1 / 16

Middle School Comparison of Two Vocabulary Strategies Rachel Wetta Wichita State University

Middle School Comparison of Two Vocabulary Strategies Rachel Wetta Wichita State University Fall 2011. Outline of Presentation. Participants Multiple Exposures Multiple Exposures R esults Structured Discussions Structured Discussions R esults Comparison of Strategies Conclusion

xarles
Download Presentation

Middle School Comparison of Two Vocabulary Strategies Rachel Wetta Wichita State University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Middle School Comparison of Two Vocabulary Strategies Rachel Wetta Wichita State University Fall 2011

  2. Outline of Presentation • Participants • Multiple Exposures • Multiple ExposuresResults • Structured Discussions • Structured Discussions Results • Comparison of Strategies • Conclusion • References

  3. Participants The class that participated contains 25 students. There are 10 boys and 15 girls. This class is an advanced skills class who is currently working one grade level ahead. All of the students passed the State Assessment last year. Twenty three of the students are seventh graders, and two are sixth graders.

  4. Methods:Teacher-selected Strategy Multiple Exposures • Research showed that "...regular, systematic instruction in academic vocabulary... could be effective in boosting reading comprehension skills." (Kelley, Lesaux, Faller, & Kieffer, 2010, p. 6) • Selected words: rational number, multiple, factor, numerator, denominator, simplify, reciprocal, and opposite • Attempts were made to expose students to the vocabulary in different ways each day including: Bellwork, visual representation, converstations, and definitions.

  5. Assessments: Teacher-selected Strategy Multiple Exposures • Pretest: Ticket out, students must write the definition of each word before leaving the classroom that day. • Formative: Bellwork, math glossary, daily work, teacher observations • Posttest: Given as part of the unit test. Students needed to fill in the definition of each word at the beginning of their test; they were still given each of the eight words.

  6. Results:Teacher-selected Strategy Multiple Exposures

  7. Results:Teacher-selected Strategy Multiple Exposures

  8. Methods:Research-based Strategy Structured Discussions • Structured academic discussions are considered “daily accountability for students to use the new vocabulary they have acquired” and students “need us to provide daily structured and accountable activities that guide their hearing, speaking, reading, and writing” (Kinsella, 2005, p. 6). • Selected words: prime, composite, multiple, factor, least common multiple and greatest common factor

  9. Methods: Research-based Strategy Structured Discussions • Students first made an entry into their math glossary (definition and visual representation) • Students then had the opportunity to discuss each word through a reflection question at the end of the class period. • Sample reflection questions: • Compare prime and composite numbers. How are they similar? How are they different? • How is a multiple different from a least common multiple?)

  10. Assessments: Research-based Strategy Structured Discussions • Pretest: KWL Chart • K- What do I know? • W- What do I want to know? • L- What have I learned? • Formative: Teacher observations of daily reflections and structured academic discussions of their reflections • Posttest: included in the summative assessment of the entire unit. Students were asked to list the definition of each of the six vocabulary words.

  11. Results:Research-based Strategy Structured Discussions

  12. Results:Research-based Strategy Structured Discussions

  13. Comparison of Strategies: Multiple Exposures and Structured Discussions

  14. Conclusions Both strategies showed growth in the students’ vocabulary knowledge, but there were strong differences between them. The teacher-selected strategy was successful on a strictly knowledge based level. Students were asked to learn the words, and given several different methods to learn the definitions. The research-based strategy asked students to think and perform at a higher level of thinking. Students actually discussed the words, and had to compare and contrast what they meant to the concepts we were studying.

  15. Conclusions Because the two strategies were both successful, it is possible they both deserve to be considered when teaching vocabulary. If it is an introductory unit, and all of the knowledge is new to the students, then it might be more beneficial to start with a lower level of comprehension and use Multiple exposures. Once students have a general understanding and are ready to be pushed towards higher levels of thinking, structured discussions have been proven to be successful as well.

  16. References Kelley, J. G., Lesaux, N. K., Faller, S. E., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010, September). Effective academic vocabulary instruction in the urban middle school. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 5-14. Kinsella, K. (2005, November). Teaching academic vocabluary. Aiming High, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.scoe.org/docs/ah/AH_kinsella2.pdf.

More Related