Downloaded 13 times
![Definition of Terms
Term Definition
Cross-Curricular Information that has great use across multiple
contexts and academic disciplines (Beck &
McKeown, 2007).
-For this study, I chose words that I could see
being in at least two different academic texts
(literacy, math, social studies, science).
Example words: Absorb, Beam, Cycle, &
Necessary
Explicit instruction Clear, organized, purposeful, and precise teaching
(Radford, 2012; Wasik & Iannone-Campbell, 2012).
-For this study, this meant using child-friendly
definitions, examples and non examples.
Semantic Maps Any visual that helps students notice correlations
between words (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2006; Buis,
2004).
Vocabulary The words we use to show the meaning of words
in a language (National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development [NICHHD], 2000).
Expressive Vocabulary Words used orally or in writing (Beck, McKeown, &
Kucan, 2002).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1d6026bf-4549-4842-93a0-2b7ca242ea22-150803172816-lva1-app6891/85/Action-Research-Presentation-5-320.jpg)
![References
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires
through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal. 107(3), 251-271.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction.
New York: Guilford Press.
Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential." International Dyslexia
Association Quarterly Newsletter 26(4).
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fisher, P. J. (2010). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hal
Buis, K. (2004). Making words stick: Strategies that build vocabulary and reading comprehension in the
elementary grades. Markham, Ont: Pembroke Publishers
Coyne, M., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared
storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12(3), 130-162
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. New York
Newark, DE Urbana, IL: Teacher's College Press; International Reading Assoc.; NCTE.
Hart, B., & Risely, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American
children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Juel, C. Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., and Deffes, R. (2003). Walking with Rosie: A cautionary tale of early
reading instruction. Educational Leadership, April, 13–18
Lester, L. M. (2011). An investigation of rural teachers’ vocabulary practices, perceptions, and beliefs. A
paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Jacksonville,
Florida.
Lubliner, S. (2005). Gettting into words: Vocabulary instruction that strengthens comprehension.
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 [on-line]. Available:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm
Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation
and repeated listening to stories:Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 23–33.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1d6026bf-4549-4842-93a0-2b7ca242ea22-150803172816-lva1-app6891/85/Action-Research-Presentation-52-320.jpg)
Uploaded byAmanda Sauer
Action Research Presentation
This study examined the effects of explicit instruction using semantic maps on cross-curricular vocabulary in a second-grade classroom. The researcher taught vocabulary words from various subject areas to 21 students using explicit instruction methods like child-friendly definitions and examples, followed by having students complete semantic maps in pairs. Data was collected through pre- and post-tests of general vocabulary and target words, as well as daily and bi-weekly assessments during the 8-week intervention. Results showed significant gains in students' expressive vocabulary, receptive vocabulary, and knowledge of target words from pre- to post-testing. During the intervention, students' understanding of weekly vocabulary words improved. Boys showed slightly greater gains in expressive vocabulary than girls. The study suggests
Action Research Presentation
- 1. Amanda Sauer University ofArkansas Old Wire Road Elementary Spring 2015 The Impact of Explicit Instruction using Semantic Maps on Cross-Curricular Vocabulary
- 2.
- 3. Rationale Mentor teacherrecommendation because the whole school is currently focusing on improving their students’ vocabulary. The National Assessment of Education Progress (2011) reported that Arkansas was only one of three states that scored lower than the national average in vocabulary knowledge. Students’ reading scores on the MAP were, on average, below grade level Personal interest
- 4. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of explicit instruction using semantic maps on cross-curricular vocabulary in a second-grade classroom.
- 5. Definition of Terms TermDefinition Cross-Curricular Information that has great use across multiple contexts and academic disciplines (Beck & McKeown, 2007). -For this study, I chose words that I could see being in at least two different academic texts (literacy, math, social studies, science). Example words: Absorb, Beam, Cycle, & Necessary Explicit instruction Clear, organized, purposeful, and precise teaching (Radford, 2012; Wasik & Iannone-Campbell, 2012). -For this study, this meant using child-friendly definitions, examples and non examples. Semantic Maps Any visual that helps students notice correlations between words (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2006; Buis, 2004). Vocabulary The words we use to show the meaning of words in a language (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD], 2000). Expressive Vocabulary Words used orally or in writing (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002).
- 6. Research Question Doesexplicit instruction using semantic maps improve the vocabulary knowledge of students in one second-grade classroom?
- 7. Review of Literature Source Researchon Importance of Vocabulary Graves, 2006; Lubliner, 2005; NICHHD, 2000 Cross-curricular vocabulary is connected to students’ reading skills. Vocabulary instruction is necessary for students’ reading comprehension to increase. Source Problems Related to Vocabulary Knowledge Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller, 2001; Coyne, Simmons, Kame’enui, and Stoolmiller, 2004; Graves, 2006; Hart & Risely, 1995; Juel, Biancarosa, Coker, and Deffes, 2003; Lester, 2011 Many students in the United States score below average in their vocabulary knowledge needed to succeed with the complex texts that Common Core has brought into the elementary classroom. Several experts point to the increasing number of English Language Learners (ELLs) and students living in poverty. Research and other experts believe that a
- 8. Review of Literature SourceResearch on Explicit Instruction Beck, 2005; Coyne et al., 2004; Penno, 2002 Experts suggest teachers to explicitly teach vocabulary and use rich, multi-faceted language, for students to more fully comprehend a word. Research shows that explicit instruction has greater gains than did storybook reading in students with low receptive vocabulary knowledge.Source Research on Semantic Maps Blachowicz and Fisher, 2005; Buis, 2004; Lubliner, 2005 Experts state that the purpose of a semantic map, a type of graphic organizer, is to help students use their background knowledge to make relations with newly learned words. Furthermore, they explain that semantic maps are used for students’ to notice correlations between words.
- 9.
- 10. Research Question Doesexplicit instruction using semantic maps improve the vocabulary knowledge of students in one second-grade classroom?
- 11. Participants 21 second-gradestudents 100% return rate of Informed Consents, with one student declining 20 participants 11 males, 9 females 3 males in Reading Recovery 10 English Language Learners, 4 are pulled out for ESL assistance. A confidential code was established by drawing names from a hat and assigning each name a letter. 45% 35% 10% 5% 5% Hispanic White Asian Marshallese Biracial These demographics mirror the demographics of the school.
- 12. Data Collection Pre-and Post-Assessments Montgomery Assessment of Vocabulary Acquisition (MAVA) Researcher-created, word-specific vocabulary test Ongoing Assessments Daily Scores Bi-weekly tests Anecdotal records
- 13. Evaluation Instrument: MAVA The MAVA contains two subtests: an expressive vocabulary test and a receptive vocabulary test. These tests measure students’ overall vocabulary knowledge. The basal, on each test, was 8 consecutive correct responses in a specific set, while the ceiling was 6 consecutive incorrect responses. Students point to a picture to match a word on the Receptive test. On the Expressive test, the student must say the correct word to match the picture. The test was untimed and administered to each child individually over the span of several days. The testing lasted approximately 30 minutes with each student. Students’ chronological age was found by using a calculator on SuperDuperInc.com The raw scores were calculated and then turned into standard scores using the MAVA examiner’s manual.
- 14. Montgomery Assessment of VocabularyAcquisition
- 15. Examples of MAVA’ssubtests Receptive Expressi ve
- 16. Evaluation Instrument: Researcher- created,Word-specific Assessment The Researcher-created, word-specific assessment was given pre- and post-intervention to measure students’ knowledge of the specific vocabulary words used in the study. The test was untimed and administered to the entire group at one setting. The testing lasted approximately 25 minutes. The scores were calculated according to a percentage of accuracy.
- 17.
- 18. Other Data Collection Daily scores were collected on the vocabulary knowledge of the learned words. 3 – Established 2 – Acquainted 1 – Unfamiliar Weekly scores were obtained by averaging daily scores. Bi-weekly tests were given to assess students’ ongoing vocabulary knowledge. Scores were also rated using the 3, 2, 1, scale. Anecdotal records were taken daily.
- 19. Intervention Schedule Day InstructionProcedures One • Four or five words were introduced. Through a PowerPoint Presentation, explicit instruction was used to teach word meaning. Two • Reviewed a vocabulary word’s meaning and then gave a semantic map to each student to complete with a partner. Listened to students share synonyms, antonyms, pictures, sentences, etc. Three • Same as Day 2 Four • Same as Day 2 and 3 • A quiz was also given on day 4 every other week to assess students’ ongoing vocabulary knowledge.
- 20. Intervention Schedule Continued Week5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Blistering Irritate Narrow Process Sway Analyze Beam Equality Gather Contribute Divert Recognize Rise Apply Distribute Erupt Necessary Weeks Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Vocabulary words for each week Assist Capture Discard Expand Mixture Aware Complex Deliver Pour Acquire Community Dome Express Gaze Absorb Core Cycle Diagram •Words chosen for intervention came from Flocabulary.com, New York’s Hyde Park Central School District’s word list for second grade, and several read-aloud books used in the district’s current literacy unit.
- 21.
- 22. Semantic Maps -Student Work
- 23. Example of Assessmentof Vocabulary Knowledge - 3
- 24. Example of Assessmentof Vocabulary Knowledge - 2
- 25. Example of Assessmentof Vocabulary Knowledge - 1
- 26. Research Question Doesexplicit instruction using semantic maps improve the vocabulary knowledge of students in one second-grade classroom?
- 27.
- 28. Results for Expressive Vocabulary 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 AB C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T Pre- Test Post- Test 55-70 – very low 71-77 – low 78-85 – borderline 86-114 – average 115 and above – advanced Pre-Test Post-Test Mean: 91.5 - 96.4 Median: 92 - 100 Mode: 90 - 93 & 108
- 29. Expressive t-test Results NMean N Mean t t Stat p 20 91.55 20 98 2.09 3.84 0.001107121 Pre-test Post-test 85 90 95 100 105 Pre-test Post-test Class Average • The mean increased 6.45 points on the post-test scores, which was a significant increase. p=<.05
- 30. Achievement Categories for ExpressiveVocabulary 0% 65% 20% 5% 10% Pre-Intervention Advanced Average Borderline Low Very low 5% 80% 5% 0% 10% Post-Intervention Advanced Average Borderline Low Very low
- 31. Results for ReceptiveVocabulary 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T Pre- Test Post- Test 55-70 – very low 71-77 – low 78-85 – borderline 86-114 is average 115 and above – advanced Pre-Test Post-Test Mean: 97.2 - 98 Median: 97.5 - 102 Mode: 92, 96, 107 - 103
- 32. Achievement Categories for ReceptiveVocabulary 5% 75% 10% 5% 5% Pre-Intervention Advanced Average Borderline Low Very low 5% 75% 10% 5% 5% Post-Intervention Advanced Average Borderline Low Very low
- 33. The scores of 40, 42, 51, &36 were outliers on the post- test Results of Specific Vocabulary 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T Pre- Test Post- Test 85-100 – Proficient 70 -84 – Basic 0-69 – Below Basic Pre-Test Post-Test Mean: 48.6 - 85 Median: 48.6 - 92.8 Mode: 48.6 - 97.1
- 34. Specific Vocabulary t-testResults N Mean N Mean t t Stat p 20 48.6 20 85 2.09 8.31 0.000000093983 Pre-test Post-test 10 25 40 55 70 85 100 Pre-test Post-test Class Average • The mean increased 36.4 points on the post-test scores, which was a significant increase. p=<.05
- 35. Achievement Categories forSpecific Vocabulary 5% 10% 85% Pre-Intervention Proficient Basic Below basic 80% 0% 20% Post-Intervention Proficient Basic Below basic
- 36. During Intervention Results 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 Score Week Weekly Average Bi- weekly
- 37.
- 38. Sub-population Expressive Results forGender 92.91 94.2598.09 98.75 45 65 85 105 125 145 Boys Girls Pre-test Post-test Boys’ expressive vocabulary improved slightly more than girls’ with a mean difference of 0.68. The pre-test score of 55 was found to be an outlier.
- 39. Sub-population Receptive Resultsfor Gender 100.09 93.56 101.55 93.67 85 89 93 97 101 105 Boys Girls Pre-test Post-test Boys’ receptive vocabulary improved slightly more than girls’ with a mean difference of 1.35.
- 40. Sub-population Word-specific Results forGender 46.2 56.71 81.8 95.91 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Boys Girls Pre-test Post-test Girls’ word-specific vocabulary improved more than boys’ with a mean difference of 3.6. The post- test scores of 40 & 88.6 were found to be outliers
- 41. Sub-population Expressive Results forELL and Non-ELL 84.78 101.3 91.56 104.5 60 75 90 105 120 ELLs Non-ELLs Pre-test Post-test ELLs’ expressive vocabulary improved slightly more than native English speakers’ with a mean difference of 3.58. The pre-test score of 55 was found to be an outlier.
- 42. Sub-population Receptive Resultsfor ELL and Non-ELL 89.2 105.1 88.1 107.9 45 65 85 105 125 145 ELLs Non-ELLs Pre-test Post-test Native English speakers’ receptive vocabulary improved more than ELLs’ with a mean difference of 2.9.
- 43. Sub-population Word-Specific Results forELL and Non-ELL 39.96 53.98 77.71 92.27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ELLs Non-ELLs Pre-test Post- test Native English speakers’ word-specific vocabulary improved slightly more than ELLs’ with a mean difference of 0.54.
- 44. Anecdotal Records Throughoutthe course of this study, anecdotes were recorded and analyzed for patterns and themes: Recognized words in texts and used words outside instructional time On January 30, 2015 students C, S, and Q, used the word mixture in their vocabulary sentences that were written for homework the night before for the classroom teacher. On February 25, 2015 multiple girls sat in a circle to read when student M said, “Miss Sauer, we’re a community of learners!”
- 45. Conclusions Results Conclusions Implications MAVApre- and post test 80 percent of students improved after the intervention 60 percent of students improved after the intervention A majority of students’ vocabulary improved through explicit instruction using semantic maps Explicit instruction using semantic maps helps students build their expressive and receptive vocabulary Pre- and post- researcher- created, word-specific vocabulary test 95 percent of students improved after the intervention A majority of students’ vocabulary improved through explicit instruction using semantic maps Explicit instruction using semantic maps helps students build their vocabulary knowledge Expressive – Gender 82 percent of males’ expressive vocabulary increased. 75 percent of females’ expressive vocabulary increased. Males’ expressive vocabulary improved slightly more than females. Explicit instruction using semantic maps helped students build vocabulary Expressive – Native language 80 percent of ELLs’ and non-ELLs’ expressive vocabulary increased. ELLs’ and non-ELLs’ expressive vocabulary knowledge scores improved equally. Explicit instruction using semantic maps helped students build their vocabulary knowledge
- 46. Conclusions Continued Results ConclusionsImplications Receptive – Gender 64 percent of males’ receptive vocabulary increased. 56 percent of females’ receptive vocabulary increased Males’ receptive vocabulary improved slightly more than females. Explicit instruction using semantic maps helped students’ build their vocabulary Receptive – Native Language 50 percent of ELLs’ receptive vocabulary increased. 60 percent of non-ELLs’ receptive vocabulary increased Non-ELLs’ receptive vocabulary increased slightly more than ELLs’. Explicit instruction using semantic maps helped students’ build their vocabulary Word specific – Gender 100 percent of females’ increased increased. 91 percent of males’ vocabulary increased. The females’ specific vocabulary improved slightly more than males’. Explicit instruction using semantic maps helped students’ build their vocabulary Word specific – Native language 90 percent of ELLs’ specific vocabulary increased, while 100 percent of native English speakers’ specific vocabulary improved Native English speakes’ vocabulary improved slightly more than ELLs. Explicit instruction using semantic maps is slightly more effective for native English speakers.
- 47. Conclusions Continued Results ConclusionsImplications Achievement categories Before the study only 5 percent of students scored proficient achievement category on the word specific vocabulary test. After the study 80 percent of the scores were in the proficient category. On the receptive test, percentages in categories did not alter. On the expressive test, 8 students moved up an achievement category. A majority of students went up an achievement category in the word- specific assessment. Explicit instruction using semantic maps may improve students’ vocabulary knowledge Anecdotal Records Anecdotal records taken during the study denote that students become more aware of specific words while independent reading during and after intervention. Students utilized their knowledge of the meaning of words during independent reading Explicit instruction using semantic maps may improve students’ vocabulary knowledge
- 48. My Findings Source Finding Literature MyFindings Beck et al. (2002) Insist that explicit instruction is crucial for students to successfully learn Tier 2 and Tier 3 words. I found that explicit instruction was necessary for students to effectively learn cross- curricular words. Nash and Snowling (2005) Buis (2004) Found a positive correlation between the use of semantic maps and an increase of students’ vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension skills. This strategy allows students to feel more connected to the vocabulary building process because it creates a more meaningful experience, than when students read alone. I also found that semantic maps had a positive impact on students’ vocabulary knowledge based on the results of my pre- and post- tests. I also found that through the use of student- generated pictures and sentences, students felt
- 49. Limitations Positive Unknown Additional dailyvocabulary instruction Subjective grading by the researcher Additional daily literacy instruction Researcher-created assessment was not tested for reliability or validity Natural maturation over a ten- week period The time of day the intervention took place
- 50. Recommendations For the ClassroomFor Future Research Explicit instruction using semantic maps be used in the regular classroom instruction Have a control group to compare with experimental group Use explicit instruction and semantic maps with all learners, regardless of gender, language, or proficiency level. No additional vocabulary instruction Have students create their own semantic maps after they have been exposed to them. Run tests to discover if teaching vocabulary through explicit instruction using semantic maps has an impact on students’ reading comprehension.
- 51. In Conclusion… Doesexplicit instruction using semantic maps improve the vocabulary knowledge of students in one second-grade classroom?? Yes! Based on the findings of this present study, explicit instruction using semantic maps does improve vocabulary knowledge.
- 52. References Beck, I.L., McKeown, M. G., (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal. 107(3), 251-271. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential." International Dyslexia Association Quarterly Newsletter 26(4). Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fisher, P. J. (2010). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hal Buis, K. (2004). Making words stick: Strategies that build vocabulary and reading comprehension in the elementary grades. Markham, Ont: Pembroke Publishers Coyne, M., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12(3), 130-162 Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. New York Newark, DE Urbana, IL: Teacher's College Press; International Reading Assoc.; NCTE. Hart, B., & Risely, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Juel, C. Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., and Deffes, R. (2003). Walking with Rosie: A cautionary tale of early reading instruction. Educational Leadership, April, 13–18 Lester, L. M. (2011). An investigation of rural teachers’ vocabulary practices, perceptions, and beliefs. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Jacksonville, Florida. Lubliner, S. (2005). Gettting into words: Vocabulary instruction that strengthens comprehension. 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 [on-line]. Available: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories:Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23–33.
- 53.
- 54. Special Thanks Thank youto everyone who made this study successful! Dr. Eilers Dr. Collet Dr. Brown Mrs. Amanda Brunson Mrs. Vanston My fellow Old Wire Wildcat interns A hilarious and sweet 2nd grade class! My encouraging and supportive family THANK YOU!!
Editor's Notes
- #11 THIS ONE IS CENTERED BUT THE REST OF “RESEARCH QUESTION”S ARE RIGHT ALIGNED
- #35 FIX THIS
- #39 Males’ expressive vocabulary improved slightly more than females.
- #40 Males’ receptive vocabulary improved slightly more than females.
- #41 Females’ word-specific vocabulary knowledge improved a little more than males’ vocabulary knowledge.
- #42 ELLs’ and non-ELLs’ expressive vocabulary knowledge scores improved equally.
- #43 Non-ELLs’ receptive vocabulary increased slightly more than ELLs’.