Krom Actionresearchproject

Running head: ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT
Using Robust Vocabulary Instruction to Increase Vocabulary Achievement in a Second Grade

Classroom
Stacy Krom
East Carolina University
ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT
Abstract
The purpose of this action research project was to determine how the use of robust vocabulary
instruction versus a scripted curriculum would affect second grade students vocabulary
achievement. This quasi-experimental pre/post-test design involved forty-five second grade
students from two classes. The intervention group utilized robust vocabulary instruction while
the comparison group used scripted vocabulary instruction characterized by rote memorization of
terms and definitions. An independent t test using the mean gain scores from the pre/post test
(two-tailed p=0.00) and the pre/post vocabulary knowledge rating survey (two-tailed p=0.01)
suggests that robust vocabulary instruction positively influenced vocabulary achievement of the
intervention students.
Keywords: robust vocabulary instruction, vocabulary achievement, second grade
vocabulary, active discussion, modified vocabulary anchor, elementary, primary,
examples/non- examples, prior knowledge, background knowledge
Using Robust Vocabulary Instruction to Increase Vocabulary Achievement in a Second Grade

Classroom
Researchers Hart and Risley (1995) suggest that some students enter kindergarten with a
more limited vocabulary than others. Specifically, students from low-income families are found
to have significantly less vocabulary knowledge prior to entering school (Christ & Wang, 2010).
Listening to language being spoken is the primary manner by which children build their
vocabulary before entering school, and low-income students often lack this early oral language
experience (Beck & McKeown, 2007). Researchers Biemiller and Slonim (2001) approximate
that by the time students reach the second grade, those with large vocabularies understand
roughly 4,000 more root word meanings than their peers. This drastic gap in vocabulary
knowledge between low and middle/high income students puts those who grow up in poverty at
a disadvantage in terms of reading achievement in the future. This emphasizes the fact that
vocabulary instruction is an area where teachers should intentionally focus their instruction.
Instruction focusing on vocabulary is critical. Specifically, researchers have found that
robust vocabulary instruction, characterized by activities such as activating prior knowledge,
using higher-order thinking skills to sort examples and non-examples, and discussing word
characteristics with peers, are particularly effective. The purpose of this paper is to report the
results of an action research project that investigated the following research question: How does
vocabulary instruction using robust activities versus using a scripted curriculum affect
vocabulary achievement of second grade students? A literature review to support the use of this
intervention follows.
Literature Review
Literacy researchers Beck and McKeown (2007) state that a large and rich vocabulary is
strongly related to reading proficiency (p. 251). This idea suggests that vocabulary knowledge
has a powerful influence on students ability to comprehend text, and could positively or
negatively affect students reading achievement in the future. The association between
vocabulary and comprehension makes sense, because if students do not understand words within
the text, they will be unable able to effectively use these words to construct meaning. Ultimately,
the comprehension of text crumbles due to a lack of vocabulary (Beck & McKeown, 2007).
Pardo (2004) further explains that when students are required to spend too much intellectual
power determining meaning of unknown words, they are not able to comprehend the passage as a
whole. This means that a students understanding of vocabulary terms can have a powerful
impact on the comprehension of text, and is a critical component to a strong literacy program.
Researchers also state that the more vocabulary terms a student understands, the easier it
is for them to learn more complicated vocabulary in the future (Beck & McKeown, 2007). In
other words, a strong vocabulary background is correlated with a higher level of vocabulary
growth throughout a students academic career. With a comprehensive vocabulary knowledge
base, students are more likely to learn new words through wide reading, independent reading,
conversations, and other incidental encounters as opposed to students with more limited
vocabularies (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Not only does vocabulary instruction contribute to
comprehension of text, but it also improves a students potential for vocabulary acquisition
independently in the future.
Vocabulary Acquisition Process
Beck, McKeown and Omanson (1987) suggest that different levels of word knowledge
exist. The lowest level of word understanding is described as no knowledge, while the deepest
understanding is described as rich de-contextualized knowledge of a words meaning and its
relation to other words (Coyne et al., 2009, p. 5). There are three levels in between, for a total
of five levels in all. The concept of different levels of vocabulary knowledge enhances the
significance of providing multiple exposures to new terms so that the learner has several
opportunities to improve word understanding and work through the various levels. Because
vocabulary learning occurs in stages, every rich experience a student has with a word through
effective instructional activities builds a more de-contextualized understanding of the term (Stahl
& Fairbanks, 1986).
Being that there are several different levels in the vocabulary learning process, offering
multiple contacts with words throughout the week so that students successfully commit new
knowledge to memory is an effective routine to establish in the classroom. As several
researchers suggest, students learn new vocabulary most effectively when multiple exposures to
words are offered (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al. 2009; Wanzek, 2014). Smith (2008)
concurs with these researchers and cites that when students participate in several shorter, yet
more meaningful opportunities to use new vocabulary throughout the week, the gains in
vocabulary acquisition are greater. This means that vocabulary instruction does not need to be
overly time consuming, but instead it should include a mixture of short, engaging activities
across several days to allow students the opportunity to gradually build knowledge of word
meanings (Wanzek, 2014). Furthermore, multiple exposures to terms could promote higher
levels of reading comprehension because students have a deeper understanding of word
meanings and can apply their knowledge more efficiently (Wanzek, 2014).
Evidence to support the use of offering multiple exposures to words can be found in two
experimental studies. The first study was conducted by Coyne and colleagues (2009). It
examined the effects of two types of vocabulary instruction on the quality of word knowledge
attained. The two types of vocabulary instruction were embedded vocabulary instruction and
extended vocabulary instruction. Students in the extended instruction treatment group
encountered words more frequently than the comparison group because of their contact during
post-reading extended instruction activities. The control group did not participate in extended
activities, lessening their amount of exposures to words throughout the intervention. Researchers
concluded that students who received extended vocabulary instruction across several days
displayed a more in-depth understanding of targeted terms on a post-test than the comparison
group who experienced incidental encounters across the same number of days (Coyne et al.,
2009). This research supports the use of repeated exposures to vocabulary terms through
extended instruction.
Beck and McKeown (2007) obtained similar results during their experimental study,
supporting the use of multiple exposures to words using short, engaging activities. In their study,
kindergarten and first grade students in the control group received approximately five direct
instruction exposures to words while the intervention group received approximately twenty
direct instruction exposures. The intervention group performed significantly better in terms of
depth of understanding of terms on the vocabulary post-test. The intervention group also
performed better on a delayed post test, suggesting that repeated exposure to words contributes
to retention of vocabulary terms. This research advocates that the more meaningful experiences
a student has with a word, the more comprehensive understanding a student will acquire in
relation to the term.
Three Tiers of Vocabulary

Blachowicz, Fisher, and Ogle (2006) suggest that regular classroom teachers, not just
content-area teachers such as math and science, integrate vocabulary into the curriculum (as cited
in Kucan, 2012). Vocabulary terms should not be chosen at random. Instead, careful
consideration should be given to choose words that impact a students comprehension of text
(Pardo, 2004). This suggests that vocabulary terms should be related to the text that students are
reading in class. Research to support this claim can be found in Stahl & Fairbanks (1986) study
(as cited in Marzano, 2004) which provides evidence that direct instruction using words
associated with the classroom content improved vocabulary growth and overall comprehension
of text.
In addition to ensuring that vocabulary terms are relevant to classroom context, teachers
should think about which tier the word fits into. In 1985, researchers Beck and McKeown
suggested that vocabulary terminology be grouped into three tiers: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 (as
cited in Marzano, 2012). Each tier is characterized by a unique set of criteria. Tier 1 words
include basic words that students are likely to learn incidentally because of their high frequency
in text and spoken language. Beck and McKeown list big, baby, and walk as examples of Tier
1 words (as cited in Marzano, 2012, p. 31). These words typically do not need to be the focus of
direct vocabulary instruction because they are often learned through oral language. In
comparison, Tier 2 words are those (words) that students will likely encounter in many texts but
are unlikely to be exposed to in every day contexts (Kucan, 2012, p.363). Typically, these are
sophisticated words used in written language but are not often used by students in spoken
language (Beck & McKeown, 2007). Students are normally familiar with the basic version of
Tier 2 terms, but need explicit, rich instruction to build upon their prior knowledge and solidify
their understanding (Beck & McKeown, 2007, p.253). Beck and McKeown list nimble, feeble,
and vigor as examples of Tier 2 terms (as cited in Marzano, 2012, p. 31). The final
categorization of words, Tier 3, includes content-specific vocabulary terms (as cited in Marzano,
2012). These words are also excellent candidates for direct instruction because they are needed to
understand particular concepts presented within subjects. For example, the Tier 3 term gene is
necessary to understand key concepts in biology. Teachers should use careful consideration
when deciding which vocabulary to teach because each tier serves a distinctive academic
purpose.
Researchers suggest that there is no specific list of grade-appropriate vocabulary terms
available to choose from (Beck & McKeown, 2007). Instead, reading teachers should choose
Tier 2 words that enhance the breadth and depth of students pre-existing vocabulary knowledge
bank (Kucan, 2012). While many Tier 2 choices may seem sophisticated for younger students,
research has shown that these words can be acquired by younger students. Take, for example,
the target words in Beck and McKeowns (2007) study designed for kindergarten and first grade
students. Instruction in kindergarten involved sophisticated terms such as commotion, droop,
and delicate (Beck & McKeown, 2007, p. 267). These words may appear advanced for such
young learners, but by the end of the study, students in the intervention group displayed
significant gains in oral vocabulary knowledge when given multiple exposures to words across
various authentic activities (Beck & McKeown, 2007). This supports the idea that emergent
learners can obtain a deep understanding of sophisticated terms with high-quality instruction. By
choosing Tier 2 words, students can build off of their prior knowledge of Tier 1 terms and
successfully acquire new meaning.
Direct Vocabulary Instruction
Direct vocabulary instruction is defined as time spent intentionally focusing instruction

on developing students knowledge of word meanings by targeting specific words (Wanzek,
2014, p. 140). Young students benefit from direct instruction the most, particularly those who
are reading below grade level (Wanzek, 2014). In contrast, indirect (incidental) vocabulary
instruction consists of learning new words as circumstances present themselves. Words are not
targeted for extended instruction. Students from low-income families are less likely to acquire
new vocabulary knowledge when spontaneous, incidental vocabulary instruction is the sole
method of teaching (Marzano, 2004). When direct vocabulary is embedded within the reading
curriculum, particularly in the early grades, a higher level of vocabulary achievement is obtained
as compared to indirect activities alone (Wanzek, 2014). This suggests that incidental
vocabulary learning should not be the only means by which students are to acquire an
understanding of new terminology. Instead, direct instruction should be incorporated into the
curriculum so that teachers ensure students are intentionally building their vocabularies.
Biemiller and Slonim (2001) discovered that schools are doing very little to target
vocabulary instruction. In Wanzeks (2014) observational study which focused on examining the
amount and type of vocabulary instruction offered in three second grade classrooms, the
researcher found that just eight percent of core classroom reading instruction was dedicated to
direct vocabulary instruction. This puts students with limited vocabulary knowledge at a great
disadvantage in terms of reading ability because direct vocabulary instruction has been shown to
result in more word-meanings being understood by students (Wanzek, 2014). If words are not
being intentionally targeted in school, students vocabulary growth may never reach its full
potential. Researchers suggest incorporating direct vocabulary instruction into the curriculum to
ensure that students are obtaining an understanding of targeted terminology (Kucan, 2012;
10
Wanzek, 2014). Literacy experts have noted several strategies to include during direct
vocabulary instruction.
Instructional Strategies
Researchers have found that adding a discussion component to vocabulary instruction
helps students understand new words (Stahl & Vancil, 1986). This element is important to the
speaker, the non-discussant (listener), and the teacher. Discussion benefits the speaker because
one must show a deeper understanding of a word to produce an answer than to recognize the
correct answer on a worksheet (Stahl & Vancil, 1986, p. 66). It is more difficult to articulate a
response than to identify a correct choice on paper, and discussion promotes higher-level
thinking processes. Conversation benefits the non-discussant because all students anticipate
being called upon and must actively think to process a response even if it is not shared (Stahl &
Vancil, 1986). The listener also has the opportunity to hear how others may interpret the
meaning of words, which ultimately strengthens their own knowledge base. Lastly, discussion is
important to the teacher because it provides insight into what students already know and what
misconceptions the students have about certain words (Stahl & Vancil, 1986). In other words,
conversation throughout vocabulary instruction allows the teacher to respond appropriately to the
needs of the students and provide efficient, meaningful instruction going forward.
In addition to discussion, Winters (2001) suggests that activating background knowledge
and associating specific personal experience with new vocabulary terms have contributed to
vocabulary acquisition. This suggests that associating characteristics of new terms with
characteristics of concepts already embedded within students prior knowledge is a powerful step
in the vocabulary learning process (Christ & Wang, 2010; Wanzek, 2014; Winters, 2001). As
opposed to less impactful vocabulary strategies which do not allow students to establish an
11
association between words, such as looking up the meaning of words in a dictionary, bridging the
gap between the new and the old allows students to anchor their new knowledge to something
familiar (Kucan, 2012). This task is much less daunting for younger students as they are not
expected to construct an entirely new understanding of a word. Establishing connections to
known terminology is especially important to the instruction of Tier 2 words, because students
understanding of a sophisticated Tier 2 word rests upon their ability to relate it to a familiar topic
or Tier 1 word (Kucan, 2012).
In addition to the importance of connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge, several
researchers have highlighted the importance of allowing students to interact with vocabulary
terms in multiple contexts. This contributes to successful long-term acquisition of the words
(Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al., 2009; Stahl & Fairbanks; 1986; Wanzek, 2014). As the
teacher presents new terminology in multiple contexts and students participate in memorable
activities, the students increase their depth of knowledge about specific terms and grow to
understand how words can be used across various situations (Coyne et al., 2009). Activities that
allow students to work with words in new circumstances include generating their own examples
of words in context, making judgments about examples and non-examples of words in contexts
(Beck & McKeown, 2007), and discovering ways to use words outside of school (Wanzek,
2014). In an experimental study conducted by Biemiller and Boote (2006), researchers
concluded that by allowing students to review targeted words one time in context sentences after
they have been defined, a forty-one percent increase in students vocabulary knowledge was
displayed on post-tests as compared to a twenty-two percent increase in knowledge of terms after
one explicit explanation was given and no review opportunities were provided (as cited in Coyne
et al., 2009). Stahl & Fairbanks (1986) support this research when they assert that only when
12
learners are exposed to words in diverse contexts and meaningful activities, can knowledge of a
term be de-contextualized and thoroughly understood for application.
Graphic Organizers and Vocabulary Instruction
In addition to working with words repeatedly across several days with robust activities,
graphic organizers have been cited as a useful tool for young learners acquisition of vocabulary
(Dunston & Tyminski, 2013; Winters, 2001). Graphic organizers are effective because they
allow students to visually represent relationships between terms (Pardo, 2004; Winters, 2001).
They also provide a written reference for students to return to if misconceptions or
misunderstandings occur after explicit instruction has been given. Graphic organizers are an
effective tool to use in order to differentiate instruction and reach students who may have
different learning styles.
Examples of engaging graphic organizers include semantic mapping for the purpose of
classifying related terms (Dunston & Tyminski, 2013), semantic feature analysis for the purpose
of analyzing characteristics of related terms (Dunston & Tyminski, 2013), and Venn diagrams
for the purpose of exploring compare/contrast relationships using pictures or words (Christ &
Wang, 2010). Each of these examples requires students to think deeply about the characteristics
of words and categorize, not just recall the definitions. Other graphic organizers include Frayer
models for the purpose of exploring examples and non-examples of topics (Dunston & Tyminski,
2013), and vocabulary anchors as visual metaphors that allow students to connect new
knowledge to prior knowledge (Winters, 2001). Graphic organizers are effective tools for
vocabulary instruction, especially when they allow students to represent relationships between
new concepts and concepts already known (Pardo, 2004). Each of the above graphic organizers
13
provides an illustration to assist visual learners in the process of committing new knowledge to
memory.
In summation, vocabulary acquisition, a critical element of reading instruction that many
low-income students are lacking, requires strategic instruction in the classroom. It is imperative
that young students begin to acquire a deep understanding of terms from the moment they enter
school because vocabulary has the power to impact reading achievement in the future. It is also
important because the more words that a student understands, the easier it is for them to acquire
new vocabulary knowledge throughout their academic career. By intentionally targeting young
students vocabulary knowledge banks with effective strategies, vocabulary understanding has
the potential to grow exponentially.
Vocabulary instruction is most impactful when students are given scaffolded, direct, and
meaningful activities that require them to connect to background knowledge and interact with the
vocabulary terms in meaningful activities across several days. If these steps are taken, the
teachers have the potential to close the wide learning gap that currently exists between
socioeconomic populations. Explicit vocabulary instruction involving robust vocabulary
activities have the potential to significantly improve young students Tier 2 vocabulary
knowledge, as well as their overall academic success in the future. Throughout this action
research study, the following question was addressed: How will vocabulary instruction using
robust activities versus a scripted curriculum affect vocabulary achievement of second grade
students? The methodological details of the study follow.
Methodology
This action research project followed a quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test design. The
independent variable of interest was the type of vocabulary instruction defined at two levels:
14
traditional scripted instruction and robust vocabulary instruction. The traditional scripted
instruction program was called Reading Mastery 2 Signatures Edition and maintained the
following daily instructional sequence: First, the teacher verbally provided the students with a
dictionary definition of three to five Tier 2 terms and the students repeated the definitions out
loud. Then, students were offered one example of each term used in a sentence, and students
repeated this verbally as well. This same instructional sequence occurred each day for ten
lessons and used the same sentences and definitions. Conversely, robust instruction involved
direct instruction of terms characterized by activating background knowledge with student
friendly definitions, providing opportunities to sort examples and non-examples of terms using
authentic activities, and peer discussion. The dependent variable, vocabulary knowledge, was
operationally defined as a score on the teacher-made pre/post vocabulary assessment.
Dependent
Variable:
Vocabulary
knowledge
Intervention Students:
Vocabulary instruction using
context-related activities
Comparison Students:
Scripted vocabulary instruction using
Reading Mastery program
1. Vocabulary Assessment (pre

and post)
2. Vocabulary Terms Rating
Survey (pre and post)
3. Researcher Log observations
1. Vocabulary Assessment (pre and

post)
2. Vocabulary Terms Rating Survey (pre
and post)
Figure 1: Dependent Variable: This figure illustrates which data sources will be used to evaluate
the dependent variable, vocabulary knowledge.
Participants and Setting
The action research project took place at a K-12 public charter school located in eastern
North Carolina. The school was founded roughly fifteen years ago, and currently serves a
balanced mixture of students from urban and rural communities. Students are transported to
school from four different counties, and seventy percent receive free or reduced priced lunch.
The participants in this study were from a second grade reading classroom.
15
The researcher was the teacher of record for both the intervention and control groups.
The teacher worked in conjunction with a teaching assistant for the duration of the intervention.
The teacher of record had 3.5 years of experience in a second grade classroom 1.5 years at the
current school. The researcher earned a bachelors degree in elementary education from a small
private school in Upstate New York. The teachers role in the action research project involved
direct instruction of the terms using the intervention strategies, monitoring and facilitating
discussion, and collecting and analyzing intervention data. The teaching assistants role was
limited to monitoring behavior during intervention activities. The participating classes were not
self-contained; instead, students were homogenously grouped and received leveled mathematics
and technology instruction from other educators.
The intervention group contained twenty-two students, including eight girls and twelve
boys. Sixteen of those students were African American, five were Caucasian, and one was
Hispanic. The comparison group contained twenty-three students, including twelve girls and
eleven boys. Eighteen students were African American, and five were Caucasian. There were no
students who received exceptional childrens services in either classroom; however, two students
in the intervention classroom received weekly speech services. All students in both classes were
performing below grade level in reading according to NWEA Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP) testing, which was administered in September 2014. One class received the vocabulary
intervention treatment, while the comparison class received the same vocabulary instruction they
received all year from the Reading Mastery program.
Intervention
The participants in the intervention group received robust vocabulary instruction four
days per week. Robust instruction was characterized by activities that allowed students to
16
activate background knowledge with student friendly definitions (Beck & McKeown, 2007;
Christ & Wang, 2010; Coyne et al., 2009), make judgments about examples and non-examples of
terms (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Christ and Wang, 2010), and discuss word associations with
peers across several days to produce an in-depth understanding of vocabulary (Coyne et al.,
2009; Stahl & Vancil, 1986). Furthermore, this intervention utilized Tier 2 terms, because a rich
knowledge of words in the second tier could improve verbal functioning (Beck & McKeown,
2007, p. 254). Vocabulary instruction involving Tier 2 terms could increase the potential for
students to apply these sophisticated words to their studies in the future.
In addition to the robust vocabulary activities, this intervention sequence also integrated a
vocabulary anchor graphic organizer (Winters, 2001). The graphic organizer had been modified
to suit the needs of this specific intervention (see Appendix A). Because activating background
knowledge is such a vital step in the vocabulary acquisition process, the modified anchor graphic
organizer was integrated to provide students with a visual model for the processes of linking
prior knowledge to new terminology (Dunston & Tyminski, 2013; Winters, 2001). As Winters
(2001) states, the vocabulary anchor serves as both a tie to immediate experience and a bridge
to understanding how new words are learned (p. 660). Connecting new vocabulary to prior
knowledge is significant to the vocabulary acquisition process (Winters, 2001).
To describe the modified vocabulary anchor graphic organizer further, it contained three
elements: a ship floating on water, an anchor attached to the ship, and a sail. Winters (2001)
suggested explaining to the students that the process of learning new vocabulary is similar to
how a ship anchors in the water. The anchor helps the boat stay in the one place the same way
that prior knowledge helps students to secure new knowledge to what they already know. The
sail on the graphic organizer served no purpose in Winters version of the tool, but in this
17
intervention, the sail was utilized to record a sentence stem (Beck & McKeown, 2007). A more
detailed explanation of the weekly instructional sequence of activities follows.
The intervention occurred four days per week (see Figure 2). On Mondays, students were
presented with a student-friendly definition of three terms, as well as several examples of the
words being used in sentences (Beck & McKeown, 2007). Definitions and sentences were
created by the teacher. When creating definitions and sentences, the teacher considered the
potential level of knowledge that students may have had prior to instruction. The students
recorded the definition for each term on a separate modified vocabulary anchor graphic organizer
(Winters, 2001). After their definitions were recorded, students anchored this new term to
familiar background knowledge (Christ & Wang, 2010; Winters, 2001). They recorded words or
phrases on their graphic organizer that came to mind when they heard the new word. A partner
discussion followed, because instructional approaches that focus on developing depth of
knowledge most often provide students will extended opportunities to discuss and interact with
words (Coyne et al., 2009, p.3). This concluded Mondays introduction activities, which
focused on introducing terms and activating prior knowledge (Christ & Wang, 2010; Winters,
2001)
On Tuesdays, the teacher provided a brief review of targeted terms orally. Then, students
participated in a whole-group robust activity supported by Beck and McKeown (2013) that
allowed students to sort examples and non-examples of terms in a creative way. Instead of
students listing examples and non-examples on paper, they responded to oral prompts supplied
by the teacher. This was an engaging, fast-paced activity that required students to think about
what constituted an example versus a non-example (Beck & McKeown, 2007). For example,
given the targeted word rescue, students were provided with the following prompt: If any of the
18
things I say are examples of situations you would need to be rescued from, say Save me! If
not, do not say anything: 1) a burning building 2) the couch 3) a car accident 4) the mall 5)
being chased by a mean dog 6) sleeping 7) an airplane crash. If differences of opinion occurred
regarding the answers of the whole-group, the student and the teacher had a chance to discuss the
problem together. Seven to ten examples were provided for each term. This concluded Tuesdays
activities which focused on sorting examples and non-examples of terms.
On Wednesdays, students participated in a partner activity that built off of the previous
days example/non-example activity. Not only did each pair of students need to decipher
between examples and non-examples together, but this activity required them to use higher-order
thinking skills to justify their decisions regarding the most appropriate use of each term in
context. This activity was chosen because, as Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2013) explain,
robust vocabulary activities that require students to rationalize their understanding produce a
more in-depth knowledge of terms. This activity is called Which isWhich wouldWhy?(Beck
& McKeown, 2007; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013). To describe this activity, the term rescue
will be used again: The teacher could provide the class with the following prompt orally and
write it on the board for the students to refer to: Which would be an example of an animal that
needs to be rescued: A dog trapped in a hole, or a dog locked in its cage for the night? Working
as a pair, students would choose which situation best illustrates the targeted word, explain why,
and then share their choice and justification with the whole group. Questions could be framed so
that there are no right or wrong answers, which requires students to validate their answer with
a quality explanation. Students could refer to their graphic organizers as a reference tool during
this activity. This concluded Wednesdays robust vocabulary activity which focused on
justifying the correct use of a term through examples and non-examples.
19
On Thursdays, students returned to their graphic organizer to independently complete a

sentence stem using each targeted term (see Appendix C). This robust strategy is supported by
Beck and McKeown (2007), as well as Coyne and his colleagues (2009). This sentence stem
was integrated into this intervention because it allowed students to apply the knowledge they
have gained throughout the week about each term in an independent format, as well as to provide
additional repeated exposures to each word (Coyne et al., 2009; Smith, 2008). The activity
allowed for some creativity and individual interpretation, but was still structured to ensure
students were producing quality sentences. This was an appropriate concluding activity for the
week because it was completed independently after students had been exposed to multiple
interactions with each term in more supported contexts (whole group, partners, etc.). After
students completed their sentence stems, students shared them with the whole group. This
concluded the weekly series of robust vocabulary activities.
Monday
1) The teacher introduced terms with student friendly definitions

and sentences.
2) Students recorded student friendly definitions on the modified
vocabulary anchor graphic organizer.
3) Students anchored new terms to background knowledge and
record on the graphic organizer.
4) Students shared background knowledge with peers.
Tuesday
1) The teacher provided a review of new terms.
2) Students sorted examples and non-examples of terms verbally.
Wednesday
1) Students participated in the Which is, which would, why?
activity with a partner.
Thursday
1) Students completed a sentence stem and record it on the graphic
organizer.
2) Students shared their sentence stems with the group.
Friday
No intervention activities.
Figure 2: Intervention activities: This figure summarizes the intervention activities that occurred
each day.
The intervention began on Monday, January 12, 2015 (see Figure 3). This week
consisted of administering the pretest and gathering student data in the comparison and
20
intervention classrooms. During the next five weeks, January 19, 2015 through February 20,
2015 students received robust vocabulary instruction four days per week, Monday through
Thursday, for approximately twenty minutes per day. The week beginning on February 23, 2015
was originally designated for administering a post-test and gathering student data, but school was
closed that week due to inclement weather. Administration of the post-test and post-survey did
not occur until March 2, 2015. Several students did not finish until March 3, 2015 due to student
absenteeism.
January 12th -January 15th
January 19th -January 22nd
January 26th- January 29th
February 2nd- February 5th
February 9th- February 12th
February 16th- February 20th
February 23rd- February 26th
Administration of pretest and knowledge rating survey

Week 1 of treatment: survive, rescue, protect
Week 2 of treatment: succeed, approach, equipment
Week 3 of treatment: talent, consult, require
Week 4 of treatment: huddle, imitate, crouch
Week 5 of treatment: customer, valuable, frequently
Original date for administration of post-test and knowledge
rating survey
March 2nd and 3rd

Administration of post test and knowledge rating survey
Figure 3: Intervention schedule: This figure illustrates when the intervention period began and
ended. It also lists which vocabulary terms were studied each week.
Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures
Three data sources were used throughout this project to ensure triangulation of data. Two
sources provided quantitative data while the third instrument served as a qualitative source. The
three data sources were: A teacher-designed pre/post vocabulary test using selected Tier 2
vocabulary terms from the Reading Mastery program, a pre/post vocabulary knowledge rating
survey completed by the students, and a researcher log. Each data source contributed unique
information to be considered by the researcher.
The first quantitative data source was a vocabulary assessment using all of the words
taught during the five week intervention period (see Appendix B). Fifteen Tier 2 words were
targeted throughout the intervention (see Figure 3). The assessment required the students to
21
record the correct vocabulary term next to its definition while being provided with an example of
each term being used in a sentence. Students were familiar with this assessment format because
it is identical to Reading Mastery.
The test was read to the students in whole group, and students recorded their answers on
their papers. They were given extra time at the end of the test to finish independently, but no
other assistance was provided by the researcher or teaching assistant besides the read-aloud. The
differences in scores between pre and post tests for the group were used to determine the
knowledge gained as a result of the intervention. Data was collected by hand following each
assessment, organized into a spreadsheet, and stored on the secure East Carolina University
Pirate Drive.
The second quantitative data source was a pre/post vocabulary knowledge rating survey
(see Appendix C). The purpose of this tool was to measure any difference in students
perceptions of their own vocabulary knowledge prior to the intervention and after receiving
treatment. Some students simply do not perform well on tests, so this data source provided them
with another chance to indicate their level of knowledge. The teacher modeled the correct use of
the survey first, and then emphasized that an honest reflection of their knowledge was valued. It
was important for students to understand that they would not receive a poor grade if they rated
their vocabulary knowledge low. The teacher then proceeded to read each term to the students.
They were offered about thirty seconds to determine their level of understanding until the teacher
moved on to the next term. Each student had their own copy of the survey in front of them, and
scored their knowledge of each term using the following levels: 1- Ive never heard of this word
before. 2- Ive heard of the word before and could figure it out if given hints. 3- Ive heard the
22
word and know what it means. 4- I know the word so well that I could explain the meaning to
others.
To help students further understand each level and the process of vocabulary acquisition,
a visual metaphor was included on each survey. Displayed next to level 1, there was a picture of
one slice of bread to indicate that this was the beginning level of vocabulary understanding, just
like it is the beginning of creating a sandwich. On level 2, there was a slice of bread and a piece
of lettuce to signify an added ingredient or level of knowledge. On level 3, a piece of meat was
added to the sandwich, and on level 4, the sandwich was complete. This visual was meant to
help younger students complete the activity more accurately. Rating scores were added by the
teacher, and each student received a cumulative score. Once again, this data collected following
each test and was stored on the secure East Carolina University Pirate Drive.
The third method of data collection was a researcher log. This qualitative source served a
way for the researcher to record strengths and weaknesses of each lesson, student quotes that
reflected knowledge gained (or lack thereof), general observations, evidence of student progress,
and anything else that appeared relevant to the research project. This data source was stored in
the researchers secure filing cabinet following each daily log session.
Data Analysis
The quantitative data measured was the vocabulary knowledge pre/post survey and the
vocabulary pre/post test. The latter was used to quantitatively determine the overall impact of
the intervention. However, the data collected from the survey was significant, too, because it
gave the researcher an idea of whether the students felt they understand the terms more
thoroughly, not just whether they could demonstrate their knowledge gains on a test. This is why
both data sources were analyzed.
23
The first step the researcher took to analyze the results involved working with the
pre/post test data. The researcher averaged the intervention group pre-test scores as well as their
post-test scores and compared the two class averages. Then, the researcher averaged the
comparison groups pre-test score as well as their post-test score and compared the class
averages. The change scores for each student were also entered into an independent t test to
determine the mean gain scores for each group from pre to post-test. An identical process was
used to analyze the pre/post survey data.
After this data was entered into the independent t test, the vocabulary assessment and
survey data needed to be further analyzed in order to determine whether the results were a direct
result of the intervention or just a random occurrence. The p-value was analyzed for both data
sources to determine statistical significance (less than 0.05).
Lastly, the qualitative data was analyzed using a five step process. First anecdotal notes
were compiled into an electronic researcher log. Then, the log was printed and thoroughly read.
Data was then broken down into categories using a color-coding process. Those categories were
organized into three similar themes pertaining to the larger research question. Finally, the data
was interpreted so that appropriate conclusions could be drawn from the anecdotal notes.
Validity and reliability of trustworthiness. There were a number of threats to validity
that could have impacted the results of this study. The first threat pertained to the characteristics
of the participants. While all participants in the control group and the intervention group tested
below grade level in reading according to the NWEA MAP test in September, the intervention
groups average scores were ten to fifteen points lower than the comparison groups scores. This
threat was uncontrollable due to the fact that classes were constructed by the RMPS Academic
Deans in September 2014.
24
Another threat that existed was a neutrality/conformability threat. Being the classroom
teacher and the researcher at the same time, the researcher was subject to certain uncontrollable
biases. This threat could potentially impact anecdotal notes recorded in the researcher log. To
control this threat, the researcher stayed in contact with her graduate school peers via discussion
board opportunities and sought their input regarding happenings throughout this research study.
Finally, there was a testing threat that could potentially have impacted the results of the
pre/post test. The same questions appeared on the pre/post assessment. In order to reduce the
impact of this threat, the questions were rearranged on the post assessment so that they did not
appear in the same order and the tests were not identical. Also, there was a five week period
between the pre and post assessment, which would help lessen the impact of the testing threat.
In order to strengthen the validity of the results, three data sources were used throughout
the study. The triangulation of data helped reinforce the validity of quantitative and qualitative
data, and allowed the researcher to investigate patterns between the three sources.
However, the results of this study are not generalizable and cannot be transferred to other
classrooms outside of the intervention classroom that received treatment.
Findings/Results
Following the conclusion of the intervention treatment, an independent samples t test was
conducted. The researcher used pre-test and post-test scores to compare second grade students
vocabulary achievement under robust vocabulary instruction (N=22) and scripted vocabulary
instruction (N=23) conditions (see Appendix D). The intervention group averaged 6.72 points on
the vocabulary pre-test and 11.22 points on the vocabulary post-test (see Table 1 and Figure 4).
The independent t test revealed a mean gain score of M=4.50 for the intervention group. On the
other hand, the comparison group averaged 7.00 points on the vocabulary pre-test and 8.65

Table 1
25
Vocabulary Pre-test and Post-test based on Independent t Test

Vocabulary Pre-test
Average Score
Vocabulary Post-test
Average Score
Intervention Group
6.72
11.22
Comparison Group
7.00
8.65
Note: Pre and post- tests were scored on a scale of 0-15.

points on the vocabulary post-test (see Table 1 and Figure 4). The mean gain score for this group
was calculated as M=1.65 points. While both groups began with similar pretest score class
averages (6.72 and 7.00), the students who received robust vocabulary instruction had a
significantly higher mean gain score than the comparison group.
In order to determine the significance of the mean gain analysis, an equal variance
independent samples t test was further examined by means of the p value. For the effect of the
treatment to be significant and not just a random occurrence, the p value must have been <0.05.
In the case of the pre-test/post-test data, p=0.00. This indicated a strong likelihood that the
intervention influenced the positive effect on vocabulary learning for the intervention group and
that these gains were not just a coincidence. A similar analysis was conducted using the results of
the vocabulary pre/post survey in an effort to gain insight into students view of their own
learning.
26
12
10
Intervention Group (N=22)

Comparison Group (N=23)
0
Vocabulary Pre-test Class Average Score
Figure 4. The bar graph represents the average class scores on the vocabulary pre-test and posttest for the intervention and comparison groups. The data is also shown in Table 1.
In order to gauge the students perceptions of their own vocabulary learning, a second
independent samples t test was performed using the results of the pre and post vocabulary rating
survey for students who received robust vocabulary instruction and scripted vocabulary
instruction conditions (see Appendix E). While this data source was not used to determine the
overall effect of the intervention, it offered the researcher valuable insight about students
opinions of their own vocabulary achievement. The intervention group averaged 28.73 points on
the pre-survey and 43.23 points on the post-survey (see Table 2 and Figure 5). The independent
t test revealed a mean gain score of M=14.50 for the intervention group. On the other hand, the
comparison group averaged 30.56 points on the pre-survey and 39.26 points on the post-survey
(see Table 2 and Figure 5). The mean gain score for this group was M=8.70. Although both
groups reported higher levels of vocabulary knowledge on the post-survey than they did during
the pre-survey, the participants who received robust vocabulary instruction reported greater gains
27
as shown by the mean gain score. While this data was encouraging, further investigation of the p
value was conducted using an equal variance analysis to determine the significance of the gains.
In the case of the pre/post survey data, the p value also showed significance (p=0.01).
This data suggested that robust vocabulary instruction treatment positively impacted the
students perceptions of their own vocabulary learning, more-so than scripted instruction.
Table 2
Vocabulary Pre-Survey and Post-Survey based on Independent t Test
Vocabulary Pre-survey
Average Score
Vocabulary Post-survey
Average Score
Intervention Group
28.73
43.23
Comparison Group
30.56
39.26
Note: Pre and post- surveys were scored on a scale of 0-60.

These findings are supported by qualitative notes taken throughout the treatment period.
28
50
45
40
35
30
Intervention Group (N=22)
25
Comparison Group (N=23)
20
15
10
5
0
Vocabulary Pre-Survey
Class Average Score
Figure 5: This bar graph represents average scores on the vocabulary pre-survey and post-survey
for the intervention and comparison groups. The data is presented in Table 2.
Throughout the five week intervention period, the researcher maintained a digital
researcher log. Within the researcher log, the investigator documented lesson goals, observations
of student responses, evidences of student progress in terms of vocabulary learning, and
reflections. These notes were then strategically coded to eventually reveal three main themes in
relation to vocabulary learning: active engagement through discussion, authentic connections to
background knowledge, and independent use of word-learning strategies.
Active engagement through discussion. The researcher log helped the investigator
verify that active engagement through discussion plays a major role in the vocabulary-learning
process. One difference that was consistently noted between the type of instruction received by
the comparison and intervention groups was the amount of discussion with which the student
were involved. Whereas the intervention group had the opportunity to discuss words with others
29
nearly every day, the comparison group never participated in any type of discussion surrounding
the meaning of vocabulary words. The students in the intervention group acted as dynamic
participants in the learning process, whereas the students in the control group acted more as
passive receptors of information by repeating definitions.
The researcher log helped the investigator learn that the discussion is beneficial for three
reasons: it allows for a chance to clarify possible misconceptions in the early stages, it allows
students to hear how others may interpret the meaning of words, and it allows those who already
know the word to re-affirm their knowledge by explaining their reasoning to others. For
example, during a lesson on January 29, 2015 which focused on the meaning of the word
succeed, the researcher noticed that student W misinterpreted the meaning of the term. An
explanation from a peer served as a valuable tool to clear up his misunderstanding. An entry in
the researcher log states that:
When I was walking around, I noticed that W and EP (partners) had two different
answers for the same question involving the meaning of the word succeed. W incorrectly
shared the referee was the one who succeeds in a game of soccer (as opposed to the
player), and EP correctly shared that the player was the one who succeeds in a game of
soccer. All three of us discussed each persons role for about two minutes, as well as
referred back to the definition of succeed on the anchor graphic organizer. It was EP, not
the researcher, that finally explained to W that the player succeeds because the referee
doesnt win anything, he just says the rules. W responded by saying Oh, okay, I get it
now.
Active discussions such as these allowed misunderstandings to be cleared up, as well as offered
students the valuable opportunity to articulate their knowledge to others. This sort of discussion
30
proved to be beneficial throughout the duration of the intervention, and most likely would have
been valuable for the comparison group to experience.
Authentic connections to background knowledge. The researcher log revealed that
students in the intervention group consistently made quality connections to background
knowledge. The modified anchor graphic organizer was the instrument that sparked these
connections, and this background knowledge helped many students recall the meaning of
targeted words in later activities. For example in a lesson targeting the meaning of the term
imitate, students were asked by the researcher What does imitate, or repeating the same thing
as someone/something else, make you think of? Student J responded with The Talking Tom
app on my moms phone repeats everything you say and its annoying. In another lesson
targeting the word require, students were asked by the researcher What does the word require,
or to need, make you think of? Student H responded with a map cause on my trip to
Pennsylvania we needed a map so we didnt get lost. Strong connections to background
knowledge such as these show the students that the content they are learning is relevant and
applicable to real life situations.
Independent use of word-learning strategies. The purpose of teaching students
strategies such as discussion and connecting to background knowledge is so that, eventually
when students come across an unfamiliar vocabulary term on their own, they can call upon the
familiar strategies to help them understand without the teachers assistance. The qualitative data
showed that students made progress when it came to participating in on-task discussion and
referring back to background knowledge to apply the word to a new situation. Student behaviors
throughout the study revealed this change in independence.
31
At the beginning of intervention period during an activity that required students to

complete a sentence stem, students often incorrectly completed the activity by copying the first
half of the sentence into the blank space. Many also chose not to discuss the meaning of the
word with a partner. For example, during an entry from week one of the intervention, the
researcher noted that student J wrote, Bill could have rescued his friend from the bully by Bill
could have rescued his friend. Similar behavior was noted by many students, which showed
that students did not know how to apply the meaning of the term to an unfamiliar situation or call
upon strategies to help them.
As the intervention progressed, the researcher noted that students began to refer back to
their anchor terms for inspiration to complete the sentence stem and on-task discussion
increased. For example, during the final week of the intervention period, student J completed his
sentence accurately for the word imitate and called upon his anchor term for help. The researcher
log noted that Many times today, students completed the sentence stems with ideas weve talked
about earlier on in the week, typically during the anchor activity (football players huddling,
animals crouching in fear, etc.) For example, I noticed that Js sentence stem reflected his
Talking Tom connection he made earlier this week. This behavior shows that, as the
intervention continued, students began to independently refer back to their background
knowledge to interpret the meaning of a term in a new context.
Discussion/Conclusions
The purpose of this action research study was to investigate the impact of robust
vocabulary instruction on second graders vocabulary achievement. Robust vocabulary
instruction utilized current research-based strategies, while scripted vocabulary instruction relied
on memorization of terms and their definitions. Being that current literacy research supported
32
the use of robust vocabulary instruction strategies, the researcher anticipated that the intervention
group would have greater mean gain scores on the vocabulary pre and post-test, as well as the
pre and post vocabulary knowledge rating survey when contrasted with the comparison group.
Indeed, quantitative analysis suggested that the intervention treatment contributed to higher mean
gain scores on both sources of data for students who received robust vocabulary instruction.
Additionally, the two-tailed p value indicated statistically that the intervention treatment
likely contributed to the students success on the post test (p=0.00), as well as their improved
confidence on the post rating survey (p=0.01). Not only did the intervention group acquire the
vocabulary words successfully, but they also thrived when it came to retaining the information
throughout the seven-week study. This success can be attributed to the research-based strategies
described by several literacy experts.
The amount of learning that took place in the intervention and comparison environments
was highly dependent upon the type of instruction that took place. Robust vocabulary instruction
was largely characterized by opportunities to verify examples and non-examples of terms.
However, not only were students required to recognize examples from non-examples, but they
were also required to take it one step further and explain their choice. As Beck and McKeown
(2007) stated in a reflection of their own study, students responded to instruction that required
them to make decisions about the appropriateness of contexts for newly learned wordsand
explain why uses made or did not make sense (p. 254). Christ and Wang (2010) agree that
effective vocabulary instruction allows students to demonstrate word meaning by making a
judgment or articulating an example (p. 88). At least once per week throughout this action
research project, students in the intervention group chose which sentence used the new term
correctly (example), which sentence used the new term incorrectly (non-example), and then
33
explained why they made that choice. This activity granted these students a valuable opportunity
to go beyond memorization of definitions, and use higher order thinking processes to apply the
meaning of words to new contexts. The data from this study supports the idea that these higherorder thinking processes contributed to higher degree of vocabulary learning throughout the
treatment period.
Another factor that contributed to the overall success of the intervention was the
opportunity for students to connect terms to prior knowledge. According to Winters (2001),
young students learn new vocabulary terms best when they are able to link them to something
they already know. The vocabulary anchor graphic organizer allowed each individual to connect
to every word in a way that was meaningful, as opposed to trying to make sense of a dictionary
definition that ultimately meant nothing more than words on paper. Making a personal
connection proved to be beneficial because it helped the intervention group process the meaning
of words in a deeper way. Meanwhile, the comparison group students struggled to make sense of
the same definition day after day, and they often failed to see the relevance that the word has to
real-world situations. The act of connecting new words to background knowledge proved to be a
key part of robust vocabulary instruction, and ultimately contributed to the vocabulary
achievement of the intervention group.
Another major difference between the types of instruction each group received dealt with
the amount of discussion that took place amongst the students. Throughout the treatment period,
students in the intervention group acted as active participants in the learning process. They did
so by sharing background knowledge with partners, reasoning through higher order thinking
questions about the correct usage of terms with peers, and asking thoughtful questions. This
practice is consistent with the belief that instructional approaches that focus on developing
34
depth of vocabulary knowledge most often provide students with extended opportunities to
discuss and interact with words (Coyne et al., 2009, p. 3). Through these discussion
opportunities, students were able to hear how their peers interpreted the meaning of terms and
entire new layer of knowledge was formed as a result of simple conversation. On the other hand,
the treatment group never got the chance to discuss terms with their teacher or classmates. The
students acted as receptors of new information, mechanically repeating definitions as opposed to
actively participating in the learning process. Unfortunately, as the mean gain scores indicated,
discussion could have been valuable to the students in the comparison group.
Lastly, not only did the intervention treatment improve students vocabulary knowledge,
it also improved their confidence. Although this was not part of the research question, it was
interesting to see how the students in each group reflected upon their learning before and after
receiving the different styles of instruction. As shown by the mean gain scores from the survey,
students in the intervention group reported more complex levels of knowledge after the treatment
than the comparison group. Not only that, but their attitude and behavior during the post survey
also differed between groups. Students in the intervention group volunteered definitions and
explanations of terms during the post-survey with enthusiasm, despite the survey not requiring
them to do so. Students in the comparison group, on the other hand, quietly filled out the survey
and moved on to the next activity. This shows that the intervention not only had an effect on
their vocabulary knowledge, but it improved their self-confidence as well.
Being that vocabulary knowledge has an impact on reading comprehension and future
academic success, it is essential that young students partake in meaningful vocabulary instruction
at an early age (Christ and Wang, 2010). The intervention strategies differ drastically from what
is currently used in the researchers school. Therefore, it will be important for the researcher to
35
disseminate the results of the project with colleagues so that consideration can be made about
future practices. The methods used in this intervention have the potential to improve students
reading comprehension and ultimately contribute to a successful academic future.
Limitations
There were a number of limitations to this study including sample size, sample
population, study length, and researcher biases. The sample size for this action research project
was forty-five students; there were twenty-two students in the intervention group and twentythree students in the comparison group. Such a small sample size indicates that the results of this
study cannot be generalized to other study populations. The study would need to be replicated
with much larger populations in order for the results to be generalizable.
In addition to the small sample size, the sample population was not diverse enough for
the results to be generalizable. For instance, every student involved in the study was working
below grade level in reading according to NWEA Map Test data. The majority of the students
were African American and came from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. In order for the
sample population to not be considered a limitation, the study must be replicated with a much
more diverse population of students.
Furthermore, the study length was considered a limitation to this project. The
intervention treatment was implemented for just five weeks, while the data collection lasted two
weeks. More research would need to be conducted with a longer study length to see if this
limitation would alter the qualitative and quantitative results.
The final limitation to this study dealt with the nature of action research itself. The
researcher maintained two roles throughout the duration of the study: researcher and teacher.
This dynamic naturally caused researcher biases to occur that could have skewed the data. One
36
way to avoid this limitation in the future would be to conduct this study with researchers and
who have no personal stake in project itself.
Implications for Educators
The results of this study indicate that robust vocabulary instruction has the potential to
improve vocabulary achievement for young learners. Educators should consider the value of
vocabulary instruction that includes strategies such as connecting to background knowledge
(Winters, 2010), justifying examples versus non-examples (Beck and McKeown, 2007), and
active discussion (Coyne et al., 2009; Stahl & Vancil, 1986). Each of these elements helped
students build a deeper connection to the targeted terms and ultimately improved their
understanding of vocabulary.
Often times, as the researcher did prior to this study, teachers rely on memorization of
dictionary definitions because that is how vocabulary instruction looked in the past. However,
the results of this study show that there may be more effective techniques to utilize. The
research-based strategies used in this study can be adopted by other educators who may want to
improve upon their current vocabulary teaching practices but are not sure exactly how. Just as
the researcher did, other teachers can take these procedures, modify them, and eventually apply
them to their own classroom in a way that makes sense for their unique population of students.
Directions for Future Research
Although this action research project showed statistical evidence that robust vocabulary
instruction was more effective than rote memorization of terms for this specific group of
students, there are still more questions to be answered. For example, the population size was
relatively small; it would be interesting to see whether results could be replicated with a larger
population of students. Also, the large majority of the students involved in this study came from
37
low-income families. If this action research project were to be replicated in the future,
researchers could observe whether the effect of robust vocabulary instruction would be
statistically significant with middle to high income families. Finally, the comparison group
received a type of instruction that was deemed less effective by research experts (Beck &
McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al., 2009). To truly put the effects of robust vocabulary instruction to
the test, a more effective style of instruction could be used with the comparison group in order to
see if the effect of robust instruction would still be significant.
Reflection
As I reflect on my experience throughout the past few months, I feel proud of my
accomplishments as a teacher and researcher. This was undoubtedly the most challenging course
sequence I have ever taken, but the amount of knowledge I have gained as a result made the
entire experience worthwhile. As a student, I learn most effectively when I am able to apply
what I read in textbooks or research articles to real situations, and this action research study
allowed me to do that. I didnt just read about what effective vocabulary instruction looks like.
Instead, I got to experience it first-hand with students who provided me with authentic questions,
genuine problems, real conversations, and knowledge that will stay with me for the rest of my
teaching career.
My journey through the action research process began by trying to locate a gap within the
current reading curriculum that my school uses. Initially, I did not know if I wanted to focus on
comprehension or vocabulary, but once I dove into the research during the literature matrix
activity I felt confident that my school needed to improve upon their vocabulary instruction.
This action research process has taught me how to identify a problem within a classroom, and
investigate ways to improve upon the issue.
38
As I began to dive deeper into the vocabulary research I noticed that many sources
suggested that vocabulary memorization is an outdated strategy and there are other more
effective approaches to use. This struck a chord with me because the program that I was using at
the time expected the students to learn vocabulary by repeating definitions after the teacher. As
an educator, it always felt wrong to teach vocabulary this way, but that was the program I was
given and I had to use it. Students were rarely engaged during instruction, and neither was I.
Often, I felt like I was going through the motions. This action research project was valuable to
me because I was able to put down the teaching manual, step out of my comfort zone, and
investigate current research-based vocabulary practices to use with my students. The data from
my action research project provides me with evidence to say that memorization does lead to
some growth in vocabulary achievement, but there are other teaching practices available to use
that can be more effective and engaging for everyone.
Not only did students in the intervention group demonstrate greater vocabulary
achievement, but I also noticed a difference in students attitudes during instruction. Because I
was able to teach the comparison group and intervention group, I was offered a unique
perspective. As a whole, I noticed that students in the intervention group were enthusiastic about
the intervention activities. They were excited to start new vocabulary boats each Monday,
their conversations stayed on task during discussion time, and it was difficult to get many of
them to sit down in their chairs because they were so eager to share their connections to
background knowledge with the class. As a teacher, I felt like I knew more about what my
students knew, because we often discussed the meaning of words together. On the other hand,
students in the comparison group rarely showed any emotion during vocabulary lessons. They
sat calmly in their chairs and repeated definitions after me, just as they had always done. I feel
39
that robust vocabulary instruction not only provides students with an opportunity to learn, but it
also offers them the chance to enjoy the learning process. As an educator, being able to provide
this to my students is invaluable.
Even before the Del Siegle Spreadsheet confirmed that the treatment group received more
effective instruction, I knew from teaching both sets of students that robust vocabulary
instruction was better suited for my classroom. Not only did the students learn more, but they
enjoyed participating in the learning process. Although my journey through the action research
process was long and difficult at times, I would do it all over again if it meant that my students
would benefit.
References
40
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2007). Increasing young low-income childrens oral vocabulary
repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3),
251-271. doi: 10.1086/511706
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R.C. (1987). The effects and uses of
diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis
(Eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition, 147163. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and
advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498-520. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498
Christ, T., & Wang, X. (2010). Bridging the vocabulary gap: What the research tells us about
vocabulary instruction in early childhood. YC: Young Children, 65(4), 84-91. Retrieved
from http://www.naeyc.org/yc/pastissues/2010/july
Coyne, M.D., McCoach, D.B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary
instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. The Elementary School
Journal, 110(1), 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/598840
Dunston, P. J., & Tyminski, A.M. (2013). Whats the big deal about vocabulary?. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 19(1), 38-45. doi: 10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.19.1.0038
Hart, B., & Risley, R.T. (1995). Meaningful differences in everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
Kucan, L. (2012). What is most important to know about vocabulary? The Reading Teacher,
65(6), 360-366. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01054
41
Marzano, R.J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on
what words in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2012). A comprehensive approach to vocabulary instruction. Voices from the
Middle, 20(1), 31-35. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/1039696338?accountid=10639
Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading
Teacher, 58(3), 272-280. Retrieved from
Smith, T.B. (2008). Teaching vocabulary expeditiously: Three keys to improving vocabulary
instruction. English Journal, 97(4), 20-25. Retrieved from
Stahl, S.A., & Fairbanks, M.M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1).
doi: 10.3102/00346543056001072
Stahl, S.A., & Vancil, S.T. (1986). Discussion is what makes semantic maps work in vocabulary
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 40(1), 62-67. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199306
Wanzek, J. (2014). Building word knowledge: Opportunities for direct vocabulary instruction in
general education for students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing Quarterly,
30(2), 139-164. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2013.789786
42
Winters, R. (2001). Teaching ideas: Vocabulary anchors: Building conceptual connections with
young readers. The Reading Teacher, 54(7), 659-662. Retrieved from

Appendix A
Modified Vocabulary Anchor Graphic Organizer
Sentence Stem:
Bill rescued his friend from the
bully by ______________and
___________________________.
New Word:
Rescue- to save from danger.
Anchor Words (background knowledge):

___________
____________
________________
43
44
Appendix B
Vocabulary Pre/Post Test
Name: ________________________________
Date: __________________
Directions: Each sentence in the box will be read to you. Read each question and answer with
one of the underlined words from the sentences in the box.
Max survived the fire because he protected his body from the flames. The fireman
rescued him from the house.
1) Which underlined word means saved from danger? ____________________
2) Which underlined word means able to stay alive? ____________________
3) Which underlined word means to make sure nothing is hurt? _________________
The players approached the field with their equipment. In the end, they succeeded in winning
the game.
1) Which underlined word means machines, tools, or supplies? ________________
2) Which underlined word means to move closer to something? _________________
3) Which underlined word means to finish what you planned to do? ___________________
Bobs talent requires lots of practice. He had to consult his friend for advice.
1) Which underlined word means to need? _________________

2) Which underlined word means to ask for help? ____________________
3) Which underlined word means special skills? __________________________
During the emergency, students huddled together and crouched under the desks. The teacher
imitated the students.
1) Which underlined word means to get together close in a group? ______________

2) Which underlined word means to sit low to the ground? __________________
3) Which underlined word means to do exactly the same thing as someone else?
________________.
45
The customer bought a valuable present for his wife. He frequently does this to make
her happy.
1) Which underlined word means worth a lot of money? __________________
2) Which underlined word means a person who buys something? _________________
3) Which underlined word means to do something all the time? __________________
Appendix C
Vocabulary Knowledge Rating Survey
Student Name:
Vocabulary Word
1) survive
2) rescue
Ive never heard of

this word before.
(1)
Ive heard of the

word before and
could figure it out
if given hints.
(2)
Ive heard the word

and I know what it
means.
(3)
I know the word so

well that I could
explain the
meaning to others.
(4)
3) protect
4) succeed
5) approach
6) equipment
7) talent
8) consult
9) require
10) huddle
11) imitate
12) crouch
13) customer
14) valuable
15) frequently
Appendix D
Pre/Post Vocabulary Test Del Siegle Spreadsheet
46
Appendix E
Pre/Post Vocabulary Knowledge Rating Survey Del Siegle Spreadsheet
47
Appendix F
Parent Consent Letter
48
49
Dear Parent/Guardian,
As part of my Masters of Reading Education degree requirements at East Carolina University, I am planning an
educational research project that will help me learn more about vocabulary instruction in my classroom. This
project has been approved by my instructor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, and the ECU Institutional Review
Board.
The fundamental goal of this project is to improve vocabulary achievement. I have investigated an effective
instructional practice, robust vocabulary instruction, which I will be implementing during reading instruction in
January 2015. This type of vocabulary instruction involves activities to help students activate background
knowledge, work with examples and non-examples of terms, and discuss characteristics of words with peers. I am
going to track student improvement during reading instruction for 7 weeks. A vocabulary pretest, posttest, and
vocabulary rating survey will allow me to track student progress.
I am asking permission to include your childs progress in my project report. Your child will not be responsible for
extra work as a result of this project. The decision to participate or not will not affect your childs grade. I plan to
share the results of this project with other educators through presentations and publications to help educators think
about how they can improve reading instruction in their own classrooms. I will use pseudonyms to protect your
childs identity. The name of our school, your child, or any other identifying information will not be used in my final
report. Please know that participation (agreeing to allow me to include your childs data) is entirely voluntary and
your child may withdraw from the study at any point without penalty.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at school at (252) 443-9923 or email me at
skrom@rmprep.org. You may also contact my supervising professor at ECU, Dr. Elizabeth Swaggerty, at
swaggertye@ecu.edu, 252.328.4970. If you have questions about your childs rights as someone taking part in
research, you may call the Office of Research Integrity & Compliance (ORIC) at 252-744-2914 (days, 8:00 am-5:00
pm). If you would like to report a complaint or concern about this research study, you may call the Director of the
OHRI, at 252-744-1971.
Please indicate your preference below and return the form by _____________________.
Your Partner in Education,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As the parent or guardian of ________________________________________, I grant permission for
_______________________ to use my childs data in the educational research project described above
regarding vocabulary instruction. I voluntarily consent to___________________ using data gathered about
my child in her study. I fully understand that the data will not affect my childs grade and will be kept
completely confidential.
Signature of Parent/Guardian:______________________________________
Date____________________________
Appendix G
Comparison Group Assent Script
50
Student Assent Teacher Script - Comparison Group Participants

To be read by investigator (or another grade level teacher) to students who have turned in
parent consent forms.
You are sitting here because your parent/guardian provided permission for you to participate in a study
related to vocabulary instruction. Now, I am wondering if you want to help me learn about how you
can learn more vocabulary.
If you decide to take part in the research study, you can help me learn about what you think and what
youve learned about vocabulary by taking a short survey, as well as a pretest and posttest on
vocabulary. This would be done in January of 2015, and again 6 weeks later.
Your decision to take part or not to take part in the study wont impact your grades at all. This project
wont require any extra work for you.
Results of the project will be shared with other teachers so they can get better at teaching reading and
vocabulary. I wont use your real name when I talk about the results of the project.
If, after we begin the project, you change your mind and decide you dont want to take part, you can
tell me and you can stop at any time. If you have any questions, please ask me.
Since your parents have already agreed to let you participate, I just need your permission to participate
now. If you agree, please tell me, yes.
Thanks!
Appendix H
Intervention Group Assent Script
51
Student Assent Teacher Script - Intervention Participants
To be read by investigator (or another grade level teacher) to students who have turned in
parent consent forms.
You are sitting here because your parent/guardian provided permission for you to participate in a study
related to vocabulary instruction. Now, I am wondering if you want to help me learn about whether
robust vocabulary activities will help improve vocabulary learning. As a part of reading instruction,
you will be given chances to connect new words to old knowledge, work with examples and nonexamples of words, and talk about new words with your classmates. This will be done with the help
of your teacher. You will do this beginning in January 2015 after holiday break, and continue for 7
weeks.
If you choose to take part in the research study, you can help me learn about what you think and what
youve learned about vocabulary by letting me use your pretest, posttest, and vocabulary knowledge
rating survey. Your choice to take part or not take part in the study wont impact your grades at all.
This project wont involve any extra work for you.
Results of the project will be shared with other teachers so they can get better at teaching reading and
improving vocabulary. I wont use your real name when I talk about the results of the project.
If, after we start the project, you change your mind and decide you dont want to take part, you can tell
me and I will not use your data but you will still take part in the instruction. I think this project will be
fun and might help you be a better reader. If you have any questions, please ask me.
Since your parents have already agreed to let you participate, I just need your permission to participate
now. If you agree, please tell me, yes.
Thanks!
Appendix I
CITI Certificate: Social Behavioral Research Investigators and Key Personnel Course
Appendix J
IRB Approval Notification
52
Appendix K
IRB Closure Screenshot
53
54

Krom Actionresearchproject

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Krom Actionresearchproject

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Running head: ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Using Robust Vocabulary Instruction to Increase Vocabulary Achievement in a Second Grade

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Using Robust Vocabulary Instruction to Increase Vocabulary Achievement in a Second Grade

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Three Tiers of Vocabulary

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Direct vocabulary instruction is defined as time spent intentionally focusing instruction

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

1. Vocabulary Assessment (pre

1. Vocabulary Assessment (pre and

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

On Thursdays, students returned to their graphic organizer to independently complete a

1) The teacher introduced terms with student friendly definitions

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Administration of pretest and knowledge rating survey

March 2nd and 3rd

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Vocabulary Pre-test and Post-test based on Independent t Test

Note: Pre and post- tests were scored on a scale of 0-15.

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Intervention Group (N=22)

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Note: Pre and post- surveys were scored on a scale of 0-60.

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Comparison Group (N=23)

Class Average Score

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

At the beginning of intervention period during an activity that required students to

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT

Anchor Words (background knowledge):

ROBUST VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION TO INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT