http://www.targetscorelearning.com

The Vocabulary-Reading Connection
Interview with Professor Andrew Biemiller

Interview with Vocabulary Development Expert Andrew Biemiller

Dr. Andrew Biemiller is

Professor Emeritus of Developmental Psychology at the University of Toronto and

Associate Editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology. He is also a

consultant for research groups, publishers, and federal (U.S.) and state

agencies, mainly regarding vocabulary development and instruction. Dr.

Biemiller's current research activities involve promoting vocabulary and

language development in elementary school.


What does recent

research tells us about vocabulary development?style='font-family:"Times New Roman"'> People acquire words in a fairly

predictable order and that makes it possible to decide what words need to be

taught to those whose vocabulary is relatively small. The average kid has about

6000 root words by the end of grade two.

Unfortunately, quite

disadvantaged kids have about 4000 and kids who are really advantaged have

about 8000 at that point. A couple of years later disadvantaged kids have about

6000 words. They have about the same number of words the average kids had at

the end of grade 2.

That's why we're so clear that

kids learn words in the same order. Some of them are just learning words

faster. We need to help kids in the primary grades so that they don't get so

far behind.

What do schools do to

close the vocabulary gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children?style='font-family:"Times New Roman"'> At the present time schools don't do

very much to close that gap. Research suggests that a year of schooling has no

impact at all on vocabulary growth in the primary grades.

After grade two, basically after

kids become literate, there seems to be much less difference in the rate at

which disadvantaged and advantaged kids acquire new words. This would suggest

that after grade two kids are starting to acquire more words as a result of

reading.

The problem is that reading

isn't likely to do much for the vocabulary of pre-literate kids – kids up

to grade two. In fact, when reading does help later, it's not just because you

read. It's because when you encounter a new word it's possible to stop and

think about it or ask someone for an explanation.

When you're acquiring language

through your ears you can't do that. You can ask questions one-on-one if

someone will answer, but kids rarely ask. In particularly disadvantaged homes

the words aren't even there to be learned. We need to do more in school. Most

kids have the first 2500 words. The words that the disadvantaged kids don't

have are the next 2500 words.

Since the research on

the importance of vocabulary has been around for so long why haven't schools

made a greater effort to incorporate vocabulary instruction into their

curricula? There

are several reasons. Wesley Becker said many years ago that in schools we're

mostly concerned with teaching reading and arithmetic. As long as the kids are

making progress with reading, we've been pretty happy.

Many people have said the kids

will acquire the vocabulary after they learn to read. However, by the end of

grade two, disadvantaged students are already 2000 to 3000 words behind the

average. Even if they do a pretty decent job learning vocabulary after that

they don't make up the difference.

The vocabulary gap may not get a

lot wider. But it doesn't get narrower and the disadvantaged kids remain two to

three grades behind. For practical purposes two to three grades behind in

vocabulary comes to mean 2 or 3 grades behind in reading comprehension by the

time they get to grade four or five.

A kid can look good on reading

comprehension in grades one and two because the vocabulary we use in these grades

is very restricted. In grade three and four all of a sudden a lot of kids who

have done a good job of learning to read can read words put in front of them,

but they don't know what the words mean. And then they're in trouble.

So the first reason schools

haven't focused on vocabulary instruction in the early grades is that we're

busy teaching other things and not teaching vocabulary. The second reason is

that we haven't identified which vocabulary words to teach. I think we know the

answer to that now, but, by in large there isn't anyone out there using it.

The third reason is that it's

very hard to test vocabulary in the primary grades. The methods for testing

vocabulary in the primary grades involves one-on-one oral testing. Teachers don't

have the time to do it.

Many teachers say they

don't have enough time to teach basic reading skills much less time to devote

thirty minutes a day to teaching vocabularystyle='font-family:"Times New Roman"'>. Yes. A teacher who's saying that

they're willing to ignore vocabulary because they don't have time for it is

saying in effect that it's okay for the kids to wind up two grade levels behind

by the end of grade two.

It's hard to confront teachers

with that. If we don't teach vocabulary in the primary grades, we are accepting

the fact that disadvantaged and advantaged kids are going to be that far apart.

Are there any curricula

out there today that integrate vocabulary instruction into the reading

curriculum? None

that I know of. I think the curricula that are coming out in the next year or

two, such as Open Court and Houghton-Mifflin, will include vocabulary

instruction.

Most of the new programs that

are coming out for approval around 2007/2008 are likely to include a

substantial commitment to vocabulary. One major reason for that is the state of

California is requiring half an hour of vocabulary work in any program they're

going to accept.

What can parents do to

help their children increase their vocabulary?style='font-family:"Times New Roman"'> It's pretty clear that what's happening

in middle class and advantaged homes is that parents (a) are using more

different words with their kids and (b) they're stopping to explain what words

mean now and then.

If a child has a chance to learn

2 to 4 words a day they'll do alright. Advantaged kids acquire 2 to 4 words a

day, whereas a disadvantaged kid may learn just one. I really believe that just

briefly stopping to point out what a word means helps.

You hand them a banana and you

say this is a banana. Or you may even just say "here Johnny have a banana" as

you hand it to him. Bingo. The kid knows what a banana is. That's easy for

concrete words. For abstract words and phrases such as "Don't run," you may

have to show him what you mean by run.

There need to be more words in

the environment. It's very clear that reading a lot to kids is good but it's a

heck of a lot better if you stop and explain a few words as you go along. In my

view what's really important is letting your child know that they should ask

when they want to know a word for something or what a particular word means.

Encourage them to ask and praise

them for asking. In a whole lot of homes it's "don't bug me." Kids are to be

seen and not heard. Well, kids who are seen and not heard are kids who don't

ask a lot about words.

Remember, you don't want to

flood them. Doing ten or twenty words a day is obviously not likely to work. In

fact, I suspect kids rarely learn more than three or four words a day.

What kinds of books

would you recommend reading to young children?style='font-family:"Times New Roman"'> Speaking as a parent, I used a lot of

Richard Scarry's big word books with my son right around age two. At that age

my son loved going through books like that. By another year or two they want

more story, but at that age he loved things that were just simple pictures and

the words that went with them.

The next stage was books about

vehicles and a sentence or two for each vehicle. I really don't know anything

better than the Richard Scarry books, though they may exist.

What is the most

effective way to teach vocabulary? The published research on teaching vocabulary with kids

under grade three almost all concerns variations on one method: reading a story

several times and explaining what some of the words mean either on each reading

or on each reading after the first reading..

The research of my associates and

I has shown that by-and-large kids don't like a lot of interruption for

explaining words the first time a book is read. On the other hand, as any

parent knows, kids up through age 6 or 7 are very tolerant of having the same

book read several times. In fact, usually they want it read a lot more than the

parent or teacher wants to read it.

Once you get past the first

reading, kids are much more tolerant of stopping to explain what a word means.

We will typically teach ten words per story. We don't expect the kids to

actually learn more than three or four of the words that are explained. With a

little bit of review they learn more words.

Does seeing the words in

print help students to retain new vocabulary words?style='font-family:"Times New Roman"'> There's some clinical evidence that from

grade one up if you're teaching what a word means you should make sure they see

it and print it as well. On the other hand, the books kids are reading in first

grade are unlikely to provide a lot of the vocabulary words kids need to learn.

In kindergarten, first grade and

second grade you need to read stories to kids, which are more advanced than the

stories they would be reading by themselves. By grade three or four, if the

kid's making reasonable progress with print skills, they will be able to read

the words they've learned orally. My own data shows that 95% of kids grades

three and up can read a lot more words than they know the meanings of.

Are there any book lists

that recommend vocabulary-rich books to be read to young children?style='font-family:"Times New Roman"'> There isn't a lot out there now. I can

give you two practical methods. One method is to use the Dale-Chall list of

simple words. This word list contains 3,000 simple, familiar words, which more

than 80% of fourth grade students can understand.

In order to determine how

advanced a passage is, one can see how many words in the passage are not

included in the Dale-Chall list. This is a pretty good method. If 15% of the

words are not on list it is a fourth grade level passage. Twenty percent makes

it sixth grade and 10% makes it second grade. So you aren't adding very many

complex words to get an increase in the difficulty of the passage. That's the

quick and dirty method.

I have a book coming out soon

which has an explicit list of a couple thousand words we should be worrying

about in the primary grades and another 3,000 we should be worrying about with

the junior grades. That list is based on testing a large number of kids.

If a word is known by more than

80% of the kids, and that's generally true of the first 2500 words, we don't

have to worry about them. Kids learn them. Even second language kids learn them

in our experience. If the words are known by less than 40% of second graders we

figure those are words to worry about learning at some point after grade two.

The words you worry about the

kids really learning are the words that are known by 40-80% of kids.

By-and-large the advanced kids know them and the not so advanced kids should

learn them. That gives you a target list of words you really worry about during

those K, 1 and 2 years. Basically you use exactly the same method for picking

words to be used in grades 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Is there

anything else that you'd like to add? The truth is that a) vocabulary accounts for a lot of the

disadvantages of disadvantaged kids. Especially nowadays, because we're getting

better at teaching reading skills. What there's been is almost no attention at

all to vocabulary.

 

For more

information on Dr. Biemiller's research visit:

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/ICS/site_LaidlawCentre/ResearcherProfiles/profile_AndrewBiemiller.shtml



© 2006-2008 TargetScore! Learning Systems. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.