The study investigates the development of productive vocabulary among elementary students engaged in knowledge building over six years, highlighting the relationship between vocabulary growth and knowledge building behaviors such as reading and revising. Findings indicate that students tend to produce more unique word types over time, with revising identified as the strongest predictor of vocabulary growth rate. Future directions include exploring the impact of classroom context and demographic factors on vocabulary development.

1. The Development of Productive
Vocabulary in Knowledge
Building: A Longitudinal Study
Bodong Chen, Leanne Ma, Yoshiaki Matsuzawa,
and Marlene Scardamalia
Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology
CSCL • June 9, 2015 • Gothenburg

2. LANGUAGE AND
DEVELOPMENT

3. Sociocultural Theory
(Vygotsky, 1978)
• Child development extends across
social, conceptual, linguistic, and
cultural competencies
– Learning is a sociocultural process
– Learning is mediated by tools, symbols,
and language

4. Language and Learning
• Word knowledge is critical for:
– Verbal and listening skills
– Reading comprehension
– Learning new concepts
(e.g., Biemiller, 2005; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Steahr, 2009)
• The more words a student knows, the
easier it is for them to access new
resources and learn more (Stahl, 1991)

5. Instructional Approaches
(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989)
Direct Instruction Whole-Language
Mechanical approach
Focus on components
Memorize/apply rules
Structured, linear process
Authentic, situated approach
Focus on function
Preserve meaning
Dynamic, emergent process
• Language is a sociocultural artifact

6. In Knowledge Building it is not enough
that students incorporate new words into
their speech and writing, they need to
incorporate new word meanings into
their thinking and into their contributions
to collective knowledge spaces, where
these terms can be further discussed and
elaborated. (Resendes et. al., 2013)
Knowledge Building

7. • Collective goal is to create and refine
community knowledge
• Principle-based pedagogy
– Idea diversity
– Continual idea improvement
– Collective cognitive responsibility
Knowledge Building
(Scardamalia, 2002)

8. Knowledge Forum

9. CURRENT STUDY

10. Objectives
• To explore students’ productive
vocabulary growth over elementary
years within a Knowledge Building
context
• To expand CSCL literature with
longitudinal study

11. Methods
• Longitudinal cohort study of KB class
– 22 students in Toronto, Canada
• Data sources
– KF notes
– KF activity logs

12. Question 1
How did students’ productive vocabulary
change over the span of six years?
– Lexical proficiency
– Rate of vocabulary growth

13. Lexical Proficiency
• Lexical richness
– Total tokens and types
• Lexical frequency profile
– First 1000 words (Laufer & Nation, 2000)
– Second 1000 words (Laufer & Nation, 2000)
– Academic words (Coxhead, 2000)
– Other words

14. Vocabulary Growth
• Appearance of new words each year
– First 1000 words (Laufer & Nation, 2000)
– Second 1000 words (Laufer & Nation, 2000)
– Academic words (Coxhead, 2000)
– Other words

15. Question 2
How are Knowledge Building behaviours
related to changes in students’ productive
vocabulary?
– Reading
– Writing
– Revising

16. FINDINGS

17. Overview of KF Activity
Grade Created Read Revised
1 15.1 63.10 12.33
2 18.43 73.95 9.33
3 19.71 182.00 14.76
4 21.74 235.63 18.89
5 12.85 67.38 8.38
6 10.17 48.17 8.25

18. Question 1
How did students’ productive vocabulary
change over the span of six years?
– Lexical proficiency (i.e., lexical richness,
lexical frequency profile)

19. Lexical Richness
Grade Tokens Types
1 208.10 98.90
2 159.48 72.38
3 114.48 65.10
4 176.53 85.21
5 498.38 146.69
6 366.23 122.85

20. Overview of Vocabulary
• First 1000 words 1091
• Second 1000 words 331
• Academic words 105
• Other words 635

21. Lexical Frequency Profile
Grade 1st K 2nd K Acad Other
1 89.2 4.21 2.31 4.28
2 87.1 6.43 0.54 5.96
3 80.6 6.76 4.50 8.14
4 82.2 6.82 2.80 8.23
5 82.4 4.47 1.35 2.72
6 86.1 1.53 11.8 6.77

22. Question 1
How did students’ productive vocabulary
change over the span of six years?
– Rate of vocabulary growth

23. Vocabulary Growth

24. Question 2
How are Knowledge Building behaviours
related to changes in students’ productive
vocabulary?
– Reading
– Writing
– Revising

25. *p <.05
** p <.01
*** p <.001
KB & Lexical Proficiency
Create Read Revise
Token .15 .07 .23**
Type .29*** .17* .42***
Vocabulary
size
.81*** .55** .77***
Vocabulary
Growth
.23*** .07 .35***

26. KB Discourse: Definition
What is claymore? My theory is that it
is a type of [pottery] wheel.
I think a claymore was a type of big
expensive sword that only the richest
nobles or or "earls" owned.
C
D
My theory [is] its a very big Scottish
[sword].
E

27. KB Discourse: Context
How does gravity work? Is it a force in the
ground that pulls you down or something
in the air that pushes you down?
I think gravity comes from the core of the
Earth or the core of other planets. The
gravitational pull pulls us down towards
the core, making us go down and stay
down. Just like the way the sun's
gravitational pull pulls all of the other
planets around it in a circle or oval.
F
G

28. KB Discourse: Context
How does gravity work in the
middle of the earth?
Gravity is: the downward pull of
the earths gravitational field. The
more gravity pulling an object the
more the mass of the object is.
H
I

29. SUMMARY

30. Question 1
How did students’ productive vocabulary
change over the span of six years?
– Tendency to produce more tokens, more
unique word types over the years
– Growth rate for different types of words varied
across each year but correlated with each
other

31. Question 2
How are Knowledge Building behaviours
related to changes in students’ productive
vocabulary?
– All behaviours were related to lexical proficiency
measures to varying extents
– Note revising is the strongest predictor of
vocabulary growth rate

32. Future Directions
• Comparison groups (e.g., demographics)
• Classroom context
– Role of teacher
– Face-to-face interactions
– Social network analysis
• Embedded, transformative assessment
– Individual and group-level analytics
– Lexical indicators of conceptual development
and KB advances

33. We ought to assume that there is
potential for a collective zone of
proximal development in any
classroom, and that within it
there is at least some potential
for the students to move toward
higher levels of agency.
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991)