Direct Vs. Indirect Vocabulary Instruction

Vacca &Vacca (2008) capture the importance of vocabulary knowledge to literacy when they say, “there is a strong connection between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. If students are not familiar with most words they meet in print, they will undoubtedly have trouble understanding what they read.” (p. 142).

Bromley (2007) endorse this when she argues:

Vocabulary is a principle contributor to comprehension, fluency and achievement. Vocabulary development is both an outcome of comprehension and a precursor to it, with word meanings making up as much as 70-80% of comprehension (Davis, 1972; Nagy & Scott, 2000; pressley,2002). Fluent readers recognise and understand many words, and they read more quickly and easily than those with smaller vocabularies (Allington, 2006; Samuels, 2002.). Students with large vocabularies understand text better and score higher on achievement tests than those with small vocabularies (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). (p.528)

Vacca & Vacca (2008) advocate indirect instruction , filtering the vocabulary building lesson into the core lesson (p.143), while Bromley(2005) seems to consider learning vocabulary in a more in-depth manner when he advocates separate, direct instruction of vocabulary that “...engages students in the meanings of new words and their letter, sound and spelling patterns” (p. 534), rather than just studying context.

Indeed, Vacca and Vacca (2009) advocates a non-direct approach to teaching vocabulary as best. This of course will facilitate independent learning.

However, should we expect our students who are already frustrated because they struggle with reading, to take the initiative to study vocabulary on their own? I believe that effective teachers should incorporate both methods advocated by these authors, that is, a combination of direct and indirect vocabulary instruction.

Please share your thoughts.

REFERENCES:

Bromley, K. (2007). Nine things every teacher should know about words and vocabulary
instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50 (7), 528-536.

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2008). Content area reading: Literacy and learning
across the curriculum. New York: Pearson.

Our reality... how can we teach students Standard English when so many different varieties of the creole exist???

Teaching language and literacy in vernacular situations: Participant of an in-service teacher’s workshop by Dennis R. Craig provides some very useful information for teachers of the Caribbean.

1. It highlights the problem of teaching language and literacy in the Caribbean where many varieties of English based creoles exist.

2. He purports that this problem is amplified because of the simultaneous changes that have been occurring in the traditional standard variety of English and because liberalism has facilitated the acceptance of the creoles so that they became the norm ( Craig p.4)and because from the 1970s communicative and whole language approaches to teaching “...left a vaccum...about what best to do in language and literacy education” (Craig p.5).

3. The article then seeks to offer a solution to this void by advocating that the best policy in language education is “...not to go wholesale for any one method or approach” (Craig p.5), but to select strategies that meet the specific needs of learners regardless of the historical origins of the approaches (Craig p.5).

I agree that in order for us to be effective at combatting the literacy crisis that exists in our country, we need to use a variety of methods. Please share with me the method(s) you have used successfully.

Generative Reading to help our struggling adolescent readers :-)

Generative Reading has been criticized as being teacher centered, thereby negatively affecting the learning potential of the struggling adolescent reader. I believe however, that it is a useful strategy, once it is employed in a manner that is not demeaning to the student. What do you think?

Generative Reading is a strategy that allows students to move from being passive recipients in the classroom, that is, just reactors to discussions generated by the teacher.

- It allows students to become ‘generators’ or initiators of discussions in the classroom.

-In order for this strategy to be effective however, it requires ‘taking turns’ since the teacher must model for students how to become initiators of discussions on a topic or written piece

While one may argue that this strategy is very teacher centred, so that there is the risk of it impeding students’ cognitive, affective, and expressive processes, I believe that once executed properly, it can be very beneficial to facilitating students’ development as independent and critical thinkers. Indeed, taking turns has its place in the classroom, especially with struggling readers who need Echo Reading, Choral Reading and Read Alouds to develop fluency in reading.

What is appropriate instruction for students who fall into the categories of ESL and LEP????

Can content instruction and English language instruction be done in tandem for ESL's and LEPs? Please share your thoughts...

ESL - English as a Second Language
LEP-Low English Proficiency

I think that content instruction and English Language instruction can be done in tandem for ESLs and LEPs but it will require serious dedication on the part of the teacher and student.

Vacca and Vacca (2008) advocate the Sheltered Instruction for English Learners that would entail such strategies as:

• simplifying language,

• speaking slowly and clearly,

• repetition,

• developing vocabulary,

• using the repeated reading strategy,

• other methods for active engagement including a variety of instructional materials, and writing strategies.


One must understand however, that a student who falls in the category of ESL or LEP will surely struggle with reading and writing in the content area. It follows therefore, that for these strategies to be effective the teacher must make a commitment to being well organised, that is, he must always have well planned lessons that are dynamic and engaging to the students at all times. Indeed, all teachers can be effective and meet the needs of our students as long as we are committed to those under our charge.

The Attitude of Secondary School Teachers towards the teaching of Reading!

Here is an article review of Secondary School teachers' attitude towards the teaching of reading. I really do feel that all teachers across all content areas should see themselves as teachers of reading, and not just leave that responsiblity to the Language Arts teachers. Have a good read, and please share your thoughts...


J. O’Rourke, W (1980). Research on the attitude of secondary teachers toward teaching reading
in content classrooms. Journal of reading, 234, 337-339.

SUMMARY OF ARTICLE

Research on the attitude of secondary teachers toward teaching reading in content classrooms by William J. O’Rourke is an insightful article that addresses the various shortcomings of teaching reading in the content areas. He lays the foundation for his research by identifying a major deficiency in Secondary Schools’ reading programs, that is, that they only comprise remedial reading and he notes further that positive attitudes on the part of teachers toward this initiative needs to be fostered.
O’Rourke then analyzes research done in this area. He discusses ‘The Nebraska Study’ that analysed teachers’ attitudes at the junior and senior high school levels. He found no difference in attitudes based on whether the teacher taught at junior high or senior, nor did teachers’ years of experience determine their attitude. Not surprisingly, English teachers revealed the most positive attitude with all other subject areas scoring “average” (p. 338). This he argues confirm notions that English teachers are associated with reading because of their training and because teaching English requires much reading (p. 338). He also notes that most of his sample had not taken a university reading course, nor did they participate in in-service reading workshops.
He concludes by recommending that a course on teaching reading should be required for teacher certification and that content reading workshops should be set up for teachers. This he believes will improve teacher attitude, although he does note that further research needs to be done to “measure the relationship between attitude and skills” (p. 339). He ends by arguing that only when reading can be incorporated in all content areas then, “we can begin to make more than just pious claims” (339).

COMMENTARY:

This is an article that was written since 1980, but sadly in 2010 there is little change. Reading programs at the Secondary level is still limited to remedial reading and there is still the pervading attitude that it is the English teacher’s responsibility to teach reading, so that it is not done in other content areas. Indeed if a teacher does this in one of the content areas it is because of his personal philosophy, because although it is encouraged by the Ministry of Education, there are no formal measures in place to ensure that this is done. No wonder there is a global, regional and local reading/literacy crisis.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has been made efforts to incorporate reading across all content areas. In the new syllabuses, there is a reading strand across all subject areas. However, teachers stick to their old attitudes, see reading as the responsibility of the English teacher, and focus on delivering the content matter of the curriculum. As a teacher, I myself am guilty of this because in my practice I have blindly accepted the notion that it is the Language Arts teacher’s responsibility to teach reading and ensure that children master Standard English. In this respect, I find this article very thought provoking because although I have heard the saying that ‘all teachers are teachers of reading’ I never truly internalized and believed this before. I have finally changed my attitude, because I see the merits of this.
I cannot help but wonder though, that if all teachers were teachers of reading, would the literacy problem in Trinidad, the region and the world have gotten to this crisis level? Indeed, teachers need to get out of this old mode of thinking because our students are suffering.
As advocated by J. O’Rourke, I really think that the Ministry of Education needs to implement a rigorous in-service training in the teaching of reading for teachers across the subject areas, that a university reading course be a basic requirement of all teachers, regardless of the subject area they teach, and they need to market the idea more of all teachers being teachers of reading. In the meantime, I will do my part to encourage my peers at work to get involved. If I do this, then certainly I will effect some change among teachers. An improved attitude to teaching reading on the part of the teacher will certainly filter to an improved attitude to reading on the part of the student. They will ultimately benefit.

How Literacy Centres can be used to provide Appropriate Instruction for Struggling Students.

I have successfully used literacy centres in my classroom to trigger enthusiasm for reading among students. I organized the activities so that the stronger students helped those who were struggling. the students responded well, if only because it broke away from the monotony of the classroom. after the intervention, however, they seemed to revert to their old nonchalant attitude towards reading. Being an effective teacher really requires a commitment to be dynamic. Please share your thoughts so that I will be able to improve and stir a permanent interest in reading amongst our students

Stout (2009) cites Deboer (2002) as stating that the current trends toward standards-based education have decreased the opportunities for child-centered teaching and reduced the autonomy of teachers (p.1). Deboer (2002) found that when content standards are more general and teachers and schools are given more flexibility, then teachers can teach to the interests of their students, thereby maintaining on-task behaviour (p.1). Indeed, in order to compensate for the existing curriculum, Stout (2009) aptly argues some teachers create their own programmes utilizing their best practices (p. 1). Other teachers simply express frustration and feel that they do not know what to do to meet the needs of students.

Lee and Neal (1993) accurately describe the plight of the reading-challenged Secondary school student of Trinidad and Tobago when they state that there are many students who are forced to read at frustration level each school day. They state further that these students’ reading skills improve little each year, they essentially fall further behind their peers, and some of them are labelled learning disabled and slow learners, but the fact is that they have the potential to learn if they receive appropriate instruction (p.278).

Indeed, as Stout accurately argues, literacy centres once used appropriately can enable teachers to, “differentiate instruction, address the interests of students, keep the learning child-centered, create socially-based learning, and teach children within their zones of proximal development” (p. 2-3). She stresses the importance of effective implementation when she notes:
Literacy centers should be introduced in ways that link them to other classroom activities. The teacher should state the purpose of each activity. Ford and Opitz (2005) suggest that the teacher gradually introduce the centers by modeling the activities for the students and giving the students clear, accountable expectations for work produced in each center. Social interaction, found by Johnson and Johnson (1981) to increase productivity and achievement, and the use of more than one language system are also important elements of an effective center. For example, the students are not only reading text, they are also writing and discussing texts. Effective centers require students to transfer meaning and reconstruct it in other contexts such as a center where a student reads a book and then creates a board game based on the plot. Finally, an effective center offers a range of acceptable responses (Cambourne & Labbo, 2001). For instance, some students may create words or sentences with magnetic letters, while others may be placing letters in alphabetical order. (p.2).

It is clear from the research conducted that literacy centres can be used as an effective tool to rectify the reading crisis that is plaguing the globe and even Trinidad and Tobago. Much educational research has been conducted and advocates that students learn best in learner-centred environments. It follows that since the use of these centres are also consistent with the work of Constructivist learning, that advocates that the learner learns best when he is “actively engaged in the learning process” (Tracey & Morrow (2006), p.47) ,and Inquiry Learning that stresses the critical role that the teacher plays in students learning and in creating the right environment for this to take place (Tracey & Morrow (2006), p.49), there is much evidence to substantiate them as a practical and effective tool to rectify the plight of many teens in our country.

REFERENCES

Lee, N.G., & Neal, J.C. (1993). Reading Rescue: Intervention for a student “at promise”. Journal of Reading, 36(4), 276-282.

Stout, R. (2009). Putting literacy centers to work: A novice teacher utilizes
literacy centers to improve reading instruction. Networks, 11(1), 1-6.

Tracey D., & Morrow L.M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models. New York: the Guildford press.

Readability versus Leveling...

This is important in order to ensure that we select appropriate reading material for our struggling adolescents :-). Please click on the link below to learn more about Fry's readability formula.


Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus levelling. The reading teacher , 56 (3), 286- 291.


SUMMARY OF ARTICLE:
Readability versus leveling by Edward Fry is an insightful article that compares the merits of two procedures in assessing the grade level of, and therefore, the suitability of reading material for students. Fry starts by defining the two procedures arguing that Readability formulas give a numerical score that “corresponds to a suggested approximate grade level” (p. 286), while Leveling is similar but is more subjective and is used mostly at the beginning levels of readers.
He then delves into the history of readability and levelling, noting that although readability has been more popularized since 1923 and although it is widely researched in education, leveling has a longer history since 1836 (p. 286). He attributes the popularization of levelling in the United States to Marie Clay who used the Reading Recovery System for the first and second grade levels, when at the time there existed various readability formulas that measured “whole-grade designations at primary grades” (p. 287).
Fry notes that readability formulas test syntactic and semantic difficulty, and that they are so objective that they can be done by computers. In fact many commercial companies have added a “level of sophistication to readability by using computers” (p. 289). On the other hand, levelling is less objective, and seeks to compensate for the limitations of readability formulas by taking into consideration the appropriateness of the content for the age group, length of text, the use of pictures and vocabulary, whether or not the language used include repetitions, the reader’s background and the design of the page layout. He does note however, that readability covers a wide range up to grade 17, while levelling is used only for elementary levels. He concludes that readability is important to prevent struggling readers from becoming frustrated, but that levelling has the strength of taking into account more factors that traditional readability formulas ignore. He advocates that teachers should use a combination of these in order for students to have a “successful learning experience” (p.291).


COMMENTARY:
I have learnt much from this article. Although I was aware that some texts come with the recommended age/grade group, I was unaware that there were formal procedures for determining this. Not surprisingly, I was amazed that there exists computer software that can determine the readability of a text and that this is a huge commercial enterprise, since companies spend a lot of money investing in and using them.
Nevertheless, I share Fry’s view that both procedures can be combined to rectify the reading crisis in Trinidad and Tobago. As a person who will be charged with the responsibility of going out to implement remediation programmes for Secondary School students, it will be important to take into consideration their readability level, since these formulas are not just limited to primary level books. However, the content must be such that it appeals to teens, so that they will not feel humiliated by being forced to read texts designed for little children. This is where levelling will be useful. Furthermore, leveling will also allow me to select texts that will be relevant to our local social and cultural context, so that the children will find the material relevant and be able to identify with it. As Lee & Neal (1993) state, once students receive “appropriate instruction” (p. 278), they will learn meaningfully. I believe I can use readability and levelling to deliver instruction meaningfully to students so that they will become literate and have a passion for reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry_readability_formula