloth worn around the neck B. small flashlight for camping C. sleeping bag D. coat for keeping warm 14, detected A. requested B. valued C. discovered D. tasted 15. paradise A. a situation that is bad B. a feeling of being poor C. a place of happiness D. a location that is safe 1 6. parcels A. dresses B. crates C. cans D. packages 17. vanished A. walked slowly B. gathered quickly C. stopped in a hurry D. disappeared suddenly 1 8. endure A. watch B. breathe C. survive D. avoid continue to the next page
  • 120. 1 9. necessities A. things you need or must have B. products you save for the future C. materials you recycle D. objects you sell to make money 20. critically A. quickly and carelessly B. softly and gently C. carefully and seriously D. happily and excitedly 2 1 . insulated A. deep underground B. covered to keep warm C. filled with water D. with holes to let in air 22. disbelief A. not starting on time B. not succeeding in doing something C. not doing what should be done D. not accepting what someone says 23. devoted A. answered B. accepted C. dedicated D. wanted 25. pantry A. a shopping list B. a place to keep food C. a stove to cook food D. a truck for moving material 24. scarce A. easy to earn B. available to anyone C. hard to get or find D. important to everyone 26. practical A. strong B. competitive C. useful D. faithful 27. convinced 28. tweed A. expected something to happen B. persuaded to believe something was true or false C. described something so it was clear D. added something to make it complete A. cotton B. silk C. wool D. rawhide 29. gnawing A. running from danger B. cleaning the house C. biting repeatedly on something D. moving into a new den 30. pored A. studied B. copied C. ignored D. searched continue to the next page
  • 121. 3 1 . assured A. said something confidently B. explained in detail C. argued about a situation D. talked about what happened 33. obvious A. difficult to find B. often talked about C. little known D. easily understood 35. stagecoach A. machine that flies B. wagon to carry people C. engine that makes things go fast D. equipment to fix things 37. bitterly A. so soft you cannot hear it B. so long that you get bored C. so extreme that it hurts D. so funny that you would laugh 39. furnace A. place where things are sold B. place where things are stored C. place where things are heated D. place where things are shipped 32. mortgage A. income from selling B. tax for a city C. loan from a bank D. salary for workers 34. mightily A. gratefully B. vigorously C. loudly D. exactly 36. fortunate A. available B. lucky C. careful D. ambitious 38. appealing A. disgusting B. frightening C. annoying D. interesting 40. muslin A. metal B. cloth C. silk D. wood 4 1 . legend A. tale about the future B. signal to warn of danger C. story from the past D. song about campers 42. flickering A. burning B. freezing C. shivering D. boiling continue to the next page
  • 122. 110 43. donated A. managed B. offered C examined D. accepted 44. seldom A. carefully B. always C. rarely D. almost 45. dynamite A. things like coins, rings, and stones B. explosives that are very powerful C. materials that are easy to collect D. products that are safe to use 46. boasted A. questioned B. pretended C. apologized D. bragged 47. resolved A. obtained B. refused C. decided D. struggled 48. economic A. having to do with money B. having to do with weather C. having to do with law D. having to do with war
  • 123. Ill Appendix C The Reader Self-Perception Scale International Reading Association Permission From: Permissions To: debrao9@msn.com Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:21 AM Subject: RE: Permission Request Dear Ms. Otterby, The International Reading Association grants you permission to reproduce the Henk & Melnick (1995) scale in your dissertation and translate it into Spanish and Tagalog, providing that the material is properly credited and cited as follows: Henk, W. A.,& Melnick, S. A. (March 1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470-482. Copyright 1995 by the International Reading Association. THIS CREDIT LINE MUST APPEAR DIRECTLY ON THE "SCALE." For any translations, please also include a disclaimer that makes it clear that IRA is not responsible for the accuracy of the translation. If for any reason you cannot comply with these terms, then please do not reproduce the material. If you have further questions, please contact me. Janet S. Parrack Rights, Contracts, & Permissions Manager International Reading Association 800 Barksdale Road PO Box 8139 Newark DE 19714-8139 USA www.reading.org jparrack@read.ing. org Fax 302-368-2449
  • 124. 112 Appendix D The Reader Self-Perception Scale—English, Tagalog, and Spanish ID The Reader Self-Perception Scale Listed below are statements about reading. Please read each statement carefully. Then circle the letters that show how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Use the following: SA A U D SD = — = = — Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Example: I think pizza with pepperoni is the best. SA A U D SD If you are really positive that pepperoni pizza is best, circle SA (Strongly Agree). If you think that it is good but maybe not great, circle A (Agree). If you can't decide whether or not it is best, circle U (Undecided). If you think pepperoni pizza is not all that good, circle D (Disagree). If you are really positive that pepperoni pizza is not very good, circle SD (Strongly Disagree). 1. I think I am a good reader. 2. I can tell that my teacher likes to listen to me read. 3. My teacher thinks that my reading is fine. 4. I read faster than other kids. 5. I like to read aloud. 6. When I read, I can figure out words better than other kids. 7. My classmates like to listen to me read. 8. I feel good inside when I read. 9. My classmates think that I read pretty well. SA A U D SD SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA A A A A A A A A U U U U U U U U D D D D D D D D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD continue to the next page
  • 125. 113 10. When I read, I don't have to try as hard as I used to. 11.1 seem to know more words than other kids when I read. 1 2. People in my family think I am a good reader. 1 3. I am getting better at reading. 14. I understand what I read as well as other kids do. 1 5. When I read, I need less help than I used to. 1 6. Reading makes me feel happy inside. 17. My teacher thinks I am a good reader. 1 8. Reading is easier for me than it used to be. 19. I read faster than I could before. 20. I read better than other kids in my class. 21.1 feel calm when I read. 22. I read more than other kids. 23. I understand what I read better than I could before. 24. I can figure out words better than I could before. 25. I feel comfortable when I read. 26. I think reading is relaxing. 27. I read better now than I could before. 28. When I read, I recognize more words than I used to. 29. Reading makes me feel good. 30. Other kids think I'm a good reader. 3 1 . People in my family think I read pretty well. 32. I enjoy reading. 33. People in my family like to listen to me read. SA A U D SD SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA — Strongly Agree = AS = Un iree decided = Disagree = Strongly Disagree A A A A A A A A A A A A A A U U U U U U U U U U U U U U D D D D D D D D D D D D D D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SA U SD SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA A A A A A A A A A U U U U U U U U U D D D D D D D D D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD The International Reading Association has given permission to reprint the Reader Self-Perception Scale, using this citiation: Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (March 1 995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, -48(6), 470-482. Copyright 1 995 by the International Reading Association.
  • 126. 114 ID Ang Sukatan Ng Sariling-Pananaw ng Bumabasa Nakalista sa ibaba ang mga pangungusap tungkol sa pagsasanay sa pagbabasa. Pakibasa ng maige ang mga paglalahad. Pagkatapos, sagutin ang mga tanong. Bilugan ang nasa iyong pananaw kung umaaayon ka o hindi sa mga nakatalang pangungusap. Gamitin ang mga sumusunod sa iyong isasagot: MU = Matinding Umaayon U = Umaayon DS = Di-Sigurado DU = Dl-Umaayon MD = Matinding Di-Umaayon Halimbawa: Para sa akin, ang pepperoni pizza ay "da best" sa lahat. MU U DS DU MD Kung sa iyong pananaw na talagang "da best ang pepperoni pizza, Bilugan ang MU = Malakas na Umaayon Kung sa iyong pananaw OK lang ang pepperoni pizza, pero di talagang "da best," Bilugan ang U = Umaayon Kung sa iyong pananaw hindi ka sigurado kung Ok o Hindi "da best" ang pepperoni pizza, Bilugan ang DS = Di-Sigurado Kung sa iyong pananaw hindi ka sang-ayon na "da best" ang pepperoni pizza, Bilugan ang DU = Di-Umaayon Kung sa iyong pananaw talagang hindi "da best" ang pepperoni pizza, Bilugan ang MD = Matinding Di-Umaayon ituloy sa susunod na pahina
  • 127. 115 MU = Matinding Umaayon U = Umaayon DS = Di-Sigurado DU = Di-Umaayon MD = Matinding Di-Umaayon 1. Sa palagay ko magaling akong bumasa. 2. Gustong makinig ng guro ko habang ako'y nagbabasa 3. Alam ng aking guro na ang pagbabasa ko ay mahusay. 4. Mas mabilis akong bumasa kaysa ibang mga bata. 5. Gusto kong bumasa ng malakas. 6. Kapag ako'y nagbasa, nailarawan kong maige kaysa ibang bata. 7. Gusto ng mga kamag-aral kong makinig pag akoy' nagbasa. 8. Natutuwa ako sa aking sarili habang nagbabasa. 9. Alam ng mga kamag-aral ko na magaling akong bumasa. 1 0. Pag nagbabasa ako hindi na ako nahihirapan pa katulad ng dati. 1 1. Parang mas marami pa akong alam na salita kaysa iba kong kamag-aral pag ako'y nagbabasa. 1 2. Alam ng mga kamag-anak ko na magaling akong bumasa. 1 3. Mas gumagaling ako sa aking pagbabasa 14. Naintindihan ko ang aking binabasa tulad ng ibang mga bata. 1 5. Pag nagbabasa ako di ko na kailangan ng tulong tulad ng dati. 1 6. Ang pagbabasa ay nagbibigay ng kaligayahan sa akin. 17. Alam ng guro ko na magaling akong bumasa. MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD ituloy sa susunod na pahina
  • 128. 116 MU = Matinding Umaayon U = Umaayon DS = Di-Sigurado DU = Di-Umaayon MD = Matinding Di-Umaayon 18. Mas madali ang pagbabasa para sa akin MU U DS DU MD di tulad ng dati. 1 9. Mas mabilis akong bumasa ngayon kaysa MU U DS DU MD dati. 20. Mas magaling akong bumasa kaysa ibang MU U DS DU MD bata sa klase. 2 1 . Matiwasay ako pag bumabasa. MU U DS DU MD 22. Mas marami akong binabasa kaysa ibang MU U DS DU MD bata. 23. Mas naintindihan ko ngayon ang aking MU U DS DU MD binabasa kaysa dati. 24. Mas madali kong mailarawan ang mga MU U DS DU MD salita kaysa dati. 25. Komportable ako habang nagbabasa. MU U DS DU MD 26. Ang pagbabasa ay nakapagbibigay ng MU U DS DU MD katiwasayan. 27. Mas magaling akong bumasa ngayon kaysa MU U DS DU MD noon. 28. Pag ako'y nagbabasa mas maraming akong MU U DS DU MD natatandaang mga salita kaysa dati. 29. Ang pagbabasa ay nagbibigay sa akin ng MU U DS DU MD kasiyahan. 30. Alam ng ibang bata na ako'y magaling MU U DS DU MD bumasa. 31. Alam ng mga kamag-anak ko na magaling MU U DS DU MD akong bumasa. 32. Nasisiyahan akong magbabasa. MU U DS DU MD 33. Gusto ng mga kamag-anak ko na makinig MU U DS DU MD habang ako'y nagbabasa.
  • 129. 117 Ang Kapisanang Internasyonal Ng Pagbabasa ay nagbigay pahintulot ang paglimbag nitong Sukatan Ng Sariling Pananaw ng Bumabasa, gamit nitong citas: Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (Marso 1995). Ang Sukatan Ng Sariling Pananaw ng Bumabasa (SSPB): Bagong sukatan ng kung paanong naramdaman ng mga bata bilang mga magbabasa. Ang Nagbabasang Guro, 48(6), 470-482. Kopyang-karapatan 1995 ng Kapisanang Internasyonal Ng Pagbabasa. Walang Panagutan: Ang Kapisanang Internasyonal Ng Pagbabasa ay walang pananagutan sa kawastuan ng saling-wika nitong sukatan sa iba't-ibang wika.
  • 130. 118 IDENTIFICACION Escala de Auto-Apreciacion del Lector Enumeradas abajo, hay opiniones acerca de la lectura. Por favor lee cada opinion con cuidado. Despues haz un circulo alrededor de las letras que demuestren que tanto estas tu de acuerdo, o en desacuerdo con esa opinion. Usa la siguiente gufa: TA = Totalmente de acuerdo A = De acuerdo I = Indeciso/a D = En desacuerdo TD = Totalmente en desacuerdo Ejemplo: Pienso que la pizza con pepperoni es la mejor. TA A I D TD Si tu estas realmente seguro de que la pizza con pepperoni es la mejor, circula TA (Totalmente de acuerdo) Si tu piensas que sf esta buena; pero tal vez no muy buena, circula A (De acuerdo). Si no puedes decidir entre si es o no la mejor, circula I (Indeciso/a). Si tu piensas que la pizza de pepperoni no es tan buena, circula D (En desacuerdo). Si tu estas realmente seguro de que la pizza con pepperoni no es muy buena, circula TD (Totalmente en desacuerdo). 1. Creo que soy un buen lector. 2. Me doy cuenta de que a mi profesor/a le gusta ofrme leer. 3. Mi profesor/a piensa que mi lectura es buena. 4. Leo mas rapido que otros ninos. 5. Me gusta leer en voz alta. 6. Cuando leo, puedo interpretar las palabras mejor que otros ninos. 7. A mis companeros les gusta ofrme leer. 8. Cuando leo, me siento bien por dentro. 9. Mis companeros piensan que leo muy bien. TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA A A A A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 1 D 1 D 1 D 1 D D D D D D TD TD TD TD TD TD TD TD TD continua a la siguiente pagina
  • 131. 119 TA = Totalmente de acuerdo A = De acuerdo I = Indeciso/a D = En desacuerdo TD = Totalmente en desacuerdo 1 0. Ahora cuando leo, ya no me cuesta tanto trabajo como antes. 1 1. Cuando leo, parece que conozco mas palabras que los otros nifios. 1 2. Mi familia piensa que leo bien. 1 3. Estoy mejorando mi lectura. 14. Comprendo lo que leo tan bien como otros ninos lo hacen. 1 5. Cuando leo, necesito menos ayuda que antes. 1 6. La lectura me hace sentir contento por dentro. 17. Mi profesor/a piensa que leo bien. 1 8. Para mi ahora es mas facil leer que antes. 1 9. Yo leo mas rapido de lo que antes podfa. 20. Yo leo mejor que otros ninos en mi salon. 21. Me siento tranquilo cuando leo. 22. Yo leo mas que los otros ninos. 23. Ahora lo que leo, lo entiendo mejor que antes. 24. Puedo entender palabras mejor de lo que las entendfa antes. 25. Me siento a gusto cuando leo. 26. Creo que la lectura es relajante. 27. Ya leo mejor que antes. 28. Cuando leo reconozco mas palabras que antes. 29. Leer me hace sentir bien. 30. Otros ninos piensan que leo bien. 3 1 . Mi familia piensa que leo muy bien. 32. Disfruto de la lectura. 33. A mi familia le gusta ofrme leer. TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA TA A A A A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A A 1 A 1 A A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 D D 1 D D D D D D 1 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
  • 132. 120 La Asociacion International de Lectura ha dado su permiso para reimprimir la Escala de Autoestima del Lector, utilizando esta cita: Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (Marzo de 1 995). La Escala de Auto-Apreciacion del Lector (RSPS): Una herramienta nueva para medir como se sienten los ninos acerca de sf mismos como lectores. The Reading Teacher (El maestro lector), 48(6), 470-482. Derechos de autor, 1995 por la Asociacion Internacional de Lectura (Copyright 1995 by the International Reading Association.) Negacion de responsabilidad: La Asociacion Internacional de Lectura (The International Reading Association) no se hace responsable de la exactitud de la traduccion de esta escala a otros idiomas.
  • 133. 121 Appendix E Reading Passages I am going to read "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" by Burt Heim. I will explain some words and also show you the spelling of some words. A shiny mini flashlight, which you carefully placed beside the sleeping bag last night, has vanished into the night. It wasn't magic, and it wasn't one of your buddies. You've been struck by a thief known as the pack rat. This unusual critter runs around at night claiming anything it wants. The pack rat's shopping list includes coins, toothbrushes, rings, glasses, stones, sticks, shotgun shells, flashlight batteries, socks, key rings, and even sticks of dynamite (meaning "explosives that are very powerful"). There is one story about a camper who woke up one morning and couldn't find his false teeth. If that's true, there is a pack rat out there with a few too many choppers. When the little thief spots something else that looks appealing, it drops the current pay load and picks up the new treasure. That leads to the next pack rat legend, which
  • 134. 122 says that a camper woke up one time to find his dime had been replaced by two nickels. Pack rats, usually found in mountain and desert regions of North America, live in homes they make from scratch. Their dens consist of sticks, grass, and anything else they might find useful. The den is usually hidden in a rocky ledge or cave or sometimes in an abandoned building. When the den builder dies, another pack rat may move in, and each new generation (show spelling; meaning "a group born at the same time") adds more sticks and treasures. One six-foot high den was found in Louisiana. Another held enough material to fill a pickup truck. A pack rat house includes a pantry (show spelling; meaning "a place to keep food") where nuts, grains, berries, and other foods are stored. There is a bedroom insulated (meaning "covered to keep warm") with soft grass, shredded bark, and maybe an old sock or handkerchief. There is even a special place for a toilet because the pack rat keeps a clean house. There are many exits in case of danger. This creature seldom ventures more than 50 feet
  • 135. 123 from home so it can scurry back when a hungry fox, skunk, owl, snake, or bobcat comes visiting. The pack rat is a loner, wanting nothing to do with other pack rats until the breeding season. A mother's two or three helpless babies first open their eyes when 17 days old. The female raises them by herself. The most obvious (show spelling; meaning "easily understood") difference between the pack rat and the regular house rat is that the pack rat has a bushy tail. And the pack rat steals from you. The hobby of the regular house rat is gnawing (meaning "biting repeatedly on something"), and the hobby of the pack rat is collecting.
  • 136. 124 I am going to read "The Flame of a Candle" by Marci Stillerman. I will explain some words and also show you the spelling of some words. Introduction: Nasreddin Hod/a was a real person who lived in Turkey in the thirteenth century. There are many tales about Nasreddin Hodja. In some he's wise, in some he's foolish, and in some— as in this tale—-he's a little of both. __ One bitterly cold winter night, Nasreddin Hodja sipped hot, sweet coffee and gossiped with friends. As the howling wind plopped clumps of snow against the window of the coffeehouse, the men spoke of the weather. "You think this is cold?" Hodja asked. "When I was a child, it was so cold the clouds froze in the sky. But it didn't bother me. I'd go down to the river, cut a hole in the ice, and go for a nice swim." Hodja was known to brag. "I could stay out on a night like this with nothing to keep me warm," he boasted (meaning "bragged"). "With no coat, no blanket, no fire, no hot tea?" "Certainly."
  • 137. 125 The men scoffed (show spelling; meaning "answered without respect") in disbelief. "I'll show you/' Hodja said. "If I can't stay out all night without a fire or any protection, I'll invite you to a feast at my house." Who could refuse such an offer? Hodja's friends went to their warm houses. They sat by their windows and sipped hot drinks as they watched Hodja wandering in the snow-covered marketplace, studying the cold stars. After a few hours, Hodja, shivering mightily (show spelling; meaning "vigorously"), wished he'd never made such a foolish offer. He was about to give up and go inside before he froze to death. Then he saw a candle flickering in a window of a house a hundred yards away. He fastened his gaze on the candle flame and was able to endure (meaning "survive") the bitter cold the rest of the night. At last it was morning. Teeth chattering, Hodja entered the coffeehouse just as his friends were sitting down for the first coffee of the day.
  • 138. 126 "Were you out there all night? And did you have nothing to keep you warm?" they asked. Hodja assured them this was true. "How were you able to do it?" they asked. "I fixed my eyes on a candle flame burning in a window a hundred yards away/' he said. "It kept me going all night." "So!" said Ahmet. "You did have something to keep you warm. A candle flame gives off heat. You warmed yourself by the heat of that candle flame!" No matter what Hodja said, the men were not convinced (show spelling; meaning "persuaded to believe something was true or false"). They insisted he must have warmed himself by the heat of the candle flame burning behind a closed window a hundred yards away. He sighed and invited them to a feast at his house. As the muezzin (meaning "person who says prayers") sang out the prayer call at sunset, Hodja's friends left their shoes at his door and entered his house. They sat cross-legged on the floor, awaiting the feast. "It may be awhile," Hodja said. "That's all right. W e can wait," they said.
  • 139. 127 Time passed. Hodja went back and forth to the kitchen, but the men detected no good smells of roasting meat or frying onions. They were getting hungrier and hungrier. "When do we eat?" one of them inquired. "The food is being prepared," Hodja answered on his way to the kitchen. "Maybe we can help," another one said, and they all followed Hodja into the kitchen. A huge pot hung on a chain from the ceiling. Beneath it on the floor was a lighted candle. "Hodja," Mehmet said, "it will take forever for the heat of that candle flame to cook our dinner." "It should boil soon," Hodja said. "After all, if a candle burning behind a closed window a hundred yards away can keep me warm on a winter night, the flame of this candle just a few feet away can surely heat the pot."
  • 140. 128 I am going to read "To Reach the Promised Land" by Stephen Ray Lilley. I will explain some words and also show you the spelling of some words. Nine-year-old Booker, his sister Amanda, and older brother John stood close to their mother. Excitement filled the air as the Union army moved through Virginia in the spring of 1 865. For months Booker had heard his mother praying at night as she drifted off to sleep by the fire, "Lord, let the Yankees win this war, and let them make me and my children free." Now they watched a blue-uniformed soldier standing on the "big house" porch unfold a piece of paper and begin reading. "All persons held as slaves...henceforward (show spelling; meaning "in the future") shall be free," he proclaimed. "What's that mean, Momma?" Booker asked. Tears streamed down her face as she smiled and hugged him. "Mr. Lincoln says we can come and go as we please," she said softly. Life suddenly became very different for Booker's family. They had always been slaves. Now free, they had
  • 141. no home, no jobs, no money, only each other. Booker's stepfather worked at the salt furnaces (meaning "place where things are heated") near Maiden, West Virginia. Putting their belongings in a small cart, the family walked hundreds of miles through the Appalachian Mountains to join him. In Maiden, Booker and John went to work with their stepfather. Work began before daylight and ended after dark. As he shoveled salt into huge wooden barrels, Booker saw children walking to school. "I had the feeling that to get into a schoolhouse and study...would be about the same as getting into paradise," he later said. But the family needed Booker's income. Booker's stepfather, a tough and practical man, told him attending school was impossible. Knowing how much her son wanted to learn to read, Booker's mother saved every spare penny and bought him a well-used copy of Webster's "Blue- Backed Speller." For weeks he pored (show spelling; meaning "studied") over the book, memorizing the alphabet and letter sounds. Booker convinced his parents he should take lessons at night from a black teacher. Then he told them he wished to
  • 142. 130 attend day school. His stepfather finally accepted the idea, on condition that Booker work before and after school. Overjoyed, Booker quickly agreed. On the first morning he attended school, Booker sat in a room filled with students of all ages. As the teacher called the roll, Booker realized that all the students had something those born into slavery lacked—a last name. Booker considered how he would answer his teacher. "Name?" the teacher asked as he reached Booker. "Booker Washington," the new student calmly replied. At that moment it seemed that he had been Booker Washington all his life. Each day Booker faced new obstacles. For a time he worked in a coal mine deep underground in terrifying conditions. Sometimes his candle blew out, and he wandered helplessly in total darkness. Still, he studied at night. Then one day he heard some miners speaking of a school called the Hampton Institute where poor students could work to pay their expenses. "I resolved (meaning "decided") at once to go to that school, although I had no idea where it was...or how I was going to reach it," he later wrote.
  • 143. 131 "Don't you think this might be a wild goose chase?" asked Booker's mother. "It sounds like heaven to me, Momma," Booker insisted. "I just have to go!" His mother smiled. "We'll find a way," she said. Everyone helped. Again, Booker's mother found pennies she could spare. John donated tiny sums from his wages. Old people, eager to see one of their own succeed, gave nickels and dimes. With this money and his own savings, sixteen-year-old Booker began the five-hundred- mile trip to Hampton, Virginia. Sometimes he rode a sfagecoach, and sometimes he walked. Too poor to stay in a hotel, he often walked all night just to stay warm. In Richmond, Virginia, he worked during the days, earning money to continue his journey, and slept under a wooden sidewalk at night. "When I finally saw Hampton, I felt I had reached the promised land," Booker later said. Ragged, hungry and tired, he presented himself to the head teacher, Miss Mary Mackie. With a raised eyebrow she examined him critically (meaning "carefully and seriously") and said, "Take a broom and sweep this classroom."
  • 144. 132 Determined to impress her, Booker swept the room three times and dusted it four. Soon she returned and searched every corner for dust. Finding the room spotless, she said, "I guess you'll do." History proved her right. Booker T. Washington became Hampton's most famous graduate and devoted (show spelling; meaning "dedicated") his life to teaching. He taught the first classes at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama and then built it into one of the most important schools for African Americans in the United States. Today, millions of people admire this man who struggled to reach the "promised land."
  • 145. 133 I am going to read "Waste Not, Want Not" by Earl M. Weber. I will explain some words and also show you the spelling of some words. Introduction: Earl M. Weber lived on a small farm during the Great Depression, a time when the United States experienced severe economic hardships. The years of the Great Depression, 1929- 7 942, ranked as the longest and worst period of high unemployment and low business activity in modern times. Banks, stores, and factories were closed and left millions of Americans jobless, homeless, and penniless. At the worst point of the Great Depression, in 1933, one in four Americans who wanted to work was unable to find a job. When I was growing up in the 1 930s, the period of the Great Depression, I didn't think of our family as poor, even though we never seemed to have money. I lived on a small farm in Pennsylvania with my parents, two older sisters, and younger brother. W e had an old horse, a cow, a few pigs, a flock of chickens, and a big garden. Food was not a problem. W e had our own supply of milk, meat, eggs, fresh
  • 146. 134 vegetables, and Momma's homemade bread. But money was scarce. On Sunday mornings, Momma would give each of us two pennies for our Sunday School offerings. Carefully knotting my two cents in the corner of a handkerchief, she would hand it to me and caution me to "be careful not to lose it." Today, two pennies won't buy much of anything, but in the 1 930s every penny was important. As a boy of nine, I had only a vogue idea of what it meant to live during hard times. The weekly newspaper would carry pictures of people standing in line for bread, and the evening newscast on our tabletop Crosley radio would tell about the huge number of jobless people and their hardships. But these reports referred to people in the cities, and we lived in the country. W e never went to bed hungry, and we didn't stand in line for bread. Although my father was fortunate to have a job at the feed mill, his salary of eighteen dollars a week was barely enough to pay the farm mortgage (meaning "loan from a bank") and the electric bill, and to buy necessities like the flour and yeast Momma needed to bake her bread.
  • 147. 135 Momma earned a few dollars baking pies and bread, which she sold at the local market. Twenty cents for a pie and ten cents for a loaf of bread! Sometimes I helped at the market, and if we had a good day, Momma would give me a nickel for an ice-cream cone. Momma used the market money to buy clothing for the family. With four children and two adults to clothe, she seldom (show spelling; meaning "rarely") bought anything new. One day when I walked to the mailbox at the end of our lane, I was excited to see a package from Sears, Roebuck, and Company. That usually meant new clothing for one of us. As it turned out, I was the lucky one this time, with a brand-new pair of brown tweed (meaning "wool") knee-length pants. Although we always went to school looking neat and clean, most of our clothing was patched, or darned (show spelling; meaning "mended"). So to me, a new pair of knee-length pants was very special. Momma made some of our clothing, using a treadle (foot-powered) sewing machine. To make nightgowns, she used the muslin sacks that our chicken feed came in. I wore a nightgown with "PRAT'S CHICKEN FEED" printed in big
  • 148. 136 black letters on the front. (It wasn't until years later when my high-school class went on an overnight trip that I got my first store-bought pajamas.) Some companies actually put their feed in sacks made of colorfully patterned calico (meaning "cotton cloth"). Momma liked this material for making aprons and dresses. When a piece of clothing was worn out, it wasn't thrown away. First, all the buttons were removed, sorted by size and color, and put in cans or glass jars. Then the clothing was examined, and the best parts were cut into strips and saved for making rugs. Almost nothing in our house was thrown away. Store parcels (show spelling; meaning "packages") were generally tied with string. W e saved this string by winding it on a ball. One of my jobs was to wash and flatten used tin cans. W e nailed these pieces of tin over holes in the barn roof to stop the leaks and over holes in the corncrib to stop the mice and rats from eating the corn. A wooden crate was considered a real prize. W e would take it apart for future projects, being careful not to split the boards. W e even straightened the bent nails and stored them in a tin can.
  • 149. Although we tend to think of recycling as something fairly new, in the 1 930s it was part of everyday life. "Waste not, want not" was a familiar and often repeated phrase during those Depression years.
  • 150. 138 ID 5. Appendix F Vocabulary Posttests "Stop, Thief! There's a Pack Rat on the Loose" Vocabulary Questions dynamite A. things like coins, rings, and stones B. explosives that are very powerful C. materials that are easy to collect D. products that are safe to use pantry A. a place to keep food B. a shopping list C. a stove to cook food D. a truck for moving material obvious A. difficult to find B. easily understood C. little known D. often talked about 7. abandoned A. artificial B. rocky C. helpless D. empty 9. appealing A. interesting B. frightening C. annoying D. disgusting 2. insulated A. deep underground B. filled with water C covered to keep warm D. with holes to let in air 4. legend A. tale about the future B. signal to warn of danger C. story from the past D. song from campers 6. generation A. a group attending a performance B. a group born at the same time C. a group living in the same place D. a group competing in a game 8. gnawing A. running from danger B. cleaning the house C. biting repeatedly on something D. moving into a new den
  • 151. 139 ID "The Flame of a Candle" Vocabulary Questions 1. convinced A. expected something to happen B. persuaded to believe something was true or false C. described something so it was clear D. added something to make it complete 3. endure A. watch B. breathe C. survive D. avoid 5. scoffed A. answered without respect B. demanded attention from others C. listened carefully to stories D. tried to convince someone 7. bitterly A. so soft you cannot hear it B. so long that you get bored C. so extreme that it hurts D. so funny that you would laugh 9. muezzin A. person who lives in the country B. person who heals others C. person who prepares a feast D. person who says prayers mightily A. gratefully B. vigorously C. loudly D. exactly 4. boasted A. questioned B. pretended C. apologized D. bragged 6. flickering A. burning B. freezing C. shivering D. boiling 8. assured A. said something confidently B. explained in detai C. argued about a situation D. talked about what happened
  • 152. ID "To Reach the Promised Land" Vocabulary Questions stagecoach A. machine that flies B. wagon to carry people C. engine that makes things go fast D. equipment to fix things furnace A. place where things are sold B. place where things are stored C. place where things are shipped D. place where things are heated 3. proclaimed A. attended B. announced C. asked D. realize 4. devoted A. dedicated B. accepted C. answered D. wanted 5. critically A. quickly and carelessly B. softly and gently C. carefully and seriously D. happily and excitedly 6. pored A. copied B. studied C. ignored D. searched resolved A. decided B. considered C. obtained D. struggled 8. henceforward A. for the present time B. in the past C. in the future D. of today practical A. strong B. competitive C. useful D. faithful
  • 153. 141 ID 'Waste Not, Want Not" Vocabulary Questions seldom A. carefully B. always C. rarely D. almost vague A. extremely fortunate B. very certain C. too severe D. not clear 3. darned A. mended B. knotted C. saved D. wasted mortgage A. income from selling things B. tax for a city C. loan from a bank D. salary for workers muslin A. metal B. cloth C. silk D. wood parcels A. dresses B. crates C. cans D. packages 7. tweed A. cotton B. silk C. wool D. rawhide 8. economic A. having to do with money B. having to do with weather C. having to do with law D. having to do with war 9. calico A. old newspaper B. cotton cloth C. strong metal D. new sheepskin