Vocabulary Instruction and Google Images

Google Images has made it extremely easy to pair an image with a target vocabulary word. In the MCVIP & VALE research projects, our teachers paired images with all target words on vocab word walls. Here is a typical word wall that features target words with images pulled from Google.

With regard to instruction, an image may be all it takes to get across the meaning of a concrete noun like musket or sandspit in a memorable way. But, with other kinds of words images may be even more valuable as a teaching tool, serving as an excellent way prompt to students to think deeply about or apply a word meaning. Consider the word dismayed. One of our teachers paired this image with this target word...

After providing a kid-friendly definition of dismayed and several examples of use, we could then ask students these type of questions about the image:

• Why do you think that I would show you this picture for the word dismayed?
• If you were in one of the tall buildings, would you be dismayed? Why or why not? If you were on the top of one of the mountains in the background, would you be dismayed? Why or why not?
• Can you give me (or write) a sentence about this image picture that includes the word dismayed?

Through these kind of questions, images become great contexts for students to apply new words and consider the nuances of their meanings.

Finally, just committing to finding a Google Image for each of your target words ensures that you are planning ahead for your vocabulary instruction. Such planning always leads to crisper, clearer introductions and discussions of new word meanings. 

The Impact of Word Reading and Vocabulary on Middle School Reading Comprehension

 Hello Literacy Friends!

As I continued to update my knowledge for my upcoming Literacy Difficulties course, I came across a very recent article that examines the relative impact of word reading and vocabulary knowledge on the reading comprehension of adequate and struggling adolescent readers. I found that the article does an excellent job laying out these relationships and thus gives real insight into the causes of differences in reading comprehension among adolescents. I will try to unpack the findings in an efficient manner for you all here.

First, the study included 796 middle schoolers (average age of 14.1), with 491 in the adequate comprehension group and 305 in the struggling comprehension group (below 30% on the Gates comprehension test). These students were assessed for vocabulary knowledge, word reading, reading efficiency (fluency), and inferencing. The researchers analyzed the direct and indirect effect of word reading and vocab knowledge on reading comprehension. (Indirect effects included the effect of each these two components on reading efficiency and inferencing multiplied by the respective effect of reading efficiency and inferencing on reading comprehension.) In the end, the authors could then consider the total effects of word reading and vocab on reading comp for a) the total sample, b) the adequate comprehenders, and c) the struggling comprehenders. So, here, in a nutshell, are the outcomes:

1)    Word reading was a significant predictor of comprehension for the entire sample (effect .21); however, word reading had a large effect on comprehension for struggling comprehenders and a negligible effect for adequate comprehenders. This supports the notion that, in the authors’ words, “there is a threshold of word reading skill that has to be met before its relation to reading comprehension subsides. It is possible that the struggling comprehenders did not have the requisite word reading skills necessary to easily extract meaning from text.”

2)    Vocabulary was a greater significant predictor of comprehension for the entire sample than word reading (effect .60). Vocabulary had a larger effect on comprehension for adequate comprehenders (.62) than struggling comprehenders (.18). The authors summed up these results in this way, “While vocabulary favored the adequate group as a predictor, it was also a statistically significant predictor for the struggling comprehenders. Thus, vocabulary plays an important role for struggling and adequate readers alike.”

3)    Vocabulary knowledge significantly positively impacted the adequate readers’ reading efficiency and inferencing. In simple terms, students with higher vocabulary scores were slightly more fluent readers and better at making inferences.

4)    Without getting into the more complex details, the outcomes related to the struggling comprehenders led the authors to conclude… “instruction in word reading and vocabulary may lead to greater gains for struggling readers than instruction aimed at increasing fluency. Indeed, this view is supported in the synthesis of effective interventions for struggling adolescent readers by Edmonds et al., who found that word reading instruction led to greater and more consistent gains than fluency instruction.”

I would summarize things this way. It is clear that word reading difficulties have a strong impact on students’ comprehension. Basically, until students can read the words well, other components matter less: the students are simply hung up on reading the words. On the other hand, once students reach a high level of word reading proficiency, knowing the meanings of the individual words greatly impacts their reading comprehension, both directly and because it makes them better at inferencing and slightly more fluent. 

My takeaway is that elementary schools should prioritize both of these key components! I believe that it quite feasible for elementary schools to equip nearly all students with strong word reading skills, and, if we can, we should. But, just as significantly, vocabulary knowledge was a significant predictor of comprehension for all students and particularly for the adequate comprehenders. Teachers often ask me, “We rightfully think a lot about our lower-performing students. But, how can we push those kids right in the middle to a higher level? Well, this study shows that if we want students to be especially strong comprehenders in middle school, we need to be teaching vocabulary comprehensively and consistently across the elementary grades. So, at this point, I’ll put in a plug for my earlier CLC post on VALE vocabulary instruction. Check it out below! 

Oslund, E., Clemens, N., Simmons, D.. & Simmons, D. (2018). The direct and indirect effects of word reading and vocabulary on adolescents’ reading comprehension: Comparing struggling and adequate comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 31, 355-379.

Kindergarten Reading Intervention: The Impact of Intensity and Instructional Design

In prep for my upcoming Literacy Difficulties class, I recently read a research article on reading intervention in kindergarten that struck me as very important, and thus I thought that I would attempt to briefly summarize the findings here. As I guy who has said for many years, “It is not just about teaching the right stuff, but also doing it at the right level of intensity,” I loved the design of the study. Specifically, the researchers compared outcomes for students who participated in three differently designed kindergarten interventions. The three interventions were designed to compare the effects of two key variables – time and “design specificity.” So, the three treatments were… 1) 30 minutes of HIGH-design-specificity, code-based instruction, 2) 15 minutes of HIGH-design-specificity, code-based instruction + 15 minutes of read aloud, vocab and narrative structure instruction, and 3) 30 minutes of MODERATE-design-specificity, code-based instruction. Based on these interventions, the researchers could compare groups 1-2 to examine the effects of additional instructional time on key code-based objectives (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, beginning decoding/spelling) and groups 1-3 to examine the effects of design specificity. There were many assessments used and thus many comparisons. I will try to do justice to the findings very briefly…

1)    Students in the 30-minute HIGH treatment scored significantly greater growth than students in the 15-minute HIGH + 15-minute story reading in letter naming and writing, decoding, word reading and spelling. The two groups performed equally on phoneme segmenting. Importantly, the 30-minute HIGH treatment was differentially more effective for students who entered K with the lowest alphabet knowledge (naming 3 or fewer letter names – 70% of the total sample). In short, for the students with the lowest alphabetic knowledge, 30-minute of highly specifically designed code-based instruction was much more effective than 15. 15 minutes of such instruction was equally effective for students who were at the “top” of the bottom 25% in alphabetic knowledge. In simple terms, kids who start really low in terms of early literacy knowledge need not just carefully targeted instruction but also “the right intensity” (time on task) of this instruction. 

2)    Students in the 30-minute HIGH treatment scored significantly greater growth than students in the 30-minute MODERATE treatment in letter naming and writing, decoding, word reading and spelling. Similar to the above comparison, the 30-minute HIGH treatment was differentially more effective for students who entered K with the lowest alphabet knowledge (naming 3 or fewer letter names – 70% of the total sample). In short, for the students with the lowest alphabetic knowledge, 30 minutes of highly specifically designed code-based instruction was much more effective than 30 minutes of moderately specifically designed code-based instruction. So, once again, to maximize growth of kids who start really low in terms of early literacy knowledge, it is critical that the instruction not just target the “right stuff” but also have excellent design.  

Overall, there were a lot of effect sizes involved. So, practically speaking, I will just say this to give a sense of the magnitude of the gains: The kids in the 30-High treatment ended up at the 67% on Dibels decoding whereas those in the other conditions ended up at about the 40%. And, a little info on “specifically designed instruction:” this variable involved elements such as explicitness of big ideas, scaffolding, and strategic review.

The bottom line here seems quite clear: Just generally “doing the right stuff” doesn’t cut it with our neediest students; maximizing the growth of these kiddos requires carefully designed code-based instruction and A LOT OF IT!

Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., Harn, B., Coyne, M., Edwards, L., & Thomas, C. (2007). The effects of instructional emphasis and

specificity on early reading and vocabulary development of kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 331-347.