Research paper dena rogers

Teaching Vocabulary 1
Running head: TEACHING VOCABULARY THROUGH LITERATURE
Teaching Vocabulary Through Literature: Effects of Context-Clue
Instruction on Tenth-Grade Students
Dena H. Rogers
Valdosta State University

Abstract
This study examined the effects of context-clue instruction on 24 advanced-level tenth-grade
students to show if the method for learning words had an impact on student learning. Students
were exposed to two methods of vocabulary instruction over nine weeks, word-list instruction
and context-clue instruction. Results were determined using vocabulary tests, student observation
checklists, and student surveys. Though neither the word-list nor context-clue instructional
method produced significant changes in achievement scores, the other data-collection
instruments showed that students had a preference for context-clue instruction when given the
choice. When writing, students showed a higher usage rate for words learned through context-
clue instruction than word-list instruction.

Teaching Vocabulary Through Literature: Effects of Context-Clue
Instruction on Tenth-Grade Students
High-school language arts teachers have many responsibilities. In addition to teaching
literature and reading comprehension, grammar and mechanics, and the writing process, they
must also teach vocabulary. Because of all their other instructional responsibilities, the teaching
of vocabulary sometimes falls from the forefront of the curriculum and becomes a pointless
routine rather than an essential instructional practice. Vocabulary instruction is not an easy task.
Sometimes it is difficult to teach because students tend to be unwilling to learn new words as
they grow up in a society where sophisticated language can be deemed undesirable. Manzo,
Manzo, and Thomas (2006) reported that the influx of reality television, rap music, and other
pop-cultural factors make those using intellectual language appear conceited. Similarly, the
increase of students coming from lower socio-economic families and from diverse backgrounds
is on the rise. Rupley and Nichols (2005) reported that by the year 2020, nearly 5.4 million
students will be living in poverty. This state of deprivation means that educators need to make
instruction as meaningful as possible because, no matter the obstacles they may face, students are
expected to become productive citizens, and the development of a compelling vocabulary
encourages reading comprehension and allows people to contribute to society. Teachers have to
be willing to teach students the value of improving their vocabularies in order to close the gap
between the reality of the child’s life and the expectations of the child’s school (Blachowicz &
Fisher, 2004).
Because it can be difficult, especially for overwhelmed, new teachers, to create an
effective vocabulary program, they sometimes rely on their colleagues for previously-given
vocabulary tests, or they may simply use school-adopted materials (Brabham & Villaume, 2002).

“Consistently, the most common recalled vocabulary instruction centers around receiving an
arbitrary list of words on Monday [and] looking up the definitions of the words in a dictionary”
(Rupley & Nichols, 2005, p. 240). However, this type of word study is unproductive when the
students take the initial definition and try to make sense of the word. For instance, if students
took the definition of “brim” to be “edge,” they may think that, “The knife has a sharp brim,” is a
logical sentence (Brabham & Villaume, 2002). Furthermore, the vocabulary words may mean
something entirely different when used in another context, or the definition of the vocabulary
word may contain words that the students do not recognize (Rhoder & Huerster, 2002). A similar
method of instruction involves students completing drill-and-practice activities like workbook
exercises, but these should not be the only strategies to teach new words (Venetis, 1999).
With these word-lists/drill-and-practice approaches to vocabulary instruction, students
often forget the meanings of the words and do not develop the skills necessary to use the words
in their own speaking and writing. Even if memorization is mastered using this technique of
instruction, that does not suggest that the students have enough knowledge of the word to apply
its meaning to their own writing. Dixon-Krauss (2002) observed that even after ninth-grade
students had taken their vocabulary tests, they had problems incorporating the words into
writing, and their papers suffered from incorrect usage and incoherent paragraphs. Francis and
Simpson (2003) reported that students were able to respond correctly to multiple-choice
questions about vocabulary words, but they were not able to relate words to texts that they were
reading or to write significant paragraphs. There was a need for teachers to consider another
technique of vocabulary instruction that might assure students learned a word’s meaning and also
how to use the word properly in speaking and writing.

Another method of teaching students vocabulary is through reading, and students who
read widely have expansive vocabularies (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2004). However, all students do
not read extensively, and many only read what they are required to read for school classes.
Francis and Simpson (2003) reported that the average high-school student is assigned about 50
pages per week from assignments for their content courses. That number will increase to nearly
500 pages per week when that student reaches college. Additionally, by the time students reach
college, professors expect them to be able to learn the text independently “because they do not
have the time or inclination to discuss the information during class” (p. 66). What does this
report mean for high-school teachers? They are faced with the duty of not only developing their
students’ vocabularies, but also helping them create strategies to learn vocabulary on their own.
“A serious commitment to decreasing gaps in vocabulary and comprehension includes
instruction that allows all students to learn and use strategies that will enable them to discover
and deepen understandings of words during independent reading” (Brabham & Villaume, 2002,
p. 266).
To approach the instruction of vocabulary through literature, teachers often choose to
teach vocabulary through context. Teaching vocabulary through context simply means to look
for clues in the sentence that might tell the reader something about the meaning of the word in
question; furthermore, researchers have studied the impact of visual and verbal clues on learning
words in context. Terrill, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2004) studied mnemonic strategies used in
vocabulary instruction for eight 10th
-grade students with learning disabilities and found that using
keywords with pictures that hint at a word’s meaning increased the students’ vocabulary test
scores. By the end of the study, students had learned 92% of their vocabulary using this strategy
compared with 49% of words learned using the word-list approach.

Several other studies have been performed that examined the contextual method of
vocabulary instruction together with the word-list approach to vocabulary acquisition. Dixon-
Krauss (2002) collaborated with a high-school English teacher to study the issue of how to
improve vocabulary instruction in high school. The English teacher had noticed that her students
did not retain the meanings of words they had previously learned from word lists for vocabulary
tests. After the 43 ninth-grade students in that study were immersed in context-clue vocabulary
study using the words in verbal and written activities, the students’ achievement scores in their
journal writing increased from 65% of the words used correctly in the first assignment to 93%
used correctly by the last journal entry. Dillard (2005) explored definitional and contextual
methods of vocabulary instruction in four secondary English classrooms with a mixture of
students in grades 10 through 12 and found that students using the contextual method of
instruction outperformed the ones using the definitional, word-list approach on three of the four
tests given in the study.
Walters (2006) reported that improved reading comprehension resulted when 11 ESL
students, ranging in age from 17 to 47, enrolled in an English language program were shown
strategies of how to derive meanings of unfamiliar words from context clues. The strategy
condition group in her study had the highest level of improvement in determining meanings of
words. This condition entailed five steps: determine the part of speech of the word, focus on the
grammar of the sentence, focus on the sentences that come before and after the vocabulary word,
make a guess of the definition, and check the definition. Researchers have found that word
meanings are retained longer when they are included in numerous classroom assignments. In
order to really know a word, students must be able to use it in more than one context; it must be
used in writing, speaking, and listening (Rupley & Nichols, 2005).

In addition to increases in achievement, researchers also found that students’ attitudes
regarding their vocabulary acquisition improved from the context-clue instruction. Dixon-Krauss
(2002) discovered that in the beginning of her study, students were reluctant to use the words
from the context of literature into their own writing, but by the end of the study, they commented
that they felt successful in using the words correctly. When the students’ teacher began another
study with a different novel, the students were given the choice of writing personal essays about
the reading assignments or writing summaries using at least 15 of the 20 vocabulary words.
Eighty percent of the students chose to write the summaries, which, according to Dixon-Krauss,
was the more difficult assignment. Francis and Simpson (2003) conducted an informal, verbal
survey and were told that students did not hear their teachers use vocabulary words in class
discussions, so the researchers began communicating with them using the specific words they
were learning, and the students soon followed their lead. In their research study, Terrill, et al.
(2004) had students voice objection to the word-list method of vocabulary and asked to use the
keyword and picture approach in the future.
The Study
This research study was conducted in a large high school in the southern United States. In
a pilot, qualitative study conducted there a year earlier, the researcher found that most students in
the study were not interested in learning words for the sake of memorizing the definitions for
tests and quizzes. They indicated that they wanted to have a reason for learning words; they
wanted to understand how to use the words by seeing them used in context. Finally, students did
not remember the vocabulary that they learned from an isolated word list because they did not
use those words in their classes, and, therefore, had no reason to remember them. The results of
that study indicated that students did not believe that the way they were being taught vocabulary

increased their retention of the vocabulary words. The researcher believed that teachers needed
to be made aware of these student views as a means to improve the curriculum in their classes.
Therefore, the researcher conducted the present study using word-list instruction and context-
clue instruction.
In recent years, the school at the research site underwent changes in curriculum and
testing requirements. One such change was that new Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) were
implemented that changed the state’s curriculum and sought to increase student performance in
all academic subjects. One of the first areas in the state to be affected by GPS was the
English/Language Arts area, implemented during the 2005-2006 school year. Likewise, the
advent of End-of-Course Tests (EOCT), which began in the 2004-2005 school year, created a
push for improvement in many academic areas.
First, to coincide with the school’s improvement plan, the researcher focused on the
establishment of unified and consistent curriculum within courses governed by GPS. The
school’s 2006-2007 improvement plan referred to the creation of curriculum units, and the
English department at the school worked to put together curriculum units that reflected that goal.
However, the curriculum units fell short in the inclusion of vocabulary because the department
adopted workbook-related vocabulary materials, and it had been established that the English
teachers should instruct their students using those materials. The premise of the vocabulary
workbooks was simple. The specific books adopted contained common words found on the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), and by having the students learn these words, the teachers were
preparing the students to do well on those tests. However, there was no consistent method for the
delivery of this instruction, so for some teachers it became a workbook that they felt they must
include in the curriculum. One English teacher stated, “I don’t like the workbooks. The students

cheat, and they don’t remember the words.” Other teachers responded similarly to questions on
an informal survey regarding the current method of vocabulary instruction. Because vocabulary
instruction at the research site had become more of an established routine rather than a genuine
instructional encounter, this researcher wanted to develop instructional strategies that were in
compliance with GPS and fulfilled the school’s improvement plan goals.
Next, the state’s EOCT program influenced the school’s curriculum. For the purpose of
this research, the researcher focused on the EOCT for Ninth-Grade Literature and Composition
and American Literature and Composition. Before this study began, school administrators began
giving these tests, first on a pilot basis, and eventually students in the ninth and eleventh grades
had to take these tests in order to exit their English classes. The tests included questions from
four sets of domains. For Ninth Grade Literature, the domains were reading and literature;
reading, listening, speaking, and viewing across the curriculum; writing; and the convention of
written language. For American Literature, the domains were similar but with an emphasis on
readings in American Literature. The first two of these domains emphasized the demonstration of
vocabulary knowledge and the use of vocabulary in context (Georgia Department of Education,
2004).
Based on the school’s EOCT results released to the school for Fall 2005 coursework, the
average score for the 417 students who took the Ninth-Grade Literature and Composition EOCT
was 77%, and the average score for the 429 American Literature and Composition students was
82%. According to the EOCT Content Area Summary Report for that same semester, the two
vocabulary-focused domains for both grades were quite low. Ninth graders scored 68% on the
vocabulary areas whereas American Literature students scored 73%. No information was
available that gave the specific number of vocabulary-related questions, but the low-test scores

coupled with the school’s need to incorporate consistent vocabulary instruction are the primary
reasons for this study (Georgia Department of Education, 2006). Because “vocabulary
development is a continuous process that occurs throughout an individual’s life” (Rupley &
Nichols, 2005, p. 241), it is important for educators to employ strategies that foster the
development of vocabulary and that keep students motivated to learn new words both in and out
of the classroom. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the
traditional word-list approach to vocabulary instruction to literature-based vocabulary through
context-clue instruction on tenth-grade students’ achievement in and knowledge of vocabulary.
Definition of Variables
Word-list instruction. Word-list instruction was the process of providing students with a
list of words and having them use a glossary to determine the vocabulary word’s meaning.
Context-clue instruction. Context-clue instruction was the process of using words and
phrases surrounding the vocabulary word in the sentence as well as using structural clues in
order to determine the vocabulary word’s meaning.
Literature-based vocabulary. Literature-based vocabulary was vocabulary taken directly
from students’ textbooks or novels for the purpose of vocabulary study.
Vocabulary achievement. Vocabulary achievement was retention of the meaning of
learned words and the ability to apply their meaning in context as measured by the scores of
students’ tests.
Vocabulary-word usage. Vocabulary-word usage was the frequency of vocabulary words
used correctly in essay writing.
Attitude. Attitude was the students’ opinions regarding vocabulary instruction as
measured by surveys.

Research Questions
Research question 1. Will context-clue vocabulary instruction using literature-based
vocabulary increase vocabulary achievement compared with word-list instruction?
vocabulary cause an increase in word usage compared with word-list instruction?
vocabulary cause a difference in attitude regarding vocabulary instruction compared with word-
list instruction?
Methods
Participants
The participants in this study were enrolled in a large high school in the southeastern
United States. Of the 2,724 students enrolled at this school, 70% were White, 25% were Black,
2% were Hispanic, 2% were multi-racial, and 1% was of other ethnicities. Thirty percent of the
school’s population received free or reduced-price lunch, a relatively low number compared to
the total student population (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, n.d.).
The 24 tenth-grade students in this study were enrolled in a gifted/honors
literature/composition class. These students were of advanced ability as determined by their
eighth-grade Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) scores and were assigned to the
class by the school’s registrar. The level category of the students’ CRCT scores determined their
ability level. For instance, level one CRCT scores are considered 800 or below; level 2 scores are
at or above 800 but below 850, and level 3 scores are at or above 850 (Georgia Criterion-
Referenced Competency Tests, 2005). Because most of the students in the study made level two
or level three scores, they were considered to have advanced ability and were placed in advanced

classes. EOCT scores are reported to the school divided into three groups as to how students met
the GPS standards of the class. Students are given one of three comments, “fails to meet”
standards (scores below 70), “meets” standards (scores between 70-89) and “exceeds” standards
(scores 90 and above) (Georgia Department of Education, 2004). The students’ average eighth-
grade CRCT scores and average ninth-grade Literature and Composition EOCT scores that were
available are included in Table 1. Four students transferred in from other areas after the eighth
grade, so there were no records of their eighth-grade CRCT scores, and two students did not have
ninth-grade Literature and Composition EOCT scores.
Of the students in the study, 18 (75% of the group) were White, 4 (17% of the group)
were Black, and 2 (8% of the group) were Hispanic. There were 7 males (30% of the group) and
17 females (70% of the group) in the study, and the age range was 14 to17.
Table 1
CRCT and EOCT Scores of Participants
Test Type N M SD
CRCT 20 849 12.61
EOCT 22 89 3.38
The only adult participant in the study was the teacher-researcher who taught both classes
of students. This English teacher had 17 years of classroom-teaching experience at the high-
school level.
Intervention
Introduction. The teacher-researcher began the study in the first week of the school year
by explaining the study to the students and obtaining parent permissions and student consents.
The first step in the study required that students take the Student Attitude Survey (see Appendix
D) to measure their attitude regarding the type of vocabulary instruction they have received in

the past. When the surveys were collected, the researcher engaged the class in a conversation
about their previous methods of vocabulary instruction and noted in a Teacher Research Journal
the strategies that they had used to learn new words.
Students were given a pretest over all 30 words from the first unit of study. They were
then exposed, over the following two weeks, to two types of vocabulary instruction: word-list
instruction and context-clue instruction. Students began the semester by reading William
Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. The play contains five acts, and vocabulary words
for each act were selected from the text of the play.
Word-List Instruction. The teacher used word-list instruction to begin the Shakespearean
unit. The list of 30 words from the play was divided in half. On Tuesday, the first 15 words were
listed for students to define; students were allowed to use meanings that were provided in their
textbooks in the margins of the play for these definitions. These 15 words came from the
introduction to the unit and the first two acts of the play. The teacher pronounced the words for
students and required them to make flashcards of the words as study aids. For homework,
students were to use the words in sentences of their own. Throughout the week, students were
reminded to study the words for a vocabulary test that would be given on the following Tuesday.
On Wednesday, the teacher collected homework assignments, graded them, and returned the
assignments on Friday. When the graded assignments were redistributed, she asked for questions
regarding the assignments. On the following Tuesday, students were given The Tragedy of Julius
Caesar Vocabulary Test One (VT1).
Context-Clue Instruction. After reading the first two acts of The Tragedy of Julius
Caesar, the teacher introduced the class to the next set of 15 words. On Tuesday students were
asked to write down the words on the How Well Do I Know These Words handout, adapted from

Allen (1999). Then, using a strategy derived from Center and Associates (2002), she asked the
students to use structural analysis (prefixes, suffixes, root words) and prior knowledge to define
any words that they already knew. The teacher then engaged the class in a short discussion of
how they knew the meanings of some of the words by asking what words students had written in
each of the columns on the handout. After the words were discussed, the teacher provided a
second handout that included each word used in a sentence; she told the students to circle any
context clues that helped them determine the word’s meaning. The teacher reviewed the
students’ answers with them, and the students decided on a mutual definition of the word. Then,
they checked their definitions against the ones provided in the textbook. For homework, students
were to create Word in My Context (Allen, 1999) pages for the five most difficult words for
themselves. On Wednesday through the following Monday, students finished reading the
remaining acts of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. As they read the remaining acts, the teacher
directed them to examine the context clues that surrounded the words in the play. By Monday,
students had a well-defined list of vocabulary words for the second vocabulary test. They were
given The Tragedy of Julius Caesar Vocabulary Test Two (VT2) on Tuesday.
To assure that each treatment received substantive attention, the researcher repeated the
process for the novel unit over William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. This time, students were
given 15 words from the English department’s adopted workbook-related materials to use in the
word-list instruction. Context-clue instruction was designed around chapters 7-12 of Lord of the
Flies. Similar evaluations as in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar unit were used to measure
vocabulary achievement.
At the conclusion of the unit, all students wrote an essay regarding the tragic hero.
Students were asked to choose 10 of the 30 words from the vocabulary study of The Tragedy of

Julius Caesar to use in their essays. The frequency of vocabulary-word usage used appropriately
from the two different instructional strategies established the vocabulary usage of the learned
words. A similar essay was assigned at the conclusion of the novel unit, and the same technique
was used to determine word usage.
To measure the participation of the students, the teacher used the Student Observation
Checklist and the Teacher Research Journal to record comments and reactions to each type of
intervention. During the intervention periods, notations were made on both the checklist and in
the journal. The intervention period lasted for 9 weeks. At the conclusion of the study, the
teacher re-surveyed the students using a similar SAS as was used in the beginning of the study.
Data Collection
Vocabulary Achievement Tests (Appendix A). There were four tests, The Tragedy of
Julius Caesar Vocabulary Test One, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar Vocabulary Test Two, the
Workbook Unit Vocabulary Test, and the Lord of the Flies Vocabulary Test. Each test included
15 matching questions where students were required to match the definitions with the correct
vocabulary words and 15 problems in a fill-in-the-blank section where students had to use
context clues to determine the missing word in the sentence. Vocabulary tests were administered
to all students before and after each form of instruction. The pretests contained matching items
only, whereas the posttests contained the matching items as well as the fill-in-the-blank items.
The teacher measured the content validity of the tests by having them peer reviewed by four
other teachers prior to administration. Reliability was achieved using the same form of the test
and using the words that were selected in the literature studied. Students received a grade giving
percentage correct, which was the method of scoring. Scores were analyzed by using one-tailed

paired t-tests. These results were interpreted by comparing mean gains for the word-list
instruction against mean gains for context-clue instruction.
The Tragic Hero Essay (Appendix B). This essay assignment was designed to measure
students’ knowledge of the words they had learned in the vocabulary instruction of the unit by
their use of written compositions. After each unit of instruction, students wrote compositions
relating the main character studied to the qualities of a tragic hero. They were required to use at
least 10 of the learned vocabulary words, and the teacher measured their achievement by
calculating the number of words used correctly. The validity of this constructed-response
assignment was measured by being peer reviewed by four other teachers. The teacher used a
rubric to grade the assignment and those scores were converted into percentage correct. By
counting the number of words used from word-list instruction and counting those used from
context clue instruction, the researcher compared the results. She calculated percentages of word
usage for each category to determine the method of instruction from which the students used
more words.
Student Observation Checklist (Appendix C). An observation instrument in a checklist
format helped the teacher to determine which method of instruction received the most reaction
from the students by measuring their positive or negative participation in the activities assigned
with both interventions. This instrument provided a way to note students’ on-task behavior, level
of engagement, and peer interaction. These behaviors, for example, could be complaints about
assignments and activities or positive comments about doing similar assignments in other
classes. The checklist was used four times, twice during each intervention. The checklist was
peer reviewed for construct validity by four other teachers prior to being used in this study.
Results were interpreted by calculating the number of positive reactions the word-list instruction

received as opposed to the number of positive reactions the context-clue instruction received.
The teacher calculated the percentages of positive and negative reactions each assignment
received to use as data to answer the question about student attitudes.
Student Attitude Survey (Appendix D). The Student Attitude Survey (SAS) asked students
to give their opinions regarding the way they had received vocabulary instruction in the past.
Prior to the study, students were asked to respond to 8 Likert-type statements that asked for their
degree of agreement or disagreement about their ninth-grade vocabulary instruction. At the end
of the vocabulary instruction for the novel unit, the teacher re-surveyed the students with a
similar SAS to see if there was any change in attitude. The SAS was peer reviewed by four other
teachers prior to being administered to the students to check for construct validity. Responses
were scored from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree. To analyze responses, the
researcher collapsed the categories into three groups. Categories of responses were strongly
agree/agree, undecided, and disagree/strongly disagree. After responses were tallied, percentages
were determined for each category and for each question. These percentages helped the
researcher determine the method preferred by the students in the research study.
Teacher Research Journal. During the course of the study, the teacher kept her own
personal record of comments made by students and their opinions regarding the interventions.
The journal contained daily accounts of class observations and student remarks made about the
two methods of study. This information was later used to help to interpret participation and to
provide data for triangulation of results.
Results
Five instruments were used to measure the research comparing word-list vocabulary
instruction to context-clue vocabulary instruction. To measure results quantitatively, the

researcher gave students vocabulary achievement tests over words in two literature units, and she
required them to write essays that included words from the vocabulary groups that they had
studied. To gather results both quantitatively and qualitatively, the researcher had the students
answer questions from surveys, and she kept observation checklists to monitor their involvement
in vocabulary activities. As a means of qualitative research, the researcher kept her own journal
where she recorded various comments made by the students regarding the research study.
The first analysis was an evaluation of test results over the words in two units of study.
After discussing the research project with students, the researcher gave students a pretest over 30
words in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar unit. Upon completion of both learning strategies,
students took tests over those particular words. Means and standard deviations for all tests are
given in Table 1.
Table 1
Comparisons of Vocabulary Test Results for The Tragedy of Julius Caesar Unit
Tests N M SD t-value P
Pretest 24 53.83 16.87
Word-List 24 96.08 5.75 -1.10 0.14
Context-Clue 24 97.79 4.96
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Means and standard deviations for the pretest indicated that most students knew about
half of the words in the unit. After students were exposed to both types of instruction, the mean
vocabulary test score after word-list instruction was not significantly different (t (46) = -1.10,
p = 0.14) from the mean vocabulary test score after context-clue instruction.
An analysis of other tests of vocabulary achievement indicated similar results. Students
took tests over SAT workbook words that were studied using word-list instruction and over
words from the latter chapters of Lord of the Flies that were studied using context-clue
instruction. Means and standard deviations for both tests are given in Table 2.

Table 2
Comparisons of Test Results for Novel Unit
Tests N M SD t-value P
SAT
Workbook
24 85.29 21.18 0.30 0.38
Lord of the
Flies
24 83.62 16.29
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Though the means and standard deviations vary from those in Table 1, there was no
significant difference (t (46) = 0.30, p = 0.38) between the mean scores for either test in the
novel unit. Therefore, results of both sets of test scores indicated that there was no significant
difference in achievement between the two methods of instruction.
Percentage of Word Usage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Caesar 1 Caesar 2 Workbook Novel
Word List Groups
Percentages
Figure 1. Percentage of Words Used in Essays
To determine whether one instructional strategy was more effective than the other in
increasing usage of new vocabulary words, the researcher measured students’ preference of word
choice when writing essays. The researcher assigned tragic hero essays at the conclusion of both
units, and students chose 10 words from each unit to include in their essays. Percentage results
for the four groups of word choices are shown in Figure 1.

Results show a preference in word choice of words learned through context-clue
vocabulary instruction. In the first group of results from The Tragedy of Julius Caesar unit,
students selected 10% more words from context-clue instruction than from word-list instruction.
In the novel unit, the percentage rose to 24% more context-clue words used than word-list words.
Therefore, calculations of percentages from all four word groups indicate that vocabulary
instruction using context-clue instruction can cause an increase in word usage compared with
word-list instruction.
The researcher also kept Student Observation Checklists as they worked on the various
assignments given for each type of instruction. These checklists were used each time a new set of
words were introduced to the class. The researcher checked to see if students were on task,
following directions, and interacting with their peers. Results of percentages for each category
are given in Table 3.
Table 3
Comparisons of Observation Results
Instruction Type Percent On Task Percent Following
Directions
Percent Interacting with
Peers
Word List 100 100 52
Context Clue 100 100 64
Although all students were on task and followed directions while working on assignments
for both instructional strategies, 12% more students interacted with their peers while completing
context-clue assignments. More students were willing to share their thoughts and ideas regarding
the words learned through context clues than those learned through word lists. These results may
indicate a difference in attitude between instructional strategies because students had more to say
about context-clue instruction than word-list instruction.

To assess student attitudes regarding their preference of instruction, the researcher
administered the Student Attitude Survey (SAS), which indicated that students felt a need for
another method of learning vocabulary instead of the SAT workbooks that they have used in the
past. Nearly half of the class (46%) believed that vocabulary instruction needed improvement in
their literature classes. When asked about using dictionaries to locate unknown or difficult
words, 50% of the class responded that they do use dictionaries, but 92% said that they also rely
on context clues to find vocabulary meanings. Upon engaging the tenth-grade students in a
conversation regarding past vocabulary instruction, both in the ninth-grade and in middle school,
the researcher noted that students rarely recalled words from their previous SAT workbooks.
They commented that the words “went over their heads” and that type of vocabulary learning
was “pointless.”
At the conclusion of the study, students completed another SAS and responded to similar
questions as those they answered in the first SAS. Students responded that if given a choice of
vocabulary instruction, 78% of them would choose to learn words in context from the literature
being studied. Only 22% of the class stated that they would keep the SAT workbooks, and most
of them commented that they liked the definitions that the workbooks provided, which meant
they did not have to determine the meanings themselves. According to the first SAS, most
students already used context clues to determine word meanings; therefore, the results of the two
surveys did not indicate that their attitudes about context-clue instruction changed as a result of
the study.
The final instrument used by the researcher was the Teacher Research Journal. Every
day that the class was involved with activities from the research study, the researcher recorded
comments that she would later use as indicators of student attitude. She also used the journal to

record her own comments about results of class assignments, such as what words students had
the most trouble with in each instructional method. These comments were useful in gathering
qualitative data to use in discussing the students’ attitudes.
The researcher noted that she had more interaction with the class on the days that she
instructed them through using context clues, which may indicate their preference with this
method of instruction. When students began the second vocabulary unit, many voiced their
opinions about the study of the SAT word lists. Several students made such comments as, “I’ve
never heard these words before” and “We’ll never use these words again.” Some students did not
interact as well when doing assignments related to word-list instruction as they did when they
worked on context-clue instruction. They tended to sit quietly and prepare their flashcards over
the word-list group; only a few students provided their classmates with strategies for learning
these words. However, when the researcher introduced the second context-clue list to students,
she had more comments regarding the familiarity of the words. For example, students
participated with one another and the researcher when they found the 15 words in Lord of the
Flies that they highlighted and defined in context. One student noted that the word “abominable”
was much like “abomination,” and she knew that “abomination” meant “an evil act.” After
reading the words as they were used in the novel, students indicated a greater understanding of
the definitions.
Discussion
Conclusions
The research did not show that context-clue vocabulary instruction using literature-based
vocabulary caused an increase in vocabulary achievement compared with word-list instruction.

Students’ overall test performance was similar using both instructional approaches. Results from
this research agree with that reported by Dixon-Krauss (2002) and Francis and Simpson (2003).
Students in those studies were able to do well on tests over vocabulary words, but they did not
achieve as well when asked to use the words in the context of writing. Students in the present
study, however, were given a choice of which vocabulary words to use, so unlike the other
studies, students were not told which words to use.
The research showed that context-clue vocabulary instruction using literature-based
vocabulary did cause an increase in word usage compared with word-list instruction. After
instructional strategies were used for both methods of learning, students were assigned essays
regarding the tragic heroes in two separate literature units. They were told to choose words to use
in their essays from all words studied in the unit. More students chose words from the context-
clue groups than from the word-list groups. Studies performed by Dixon-Krauss (2002) and
Dillard (2005) produced similar results. By showing students various strategies to learn words
with context clues, students in those studies were able to perform better on written assignments.
The research showed that context-clue vocabulary instruction using literature-based
vocabulary did cause a difference in attitude regarding vocabulary instruction compared with
word-list instruction. Student opinions voiced in surveys and verbal comments were more
favorable toward context-clue instruction than word-list instruction. Dixon-Krauss (2002) and
Terrill, et al. (2004) experienced similar attitudes. Students in those studies voiced opposition to
word-list instruction and asked for more meaningful methods to learn their vocabulary.
Significance/Impact on Student Learning
The results of the study indicated that when students have a voice in the method of
instruction, they might perform better on certain assignments. Students in this study made it clear

to the researcher that they wanted a meaningful method to learn vocabulary, and they wanted to
learn words that have significance to the literature that they are reading. Though the achievement
of student test scores did not show a significant difference between the two methods of
instruction, the other data-collection instruments showed that students were partial to context-
clue instruction. Students chose more words from context-clue instruction than word-list
instruction when given the choice of which words to use in their essays. Their choice of words is
an important element to consider when determining which instructional method is more apt to
cause word retention.
For years, the English department at the study school has used SAT workbooks and other
vocabulary workbooks as its method for vocabulary instruction. The results of this study indicate
that this method of instruction is not favorable to students, and they prefer vocabulary to come
from the literature that they read instead of from arbitrary word lists. Students in this study
showed a preference for words taught through context clues, which may explain their greater use
of these words in their writing and indicate their probability to use the words in their own
vocabularies.
Factors that Influenced Implementation
One of the main factors that influenced the implementation of the study was that the
English department did not receive their newly adopted textbooks for the first three weeks of the
semester. Students in the study were given a paperback copy of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar to
read until the textbooks arrived. The paperback copies did not have the vocabulary words
emphasized as the textbooks did, so the researcher had to identify the words for them.
The other factor that influenced the implementation of one of the instruments was the
time in which the last vocabulary test over the novel unit was administered. The school was

celebrating its Homecoming week, and the last test was scheduled for a day in which most of the
students were absent due to preparations for the Homecoming parade. Because so many students
would have to make up the test, the researcher decided to give the test, originally scheduled for
Thursday, on the following Monday.
Implications & Limitations
One limitation to the research was that the class size was relatively small for an extensive
study of vocabulary. A sample that included two classes would have given the researcher more
results and a wider variety of students. The 24 students in the study, mostly female, did not show
a wide range of results when it came to the achievement data.
Another limitation to this study was the ability level of the class. Because they were all
classified as advanced students, several students had much prior knowledge of the words in both
interventions. Furthermore, they tended to study to a greater extent, and that may be attributed to
their ability level. For instance, even though they were not required to make flashcards for the
context-clue word groups, may students did as a way to prepare for the tests.
A final limitation to this study was the fact that the researcher was also the teacher of the
students. Obviously, the teacher-researcher had a vested interest in the results, and there could be
instances where certain comments were not recorded in her journal and other, more favorable to
the study, were recorded. For the most part, however, this was not the case, and comments were
recorded that were favorable and unfavorable to the study.
Implications of the study were that students wanted to learn words that were meaningful
to them. Studying vocabulary for the sake of learning new words is not what they considered
important. Because vocabulary instruction has been taught the same way for many years at the
research site, the researcher shared her findings with the English department. The researcher’s

colleagues need to find ways to actively involve their students in the study of vocabulary and to
make vocabulary instruction meaningful for them. Similar procedures could be useful for
education in general. Regardless of what teachers ask of their students, some, as was the case in
this study, will perform well no matter how they view the instruction. However, in order to have
more successful students across the board, teachers should first consider the needs of their
individual students.

References
Allen, J. (1999). Words, words, words: Teaching vocabulary in grades 4-12. Portland, ME
Stenhouse Publishers.
Blachowicz, C., & Fisher, P. (2004). Vocabulary lessons. Educational Leadership, 61(6),
66-69.
Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Vocabulary instruction: Concerns and visions.
The Reading Teacher, 56(3), 264-268.
Center and Associates (Producer). (2002). Reading and writing in the content areas: Strategies
for building literacy, module 4 vocabulary strategies [Motion picture]. (Available from
Center and Associates, P.O. Box 66926, Los Angeles, CA 90066-6926)
Dillard, M. (2005, December). Vocabulary instruction in the English classroom. Studies in
Teaching 2005 Research Digest, 21-25.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (2002). Using literature as a context for teaching vocabulary. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(4), 310-318.
Francis, M. A., & Simpson, M. L. (2003). Using theory, our intuitions, and a research study to
enhance students’ vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
47(1), 66-78.
Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (2005). CRCT Score Interpretation Guide
[Electronic version]. 1-42.
Georgia Department of Education (2004, June). Georgia EOCT Interpretation Guide for Score
Reports [Electronic version]. 1-28.
Georgia Department of Education (Winter, 2006). Georgia End-of-Course Tests System Content
Area Summary Report. Released to research site.

Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. (n.d.) 2005-2006 k-12 public schools annual report
card. Retrieved March 8, 2007 from http://reportcard2006.
gaosa.org/k12/Accountability.aspx?TestType=acct&ID=692:5050
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Thomas, M. M. (2006). Rationale for systematic vocabulary
development: Antidote for state mandates. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
49(7), 610-619.
Rhoder, C., & Huerster, P. (2002). Use dictionaries for word learning with caution. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(8), 730-736.
Rupley, W. H., & Nichols, W. D. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for the struggling reader.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21(3), 239-260.
Terrill, M. C., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2004). SAT vocabulary instruction for high
school students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(5), 288-
294.
Venetis, A. (1999). Teaching vocabulary: Within the context of literature and reading or
through
isolated word lists. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kean University, Union, NJ.
Walters, J. (2006). Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context. Regional Language
Centre Journal, 37(2), 176-190.

Appendix A
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar Vocabulary Test One
Directions: Use the answer sheet provided to record your answers to the following sections.
Matching: Choose the letter of the definition that best matches the vocabulary word.
VOCABULARY WORDS DEFINITIONS
[1] integrity [a] about to occur
[2] superficial [b] honesty
[3] credible [c] with intense anger
[4] prodigious [d] a duplicate
[5] replication [e] believable
[6] servile [ab] rebellion
[7] spare [ac] shallow; concerned with the obvious
[8] infirmity [ad] strong determination
[9] portentous [ae] of great size or power
[10] entreat [bc] enhance
[11] imminent [bd] lean; thin
[12] resolution [be] beg; plead
[13] insurrection [cd] weakness; physical defect
[14] augment [ce] humbly submissive to authority
[15] wrathfully [de] giving signs of evil to come

Fill in the Blank: Choose the letter of the vocabulary word that best completes the following
sentences.
[a] integrity [b] superficial [c] credible [d] prodigious [e] replication [ab] servile
[ac] spare [ad] infirmity [ae] portentous [bc] entreat [bd] imminent
[be] resolution [cd] insurrection [ce] augment [de] wrathfully
[16] His __ made it impossible for him to take part in athletic activities.
[17] Some people believe it is __ that an ancient water monster lurks at the bottom of
Loch Ness.
[18] Her __ to give up smoking lasted two days.
[19] The two weeks of steady rains __(ed) the water in the swimming pool until it was nearly
overflowing.
[20] The way in which she __ shook her fist at the driver in front of her indicated her anger.
[21] The suit was not tailored for someone with a __ build like his.
[22] Many pregnant women have __ appetites and believe they are eating for two people.
[23] His __ behavior toward our employer makes me uncomfortable.
[24] “Now I pronounce you man and wife” is the phrase that means a kiss is __.
[25] The attorney __(ed) the jury to examine the evidence and find his client innocent.
[26] Some feminists believe that beauty contests are __ competitions that are intended for a
man’s pleasure.
[27] The opened, unlocked door was a __ clue that the apartment had been invaded.
[28] The art collector bought an expensive __ of one of Monet’s pieces.
[29] Her thorough resume and faultless __ made her an unbeatable candidate for the new
position.
[30] The army’s __ caused absolute chaos in the country.

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar Vocabulary Test One
Answer Key
[1] b [16] ad
[2] ac [17] c
[3] e [18] be
[4] ae [19] ce
[5] d [20] de
[6] ce [21] ac
[7] bd [22] d
[8] cd [23] ab
[9] de [24] bd
[10] be [25] bc
[11] a [26] b
[12] ad [27] ae
[13] ab [28] e
[14] bc [29] a
[15] c [30] cd

Appendix B
“The Tragic Hero” Essay Instructions
Many of William Shakespeare’s characters meet the qualifications of a tragic hero as defined by
the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Your task is to see if Marcus Brutus also meets those
qualifications.
Directions:
[1] Using your knowledge of the play as well as the characteristics of a tragic hero, decide if
Brutus falls into the category of a tragic hero. First, using the address given for Defining a Tragic
Hero above, find the qualities of the tragic hero. Next, note the qualities that are characteristics
of Brutus. Find evidence in the play (act, scene, and line numbers) that corresponds to each of
the characteristics that you have chosen.
[2] Review the information on writing analytical papers at the address for A Guide to
Writing Analytical Essays. Note the information that is needed in the introduction, body, and
conclusion. Choose three tragic hero qualities to discuss in the essay, and write the rough draft
following the directions given at this website. When you develop the body of the essay, be sure
to quote the lines from the play accurately by following the guidelines provided at the Quoting
Shakespeare website.
[3] Review the rough draft and edit it according to the suggestions provided at the Editing
and Proofreading Tips page. Carefully edit your paper; then compose the final draft. Proofread
the final draft as well.
Additional Directions:
[1] Use at least 10 of the vocabulary words that you learned from this unit in your essay.
Underline them in the final copy.
[2] Essay titles should be informative, creative, and original.
[3] Final copies need to be typed (Times New Roman, 12 font) and in MLA manuscript
form.
[4] The essay will be scored as a test grade; see the attached rubric for scoring criteria.
ESSAY DUE DATE:
________________________________________________________________

“The Tragic Hero” Essay Rubric
Student Name: ________________________________________________________________
Essay Title: ___________________________________________________________________
40 points Content The essay is on topic; it provides background
information as well as adequate and reliable
evidence to support tragic hero qualities.
20 points Movement The essay moves logically from one point to the
next; ideas are linked by transitions that are
provided throughout the paper.
15 points Writing Style The writing is a mature style that includes a
variety of sentence types and sentence lengths.
Word choice is logical and includes usage of
newly acquired vocabulary.
15 points MLA Manuscript Form All required areas of MLA manuscript are
completed accurately.
10 points Grammar/Spelling/
Punctuation/Mechanics
The essay is free of errors in grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and mechanics.
Total Score: __________

Appendix C
Student Observation Checklist
_____ Word-List Instruction
_____ Context Clue Instruction
Assignment: _____________________________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________________________________
Student On-Task Following Directions Interacting with Peers

Appendix D
Student Attitude Survey
The following survey will be used to evaluate student opinions of two vocabulary-learning
methods. This information will be used in data collection for my research project at
Valdosta State University. Students are not required to participate in the survey.
Directions: Using the following scale, rate each statement according to your degree of
agreement or disagreement.
SA = strongly agree A = agree U = undecided D = disagree SD = strongly disagree
SA A U D SD
1 I learn vocabulary words easily when they
are taught separately from literature.
2 I find it easy to remember vocabulary
words when I look for the meaning in a
dictionary or glossary.
3 When I am reading and come to a word
that I do not know the meaning of, I use
context clues in the sentence to figure out
the word’s meaning.
4 When I am reading and come to a word
that I do not know the meaning of, I use a
dictionary to figure out the word’s
meaning.
5 After taking a test over vocabulary words
from the vocabulary workbooks, I often
use those words in my own speaking
and/or writing.
6 After taking a test over vocabulary words
from the vocabulary workbooks, I often
forget the words.
7 Overall, I am satisfied with the amount of
words I can remember from the
vocabulary workbooks.
8 I believe another method of vocabulary
instruction might be helpful in order for
me to retain more vocabulary.

Research paper dena rogers

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Research paper dena rogers

Similar to Research paper dena rogers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Research paper dena rogers