Abstract
The results of National Assessment of Educational Progress’ (NAEP) National Report Card (2011) show that the reading average scale score for the fourth-grade English Learners (ELs) in California is significantly lower than the national average for all students and average score of the fourth-grade non-ELs in California. Research has shown causal relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. Vocabulary knowledge is one of the main factors affecting reading comprehension for both EL and non-ELs. There were two purposes in this study. One purpose was to assess, describe, and compare the vocabulary and reading comprehension levels of 28 4th-grade ELs and 26 reclassified fluent English proficient (RFEP) students as measured by a norm-referenced, standardized test of reading achievement. The second purpose was to describe teachers’ knowledge, perception of effectiveness, and use of research-based approaches to developing students' vocabulary knowledge. Quantitative data for this study were collected through 54 students’ vocabulary and comprehension scores from the fourth edition of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT) (2000). A five-point Likert scale survey investigated teachers’ understanding and use of research-based approaches to vocabulary development. Qualitative data included teacher experience and frequency of vocabulary instruction and open-ended questions describing teachers’ greatest concerns in teaching vocabulary and their approaches to vocabulary teaching and assessing students’ vocabulary development. The study revealed that vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension were more problematic for ELs than for RFEP students. Among the ELs, 64% were below average in vocabulary (with stanine scores between 1 and 3), and 54% were below average in reading comprehension. The correlation between the ELs’ vocabulary and comprehension scores was 0.49. Among RFEP students, 96% were average and 4% were above average in vocabulary; and 81% were average and 19% were above average in comprehension. The correlation coefficient between vocabulary and comprehension scores for the RFEP students was 0.53. In the survey, pre-instruction of vocabulary words, word structure, teaching vocabulary as new concepts and sheltered instruction were the strategies that teachers used and had high knowledge about. On the other hand, basic mnemonic techniques, such as traditional memory techniques involving vocabulary drills, flash cards, vocabulary games, notebooks, repetitions, and recall tests and ELD materials, such as text revision, were among the ones teachers rarely used. Half of the teachers considered wide reading to be effective and used it. Some ELD materials, adopted programs, and sheltered approaches, such as SIOP and text revision, were not used because teachers were not familiar with them. Under the ELD materials, adopted programs and sheltered approaches, SDAIE, was not frequently used even when teachers understood it and considered it to be effective. Under the multi-faceted methods category, elaborate/rich instruction was found effective by four teachers although only two teachers used it. No teachers found dictionary/glossary usage highly effective and only one teacher used it. Three teachers preferred matching words with their definitions or synonyms/antonyms to assess both short- and long-term vocabulary developments of the ELs. Contextual analysis such as passage integration training was found ineffective by one teacher and two teachers used it. There were significant differences in how many words teachers covered each week and in the time they spent on vocabulary instruction. No teachers mentioned assessing students’ vocabulary levels in their approaches to teaching vocabulary and how to detect students’ vocabulary levels along a continuum of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 words. Teachers generally had difficulty in finding enough time for vocabulary instruction and transferring targeted words to long-term memory. Implications of these results are discussed.