Implementing_Vocabulary_Instruction_in_Secondary_Science

Running head: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION Implementing Vocabulary Instruction in Secondary Science By Christal Miller Grand Canyon University SED 535: Adolescent Literacy Alicia Leach August 9, 2010 Implementing Vocabulary Instruction in Secondary Science Attention to vocabulary has become a focal point in bringing up the literacy levels in secondary schools. In order to increase literacy in secondary schools there are tools teachers can use in their instruction to promote vocabulary growth in these students. First of all, teachers need to be aware of tools, which will complement their teaching style while encouraging knowledge of vocabulary. Second of all, teachers need a plan to implement these tools for optimal vocabulary understanding. In this plan, there are several aspects to conceder when teaching vocabulary. One, the teacher must consider the process by which they will teach vocabulary instruction. Two, the teacher needs to decide what the appropriate number of vocabulary words they will present to students each week. Three, the teacher also must decide how frequently the students will work with the vocabulary words. Four, there are certain materials teachers use in class instruction to shed light on vocabulary meaning or during activities for the purpose of creating authentic learning experiences for the students. Five, teachers utilize three types of activities for authentic learning, which include application/review activities, student engagement activities, and activities to encourage student self-reflection. The last tool needed to complete this type of plan is a process by which the teacher will monitor the accuracy of their students understanding of the vocabulary being taught. The process of integrating vocabulary onto instruction can be a challenge unless it is broken down into pieces students can assimilate. According to a report from the U.S. Department of Education, “Towards the Characterization of Academic Language in Upper Elementary Science Classrooms. CSE Report 621”, (Alison Baily, 2004, p. 5), students need to be able to communicate and use language for different purposes in any given content area, which requires a broad knowledge of vocabulary from students. This report offers some tested approaches to academic instruction incorporating vocabulary growth. Two approaches mentioned in the report are Constructivist Approach and Direct Instruction. Within the constructivist approach, learning is a process by which students gather information from their surroundings and peer interactions with to encourage assimilation and interpretation of the material (Alison Baily, 2004, p. 8). With direct instruction, teachers give students specific instruction on certain content, which is broken down into specific parts (Alison Baily, 2004, pp. 9-10). Students should have access to both approaches as one focuses on students’ internalization of the information (Constructivist Approach) and one focuses on the skills needed to understand/manipulate the material (Direct Instruction). Moreover, there are also four vocabulary supports to assist in information retention (Alison Baily, 2004, p. 38). The first support examines the need for teachers to supplying explicit definitions, which are necessary for in both specialized and non-specialized academic vocabulary (Alison Baily, 2004, p. 39). The next support examines synonyms and their connection to the words they use academically and in everyday life (Alison Baily, 2004, p. 41), which provide students with an ever growing vocabulary base used in detailed explanations/descriptions. Subsequently, the following support is examples (Alison Baily, 2004, p. 43). Examples give students the opportunity to test their new found understanding of words and it is a great opportunity for teachers to monitor students’ grasp of the material. Finally, the last support is repetition (Alison Baily, 2004, p. 45), which only makes sense, as “practice makes perfect”. It is shown that students’ retention of vocabulary information is enhanced by multiple modes of learning. In light of this, applying different types of vocabulary supports are essential to a functional implementation plan. In addition to these instructional approaches and supports, Harmon, Hendrick, and Wood (Research on Vocabulary Instruction in the Content Areas: Implications for Struggling Readers, 2005) examine how pre-reading has been shown to increase success in student retention of vocabulary and an increase in their literacy in science (p. 272). In a vocabulary implementation plan, pre-reading can be an opportunity for teachers to address past and present vocabulary for students who may be struggling with literacy. In this way students have a chance to discuss vocabulary meaning with the teacher and amongst their peers, which has been shown to increase understanding (Janis Harmon, 2005, p. 273). Now that the process for vocabulary instruction has been mapped out, other aspects of the plan need to be addressed; such as the number of vocabulary words presented per week and the frequency of which those words will be worked with. Depending on the content-specific class, there are various ways a teacher can estimate the number of vocabulary words to present each week and how often they will be used. Due to the fact that science contains so much complex terminology, there are many challenging vocabulary words to cover. This creates a large word work load for student to learn, which must be broken down into conceptual chunks (Janis Harmon, 2005, p. 271). As mentioned in Spencer and Guillaume’s article, “Integrating Curriculum Through the Learning Cycle: Content-Based Reading and Vocabulary Instruction” (2006, p. 207), vocabulary in science is the building block for further understanding. Some tools teachers can use, which are documented in the aforementioned article (Guillaume, 2006), are using a combination of firsthand experiences with print resources to enhance learning (p. 208), promoting student interaction through discussion/activities (p. 209), guiding student learning for optimal learning (p. 209), and taking a metacognitive approach to instruction by helping students to become independent learners (p. 209). These four tools are supposed to complement Spencer and Guillaume’s idea of the four phases of the learning cycle (Guillaume, 2006). The four phases of the learning cycle encompass student engagement, student exploration, student understanding/development, and student application (Guillaume, 2006, pp. 210-211). With students’ needs for vocabulary instruction examined, the teacher can now decide what the most advantageous number of vocabulary words to present to their students will be and how often they will be worked with. Most science lessons are formed around certain concepts, so a teacher should gage the difficulty of the content and divide the vocabulary up into groupings which will encourage vocabulary development by building on the vocabulary before it. For example, if the lesson was on organic chemistry and students already studied the elements, it would be best to introduce vocabulary on orbitals before vocabulary on bonding, as the orbitals generate the circumstances for which bonding occurs. The next tool for successfully implementing vocabulary instruction is utilizing the proper activities to encourage vocabulary retention. The materials may vary across activities, but the activities can be narrowed down to three types: application/review, student engagement, and self-reflection. Application and review activities are usually hands-on or manipulative and incorporate a review of what has been learned while giving student an opportunity to apply what they have learned to a complementary scenario. The article in Studies in Teaching: 2005 Research Digest (Leah MaCoy, 2005), review some techniques for implementing this sort of activity (p. 57). For example, the teacher could use complementary primary sources with the text to deepen understanding and vocabulary application. The materials for these activities may include scientific journals/books, encyclopedias, computers, and any other sources of scientific information. Student engagement activities include discussions and lab exercises, which put the information they learned in the lesson, including vocabulary, and provide students a chance to employ their understanding of it. Materials for labs is extensive and variable; however, most science classes, especially biology and chemistry, carry these supplies in their vicinity. Self-reflection activities usually are independently done and can incorporate discussion time at the beginning/end of the activity. For instance, a teacher’s activity from the article in Studies in Teaching: 2005 Research Digest (pp. 57-58), which is modified in this example, is as follows. The students have the choice of several different sources, both primary and secondary for their self reflection. Next, students read the article and then form a testable hypothesis on what they read. This sort of activity allows students to think about how the scientific information, written by others, can be used to extent and elaborate on scientific ideas. Many of these activities are arranged so that teachers can observe and monitor students’ understanding. However, there are also specific activities geared towards review and assessment. Some good examples of this come from the article, “A Professional Development Initiative for Developing Approaches to Vocabulary Instruction with Secondary Mathematics, Art, Science, and English Teachers” (Linda Kucan, 2007), are learning how words work (p. 179), multi-genre reading and writing (p. 180), and discovering shared word roots (p. 184). All three of these activities can be used in the activities discussed earlier, but they are very specific to review and assessment for the teacher’s benefit. An excellent tool for task assessment of this variety is examined in the CSE Report (Towards the Characterization of Academic Language in Upper Elementary Science Classrooms: CSE Report 621, 2004), which includes students’ understanding for all aspects of the task before them, learning strategies, repair strategies, and implicit assessment from the teacher and of the students (pp. 49-66). In conclusion, to formulate a good plan for implementing vocabulary instruction there are many aspects of instruction and the tools to be used to consider. The most important is the process by which the teacher chooses to implement vocabulary instruction. The next is the amount and frequency of vocabulary words to be introduces each week. Following this, acceptable activities and materials need to be chosen to compliment the vocabulary being taught. Finally, there needs to be a means of monitoring student understanding of the vocabulary and its application. When a teacher employs each of these tools, as suited to their teaching style, students have a far greater chance of retaining vocabulary and increasing their literacy. References Bailey, A., Butler, F., LaFramenta, C., Ong, C., & California Univ., L. (2004). Towards the Characterization of Academic Language in Upper Elementary Science Classrooms. CSE Report 621. US Department of Education, Retrieved August 9, 2010, from ERIC database. Harmon, J., Hedrick, W., & Wood, K. (2005). Research on Vocabulary Instruction in the Content Areas: Implications for Struggling Readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(3), 261-280. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from ERIC database. Kucan, L., Trathen, W., & Straits, W. (2007). A Professional Development Initiative for Developing Approaches to Vocabulary Instruction with Secondary Mathematics, Art, Science, and English Teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(2), 175-195. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from ERIC database. McCoy, L., & Wake Forest Univ., W. (2005). Studies in Teaching: 2005 Research Digest. Research Projects Presented at Annual Research Forum (Winston-Salem, North Carolina, December 7, 2005). Online Submission. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from ERIC database. Spencer, B., & Guillaume, A. (2006). Integrating Curriculum through the Learning Cycle: Content-Based Reading and Vocabulary Instruction. Reading Teacher, 60(3), 206-219. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from ERIC database.