Learning Academic Language through Science in

Learning Academic Language through Science in Two Linguistically Diverse Kindergarten Classes Pamela Spycher University of California, Davis and WestEd

The Elementary School Journal Volume 109, Number 4 © 2009 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/2009/10904-0003$10.00

Abstract This study examined the effectiveness of an intentional versus an implicit approach to English oral language development in young children. A vocabulary intervention in science was developed using previous research on effective vocabulary and science instruction. Participants were 39 English-learning, bilingual, and monolingual English-speaking kindergartners from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds in 2 intact classrooms in an urban school in California. The 5-week-long intervention was implemented in 1 classroom where the students’ regular classroom teacher taught 20 academic words from texts from the existing science curriculum in addition to the regular science curriculum. The control class received the regular science curriculum from the same teacher without the explicit vocabulary instruction. I used the Emergent Science Vocabulary Assessment, a picture test, to ascertain receptive vocabulary knowledge. I used the Conceptual Interviews on Scientific Understanding, a one-on-one interview protocol, to ascertain expressive knowledge of the words and scientific conceptual understanding related to the words. Findings showed that the intervention class learned more target words than the control class and that students who knew more of the vocabulary expressed their understanding of scientific concepts more effectively. I discuss instructional implications.

In the current political climate surrounding the academic achievement of all students in U.S. public schools, the linguistic development of English-learning (EL) children and children from low socioeconomic backgrounds has received increased scrutiny. In California, where this study took place, more than one in three students in the primary grades is learning English as a second language (California Department of Education, 2007). The majority of EL children in

360

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

California find themselves in English-only classrooms, often receiving instruction from teachers who do not speak the first language of their students, have not been adequately trained in responding to the language development needs of ELs, and have not been provided with the appropriate resources and professional support to do so (Gańdara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003). Teachers are working increasingly with EL children and are expected to provide all of their students with a rigorous curriculum while also building their academic language proficiency. However, limited research exists to guide teachers in supporting all students in meeting the rigorous standards California has established for English academic literacy. English academic literacy includes an understanding of the linguistic features of English that distinguish school language from everyday language, as well as the content knowledge that is embedded in language (Schleppegrell, 2004). Multiple studies have demonstrated the strong and reciprocal relation between one aspect of English academic literacy—vocabulary knowledge—and reading comprehension (Beck, McKeown, & Omanson, 1987; Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982). Because vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension are highly correlated, some researchers have suggested that they are psychometrically identical (Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Despite the clear relation between vocabulary and comprehension, however, vocabulary instruction is not always a priority in early elementary classrooms. Instead, the emphasis in recent years has been on developing word-level reading processes, including phonological awareness and fluent decoding. Although these reading skills are critical to literacy achievement, current research indicates that textlevel reading processes, including verbal reasoning and vocabulary knowledge, are equally important for the development of reading comprehension. The limited instructional time currently

devoted to oral vocabulary development in young children (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001; Scott, Jamieson-Noel, & Asselin, 2003) is particularly problematic for the increasing number of EL children and other students from diverse linguistic backgrounds who rely largely on school experiences for their academic English language development. When academic language development is not addressed in classrooms, EL children— and other children who may not have access to academic language at home—are at risk for falling behind in vocabulary knowledge and subsequently struggling in school because the language they are expected to master becomes increasingly complex as they progress through the grades. Oral vocabulary development is one area where primary teachers can scaffold early forms of academic literacy for all students so that children with limited academic English backgrounds can better meet the language expectations of school tasks. In this article I discuss results from a study that focused on increasing the academic vocabulary knowledge of EL, bilingual, and monolingual English-speaking children in kindergarten.

Conceptual Frameworks In this section I discuss three areas of scholarship I drew upon for the design and analysis of the present study: (a) academic language, (b) vocabulary learning, and (c) science education for children with limited academic English backgrounds. Academic Language Multiple studies have shown that not all kinds of language use are equally valued in formal schooling (Heath, 1986; Michaels, 1986; Williams, 1999; Zentella, 1997). Children with limited academic English backgrounds may be at a disadvantage when they begin school if they have not been socialized to use the kind of language that is valued—and expected—in school. If children do not have a firm grasp of the kind of language expected in school contexts, they MARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

are likely to experience difficulties navigating through and fully participating in school. In her classic ethnography, Ways with Words, Heath (1983) demonstrated how three distinct communities in the Piedmont Carolinas used oral and written language in different ways to socialize their children into the norms and values of the community. Heath found that the types of discourse favored in school facilitated the acquisition of literacy for children who had school-related literacy foundations. For children who came to school without those foundations, traditional schooling was not a particularly good means to acquire them. Michaels (1986) showed how, as early as kindergarten, teachers often have unconscious expectations about how children should structure their oral language. However, these expectations are not always transparent to students. In her study focusing on the ways in which children participated in “sharing-time” events in the primary grades, Michaels demonstrated how teachers judged children who did not display their knowledge using the schoolbased narrative discourse structure used in storybooks as illogical or linguistically deficient. Expectations for language use depend largely on the context in which one is using language, and not all social groups use language in the same way to convey meaning. In a study of language use by different socioeconomic groups, Williams (1999) showed how, although both working-class and middle-class parents read to their children in highly interactive ways to prepare them for schooling, the nuanced ways in which these two groups interacted through language around text favored middle-class families, because those nuances, such as prompting for elaboration, were similar to school interactions around text. Williams suggested that, rather than attempting to educate parents to master these nuances, which is akin to asking them to change entire ways of interacting with their chil-

361

dren, a more effective approach may be to educate teachers to recognize that the language used in homes is functional for that context but may be different from language expectations in school. Teachers can be further educated to make the linguistic features of school language explicit to students in order to provide them with extended linguistic resources to draw on depending on the social context in which they find themselves. Academic vocabulary is an important aspect of academic language, the type of language that students as early as kindergarten need to use in order to comprehend and display knowledge in expected ways in school. Drawing on the theory of systemic functional linguistics (Christie, 1999; Halliday, 1994; Matthiessen, 1995), functional linguists have demonstrated how, through lexical choices, including both general and technical academic vocabulary, people display their ability to adopt the language of particular academic fields and situate themselves as members of particular discourse communities (Schleppegrell, 2004). The main pedagogical aims of a functional approach to language education are to help students become more conscious of how language is used to construct meaning in different contexts and to provide them with a wider range of linguistic resources, enabling them to make appropriate grammatical choices to that they can comprehend and construct meaning in oral and written text. Functional linguists propose that if students know what linguistic resources are available to them in a given context, they are in a better position to make informed choices when approaching texts (Derewianka, 1990). It follows that an explicit instructional focus on the linguistic features of kindergarten science may help children to better understand how the language of science works as they progress through the grades, enabling them to produce, both orally and in written form, the kind of academic language expected in school (Christie, 2002; Schleppegrell, 2002).

362


Vocabulary Learning There is a growing consensus that a comprehensive approach to vocabulary instruction is critical for both Englishproficient and EL children’s vocabulary development (Graves, 2006; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). The components of this approach include wide reading (both reading volume and reading a variety of texts), intentional and explicit instruction of academic vocabulary, development of word consciousness (e.g., the ability to reflect on and manipulate language), and instruction in independent word learning (the ability to use knowledge of morphology and context to derive word meaning). One of these components, intentional and explicit instruction of words, has been shown to expand students’ vocabularies and improve reading comprehension. Over 2 decades ago, researchers demonstrated the effectiveness of intentional and explicit vocabulary instruction of high-utility academic words in helping monolingual English-speaking children expand their knowledge of vocabulary and reading comprehension skills (Beck et al., 1987; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985). This approach includes selecting words carefully for instruction from high-quality text, providing students with rich explanations about the words, providing opportunities for students to play with the words, and having students develop deep knowledge of the words over time (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Recent studies have suggested that this intentional approach is also successful for EL children. For example, Carlo et al. (2004) conducted a 15-week quasi-experimental vocabulary intervention study with 254 bilingual and monolingual English-speaking children from nine fifth-grade classrooms using Beck et al.’s (2002) framework for teaching academic vocabulary. The intervention was effective for both vocabulary development and reading comprehension, suggesting the appro-

priateness of this intentional and explicit approach for EL children. Children who are not yet reading independently rely on oral language experiences for their vocabulary development. Studies that addressed vocabulary development in young children through interactive book-reading experiences combined with explicit attention to target vocabulary have demonstrated that low-SES children can make significant gains in their vocabulary knowledge through this instructional approach (Collins, 2005; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Seńećhal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Beck and McKeown (2007) reported on two vocabulary intervention studies with kindergarten and first-grade monolingual English-speaking children for lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In the first study, they found that both groups of children made significant gains in vocabulary knowledge after instruction. In the second study, they found that the gains for children who received more instruction (3 vs. 6 days) were twice as large. Unlike traditional vocabulary instruction, the type of instruction implemented in Beck and McKeown’s (2007) studies emphasized actively engaging children in thinking about word meanings by, for example, explicitly teaching the word meanings, having the children make judgments about how the words are used in novel contexts, and requiring them to construct their own examples using the words. In a related study, Silverman (2007) reported on a 14-week vocabulary intervention emphasizing explicit instruction with monolingual English-speaking (EO) and EL kindergarten children. She found that, although the EL kindergarten children began the intervention knowing fewer of the target words, there was no difference between the EL and EO children’s target word knowledge at the end of the intervention. Further, there was evidence that the EL children’s general vocabulary knowledge grew faster than that of the EO children. MARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

Science Education with Linguistically Diverse Children Vygotsky (1978) distinguished between “everyday concepts,” which children are socialized to understand unconsciously, and “scientific concepts,” which children learn consciously, typically through language. Scientific concepts are expressed using specialized language, including the lexis and grammar particular to disciplinary areas. Social interaction is a critical element in the development of understanding of scientific processes and concepts, as well as the acquisition of the language used to express this understanding. Vygotsky (1978) also suggested that learning occurs when the novice is supported by a more knowledgeable other in her “zone of proximal development,” which is the ideal instructional place somewhere between what the learner can do independently and that which is too difficult for the learner to do without strategic support. Higher mental functions, such as language and literacy, are developed in these socially mediated, or “scaffolded,” contexts. The task for teachers in science learning is to move students through their zones of proximal development, via strategic scaffolding, from everyday ways of thinking and talking about natural phenomena to the construction of more scientific ways of thought and expression. Science conceptual learning involves an understanding of “big ideas” (e.g., relationships, systems, cycles) and how they explain natural phenomena (Lee, Deaktor, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2005). One instructional approach for developing these skills and knowledge in science is science inquiry. The National Research Council (1996) referred to science inquiry as the ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on evidence, as well as the activities in which students engage where they develop understanding of both scientific ideas and how scientists conduct their

363

work. Lee, Buxton, Lewis, and LeRoy (2006) suggested that inquiry-based science is effective for EL students for three main reasons. First, the hands-on nature of an inquiry-based approach reduces the linguistic burden on EL students so that they can participate in science learning while also learning English. Second, the collaborative nature of this approach provides opportunities for EL students to interact in meaningful ways about science content through language, thereby practicing the use of science language, including specialized grammar and lexis. Third, an inquiry-based approach typically provides EL students with multiple formats (e.g., written, oral, graphic, and kinesthetic) to express their understanding, which promotes communication. In this sense, scaffolding both the understanding of science concepts and the acquisition of science linguistic resources is important for EL students. Findings from both large-scale studies (Amaral, Garrison, & Klentschy, 2002; Lee et al., 2005) and smaller, case studies (Cuevas et al., 2005; Kelly & Breton, 2001; Lee et al., 2006; Merino & Hammond, 2002) that have examined the effects of inquiry-based instructional interventions aimed at promoting science knowledge and literacy achievement of English-learning students have demonstrated that both of these areas are enhanced when learning occurs in contexts that are linguistically, socially, and cognitively meaningful and supportive to students. For example, Lee et al. (2005) implemented a large-scale instructional intervention in which over 1,500 third- and fourth-grade students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds participated. The intervention integrated science instructional units that also focused on literacy, teacher professional development, and classroom practices that emphasized cultural and linguistic congruence and a balance of explicit instruction and science inquiry. Results indicated that students at both grade levels made statistically signifi-

364

cant increases in performance in science and literacy measures.


TABLE 1. Student Characteristics Characteristica

Purpose and Research Question The emerging body of scholarship on academic language, vocabulary learning, and science education with linguistically diverse children suggests that an intentional focus on the linguistic features of school science can help students traverse the bridges between everyday and scientific ways of using language as they learn to think like scientists and express their developing understanding of science concepts. In this article I report results from a quasi-experimental study that built on previous research by examining the effectiveness of two approaches to English oral language development of young children in science. My study focused on an intentional approach to vocabulary instruction that aimed to enlarge and enrich the academic vocabulary knowledge and science conceptual understanding of EL, bilingual, and monolingual English-speaking kindergarten students. This study was part of a larger one that posed three research questions: (a) What role does an intentional versus an implicit approach to vocabulary instruction in science play in the development of vocabulary knowledge in young children? (b) Does an explicit focus on semantic development affect scientific understanding in young children? and (c) How do a teacher’s perspectives about literacy and science instruction change as a result of participating in a vocabulary instructional intervention in science? These questions are addressed individually in other articles. The research question discussed in this article was: What is the effect of an intentional and explicit approach to teaching vocabulary during science instruction in kindergarten on students’ vocabulary and understanding of science?

Method This small-scale comparison of an innovative to a traditional approach to instruction followed a well-established tradition in lit-

EL: English proficiency:b Beginning Early intermediate Intermediate Gender: Girls Boys Ethnicity: Latino African American Low SESc Attended preschool

Intervention (n ! 19)

Control (n ! 20)

53

55

... 7 3

1 8 2

47 53

45 55

63 37 63 89

70 30 85 85

aNumbers are percentages except for levels of English proficiency, which are numbers of students. bLevels of English language proficiency on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). cBased on participation in the free/reduced-price lunch program. A chi-square test showed that there was not a significant difference between the two classes in SES, "2(1, N ! 39) ! 2.44, p # .05.

eracy research (Pigott & Barr, 2000). As is true of all intervention studies, I designed this study to evaluate the efficacy of instructional approaches in order to improve the educational experiences of children. To address the research question comprehensively, I used both quantitative and qualitative methods drawn from multiple traditions for design and data analysis. Participants and Setting Participants were an ethnically and linguistically diverse group of 39 kindergarten students in two self-contained classrooms, and one kindergarten teacher. Table 1 illustrates some of the background and other mediating characteristics of the students. The school was located in a highpoverty, culturally and linguistically diverse, urban neighborhood in Los Angeles. Roughly half of the students in each kindergarten class were Spanish-speaking ELs, and the other half were monolingual English-speaking African American or bilingual (English-proficient) Latino children. Most students were from low socioMARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

economic status (SES) backgrounds. The teacher was the regular classroom teacher for the experimental class and also taught the existing science curriculum to both classes, thereby minimizing teacher effect. He had been teaching for over 15 years and was selected based on multiple sources of evidence that he was an exemplary literacy and science teacher. The teacher implemented the vocabulary intervention with the experimental class only. Prior to the intervention, children from the two classes were comparable in terms of English language proficiency, socioeconomic status, gender, age, and overall literacy and science proficiency. Students from the two intact classes were also comparable in terms of early literacy skills as measured by the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (Williams, 2001), a measure of phonological awareness, print awareness, letter recognition, phonemegrapheme correspondence, listening comprehension, and word reading. I designed a parent questionnaire to determine if there were differences between the two classes regarding children’s science background knowledge and/or interests in science topics. This questionnaire was brief and was provided to all parents in both English and Spanish. Results indicated no significant differences between the two classes. Intervention Design The independent variable in this study was the method of vocabulary instruction (an implicit vs. an intentional approach), and the two separate and intact kindergarten classes served as the experimental and control groups. The intervention took place over 5 weeks in the spring of kindergarten. The vocabulary lessons took about 20 to 25 minutes each to teach, although the time needed to teach the lessons was reduced as the intervention progressed and the teacher and students became familiar with the routines. Between three and six words were taught each week, depending on the sci-

365

ence lessons and texts used. Typically, one word was taught per day; however, the teacher taught some words together when they were semantically related. For example, “metamorphosis,” “larva,” “pupa,” and “hatch” were taught during the same vocabulary lesson. The first instructional approach (the control) was implicit exposure to academic vocabulary through teacher read-alouds and regular science instruction during a unit on insects. The second approach was an instructional intervention involving the same science unit, but academic vocabulary was taught intentionally and explicitly in addition to the teacher read-alouds and regular science instruction. When the intervention class received the extra vocabulary lessons, the control group was engaged in various activities, such as teacher readalouds, in their regular classroom. Therefore, although the intervention group received extra targeted language instruction during the school day, the control group did not receive fewer instructional minutes. The difference was in how the minutes were used. Selection of words. Beck et al.’s (2002) “three-tier” concept of categorizing words by their academic utility provided a useful framework for the selection of the general and technical lexis of science in this study. Tier 1 words are basic, everyday words that most native English-speaking children know when they come to school (e.g., “chair,” “go,” “happy”). Tier 2 words are high-utility academic words likely to be useful across disciplinary areas, such as “search,” “nibble,” and “describe.” Tier 3 words are discipline-bound academic words that carry content meaning, such as “pollen” and “metamorphosis.” I selected tier 2 and 3 words for instruction in this study. Teaching both types of words in science in the early grades is presumed not only to enlarge students’ academic vocabulary repertoires so that they have linguistic resources to draw on in school science but

366

also to develop their conceptual understanding of the science concepts embedded in the language. Intervention curriculum. The intervention curriculum consisted of 16 vocabulary lessons for 20 words, designed based on previous vocabulary research and using Beck et al.’s (2002) framework for robust vocabulary instruction. Another key aspect of the intervention was that the words taught in the vocabulary lessons were reintroduced and reinforced over the 5-week period, giving students multiple exposures to the words and opportunities to develop deep word knowledge. Strategies found to be successful for instruction with EL children (August & Shanahan, 2006; Gersten & Baker, 2000) were also incorporated. These included the use of visuals and realia, engagement strategies (e.g., structured thinkpair-share), and language scaffolds (e.g., sentence frames). I selected the 20 tier 2 and tier 3 words taught (see Table A1 in App. A) from the seven expository and three narrative children’s trade books used for teacher readalouds in the existing science unit during the intervention period. Fifteen of the words were tier 2 general academic words, and five were tier 3 academic science words. Of the total 20 words, there were ten verbs, six adjectives, and four nouns. Criteria for choosing the 20 words were shaped by the following variables: (1) the California state standards for kindergarten science; (2) the intervention teacher’s science goals and objectives for his students; and (3) the academic words available in the read-aloud texts used in the science unit. Intervention lessons. Each vocabulary lesson in the intervention followed the related teacher read-aloud and science lesson. The intervention teacher taught the science lesson and read the text twice— once in the context of the science lesson, and once directly before the vocabulary lesson was taught. The vocabulary lessons followed a consistent format:


1. Say the word, write the word, have students repeat it chorally, clap the number of syllables together with the children, and briefly situate the word in its original context to remind them where they heard it. 2. Provide a student-friendly definition (an easy to understand explanation in children’s language). Have the students echo the definition. 3. Explain the meaning more fully in the context of the original text. 4. Provide examples of the word used in other child-relevant contexts (include pictures, graphic organizers, movement, and other scaffolds). 5. Support students to provide their own sentences with (a) questions suggesting contexts and (b) sentence frames for structured think-pair-share so that all students have an opportunity to use the word meaningfully. 6. Ask short-answer questions to hone understanding and to play with the words. 7. Repeat the word chorally to remind students which word they just learned.

Coaching model. I used a coaching model to support the teacher in implementing the intervention. Prior to the intervention, I taught the intervention class a vocabulary lesson using the same format of the intervention lessons. This was followed by a debriefing session with the teacher to discuss the critical features and goals of the lessons. I also gave the intervention teacher professional literature on vocabulary instruction that included information about the framework and theoretical foundations of the intervention. A reflective journal, a biweekly blog, was implemented so that the teacher could easily reflect on the intervention, communicate to me about how the intervention was proceeding, and document the ways in which the children were using the new vocabulary. I used the teacher’s blog entries, as well as e-mail and phone conversations, to provide immediate feedback and support to him. To provide the teacher with ideas and a blueprint for how to teach the lessons, each lesson was fully scripted. In addition, I gave the MARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

teacher a guide containing ideas for how to develop the words during the intervention. However, he also had autonomy to adjust or modify the lessons based on his knowledge of his students and the science curriculum, as long as he implemented the critical features of the lessons. The high level of scaffolding provided to the intervention teacher and the flexibility in certain aspects of implementation were intended to support his successful implementation of the lessons. Data Collection and Analysis I used quantitative and qualitative methods from multiple traditions (Merriam, 1998; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Stake, 1995) to collect and analyze data. Two main instruments were used to determine the effects of the instructional intervention on students’ vocabulary knowledge—the Emergent Science Vocabulary Assessment (ESVA), and the Conceptual Interview on Scientific Understanding (CISU). The ESVA and CISU involve one-on-one elicitation sessions, and I conducted both in a quiet room, with only the child and myself present. Because all classroom instruction, including the intervention lessons, was conducted in English, I decided to conduct all elicitation sessions in English. However, because I speak Spanish, I told the EL children in Spanish that if they wanted to communicate in Spanish, they were welcome to do so. Except for an occasional aside in Spanish, all children used English for the ESVA and CISU. Receptive vocabulary knowledge. I used the Emergent Science Vocabulary Assessment (ESVA), an individually administered picture test, to assess students’ receptive vocabulary knowledge of the 20 academic words taught during the intervention. I designed the ESVA using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition (PPVT-III) (Dunn & Dunn, 1997) as a model. The ESVA was tested prior to the study with students from a third kindergarten class at the same school in which the

367

study took place. The pilot test revealed items that were confusing to young children, allowing me to make adjustments before administering the assessment to the children in the study. I conducted statistical analyses using classical methods for establishing the validity and reliability of language assessments (internal consistency, concurrent validity with PPVT-III, face validity, item analysis, etc.) on the pretest of the ESVA with the study children. These analyses indicated that the ESVA was a good fit for measuring the children’s target vocabulary knowledge. Each of the 20 words from the intervention was included on the ESVA, and I added 10 “everyday” words with which students in the two classrooms would likely be familiar (e.g., sun, mad, frog) so that the children would not feel too discouraged when asked to identify the potentially novel intervention words. During the ESVA, the child was shown pages with 2 $ 2 tables containing four color photographs. The child’s task was to identify the picture that represented the word she/he heard. For each word, I prompted the child with “Point to [target word]. If you don’t know, you can guess or say ‘I don’t know’.” The protocol I followed for selecting the three distracters was to choose one photograph that was semantically related to the target word, one that was phonologically related to the target word, and one that would be appealing to the child. For example, for the word “similar,” I chose a picture of two similar dogs for the target word, a semantically related picture of several kinds of food on a table, a phonologically related word of a girl singing (same initial sound), and an appealing picture of a girl eating an ice-cream cone. I conducted the ESVA sessions with all 39 kindergartners in the study once immediately prior to and once immediately following the 5-week intervention. Students were tested with the same version of the ESVA both times, and the assessment took between 2 and 3 minutes to administer.

368


In addition, I administered two standardized receptive vocabulary knowledge tests to the students. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition (PPVT-III) (Dunn & Dunn, 1997) was given to all children prior to the intervention to establish comparability between the two classes on English vocabulary knowledge. A Spanish test, the Test de Vocabulario de Ima´genes Peabody (TVIP) (Dunn, Lugo, Padilla, & Dunn, 1986), was administered to the EL students only prior to the intervention to establish comparability between the two classes in terms of first-language receptive vocabulary knowledge. Expressive vocabulary knowledge. The Conceptual Interview on Scientific Understanding (CISU), also tested prior to the intervention, was administered to all 19 of the intervention class students and to eight of the control class students immediately following the end of the intervention. Although I had intended to administer the CISU to all students in the control class, time constraints prohibited this. I chose five EL and three non-EL children in the control class to interview because they represented a range of language proficiency levels in the class. The CISU is an individually administered semistructured interview designed to elicit students’ talk about science concepts they had learned about during the intervention (e.g., pollination, metamorphosis, insect behavior and characteristics) and to provide them with an opportunity to use the related academic vocabulary taught during the intervention lessons. I designed the CISU based on research on changes in children’s conceptual understanding in science (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Venville, 2003). To establish face validity of the CISU interviews, two experts on second-language development and science education were shown the photographs and prompts, and adjustments were made prior to administering the CISU to students in the study. For four of the five pictures shown to the children during the CISU (a ladybug

eating aphids, an ant, a diagram showing butterfly metamorphosis, and a bee gathering pollen and sucking nectar from a flower), the following prompt was used: “Describe what you see in this picture. Tell me everything you can about what you see.” I used additional probing to encourage children to express their understanding of science concepts represented in the photographs. For the fifth picture— of an unusual insect—I used the following prompt: “Suppose you wanted to learn about this new insect. What would you do?” Additional prompts for the final photograph included, “How would you find out about how it eats/where it lives/what it does/ how it changes?” To elicit as much language from the children as possible, I gave them a token for each detail they provided about the pictures that they could later exchange for an equal number of small stickers. The CISU took on average 5 minutes to administer. All CISU sessions were videotaped and transcribed, and I coded transcripts for the intervention academic vocabulary each child used and for the child’s understanding of the scientific concepts in each photograph shown. The two main ways in which I scored the CISU were to identify the number of target words students used and to determine the level of scientific conceptual understanding the children displayed. To investigate students’ understanding of the science concepts presented in the pictures, I developed a rubric that drew from systems previously used with monolingual English speakers and EL children (e.g., Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Venville, 2003). I used the categories in the CISU rubric—“everyday understanding,” “transitional understanding,” and “scientific understanding”—to indicate significant differences in understanding. These categories were based on criteria generally used in science curriculum, textbooks, and expository texts designed for young children that highlight important knowledge about insects (e.g., the notion that insects pass though the MARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

stages of metamorphosis in a predictable way). I used the rubric to analyze the transcriptions from the videotaped CISUs and analyzed each student’s transcription twice to ensure accuracy. Face validity for the CISU rubric was established by consulting with two experts in the field of early second-language development and science education. I analyzed all transcriptions and checked the accuracy of my analyses with the same experts in the field. An example of the rubric for the butterfly metamorphosis diagram is given below: Everyday understanding: No response or “That’s a ball,” “That’s a butterfly,” etc. (Disconnected or incorrect responses.) Transitional understanding: Identifies some stages of metamorphosis. May say “cycle,” “life cycle,” or “metamorphosis.” (Recognizes some stages but does not connect them or demonstrate how they proceed in a cycle.) Scientific understanding: Identifies all stages of metamorphosis. May say “cycle,” “life cycle,” or “metamorphosis.” (Recognizes all stages and demonstrates an understanding that the stages proceed in a predictable a cycle.)

Additional data sources. In addition to the ESVA and CISU, I used other data sources to triangulate findings, including semistructured pre- and postintervention teacher interviews, entries from the teacher’s biweekly blog, transcriptions of videotapes of the vocabulary intervention lessons and science lessons, live observation field notes, and student writing and drawing samples.

Results I present findings pertaining to students’ receptive vocabulary knowledge first, followed by results on their expressive vocabulary knowledge. Results from the CISU and the intervention teacher’s interviews and blog entries are discussed more fully in other articles but are included in this sec-

369

tion to provide a more textured portrait of the ways in which the children began to use the new language they were learning. Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge I used a between-subjects, quasi-experimental, pretest and posttest control group design to investigate the effects of the vocabulary intervention. The approach to vocabulary instruction (implicit vs. intentional) was the between-groups factor, and EL status (English learner vs. non-English learner) was the within-groups factor. Results from t-tests of means on the preintervention PPVT-III and the TVIP showed that there were no significant differences between the intact classes on either assessment. I conducted two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to determine if there was any significant difference on the ESVA pretest scores and on the pre-posttest gain scores between the two classes and between each language group (EL/non-EL) within and between the classes. Results from the ANOVA for the ESVA pretest scores showed that there was no statistically significant difference between classes or within language groups. Descriptive statistics for the ESVA pretest, posttest, and pre-posttest gain scores for each language group in the intervention and control class are shown in Table 2. Figure 1 shows the gains each intact class made on the pre- to post-ESVA. Figure 2 shows the ESVA pre-post scores for the intervention class only. Results from a two-way ANOVA for the ESVA pre-posttest gain scores with the class (intervention and control) as the between-subjects factor and language (EL and non-EL) as the within-subjects factor showed that there were statistically significant differences on the ESVA gain scores by class (intervention vs. control), F(3, 35) ! 14.458, p % .01, partial &2 ! .292, but not by language (EL vs. non-EL). There was no significant interaction between class and language. All pairwise comparisons were

370


TABLE 2. Percentage and Mean Number of Words Known on the ESVA (N ! 39) Pretest

Posttest

Pre-Post Gains

Class/Language Group

n

%

M

SD

%

M

SD

%

M

SD

da

Intervention class: EL Non-EL Control class: EL Non-EL

19 10 9 20 11 9

45.8 43.5 48.35 45.5 41.35 50.55

9.16 8.7 9.67 9.1 8.27 10.11

2.52 2.71 2.35 2.53 2.37 2.47

75 76.5 73.5 54.5 55 53.9

15.0 15.3 14.67 10.9 11.0 10.78

3.37 3.4 3.5 3.0 3.46 2.54

29.2 33 25 9 13.65 3.35

5.84 6.60 5.00 1.8 2.73 .67

2.81 3.34 1.94 3.87 4.45 2.87

1.19 .98 1.77

a

Intervention compared to control class (all, EL, non-EL).

conducted using a Scheffe´ test at ' ! .05 to identify the source of these effects. The only significant difference was between the EL children in the intervention class and the non-EL children in the control class (mean difference ! 5.9, SE ! 1.5, p % .01). There was no significant difference between the EL and non-EL children in the intervention or control class. It is possible that the small number of students in each group (between 9 and 11 in each cell) prevented a significant effect on the ESVA gain scores. A sig-

nificant difference might be observed if the sample were larger. Results from a paired t-test comparing mean scores from the preintervention and postintervention ESVA for children in the intervention class showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the scores, t(18) ! (9.05, p % .001 with an effect size (r) of (.70. Results from a paired t-test comparing the mean scores from the preintervention and postintervention ESVA for the control class stu-

FIG. 1.—Pre- to post-ESVA gains, by class MARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

371

FIG. 2.—Intervention class ESVA pre-post scores

dents showed that there was not a statistically significant difference at the .01 level. Expressive Vocabulary Knowledge Results from the CISU indicated that of the 20 target words taught in the intervention, eight were used by students. Of the eight children in the control class who I interviewed, three children (all EL) used one intervention word each. Two children used the word “pupa” and one used the

word “metamorphosis” when explaining the butterfly metamorphosis diagram. In the intervention class, 17 students (89%) used at least one of the target words from the intervention lessons to discuss the science concepts portrayed in the pictures they were shown. The results for the number of students in the intervention class who used the target words on the CISU are shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows that there was wide variety in the number of students using par-

TABLE 3. Intervention Class Postintervention CISU Results for Words Used (N ! 19)

Intervention Word

Total No. of Students Who Used the Word (N ! 19)

Total No. of EL Students Who Used the Word (n ! 10)

Non-EL Students Who Used the Word (n ! 9)

Related Concept/Picture and No. of Students Who Scored in Each Category on the CISU Rubric

describe

4

3

1

escape

1

1

0

4 15 7 17

2 8 3 9

2 7 4 8

Metamorphosis/diagram of butterfly metamorphosis; E (0), T (3), S (16)

3 1

1 1

2 0

Pollination/bee on flower; E (11), T (6), S (2)

hatch larva metamorphosis pupa pollen scrumptious

Insect behavior and characteristics/ant; E (2), T (3), S (14)

NOTE.—E ! everyday understanding of concept, T ! transitional understanding, S ! scientific understanding.

372


ticular words on the CISU. For example, although most students used the words “pupa” and “larva,” only four students used the word “hatch.” The transcriptions of the CISUs showed that, in general, children who were able to use vocabulary intervention words could convey their understanding of the concepts represented in the pictures with more ease and confidence than those who did not use the precise words. For example, Gabriela, an EL student in the intervention class at an intermediate level of English proficiency, identified 12 of the 20 intervention words on the preintervention ESVA and all 20 on the postintervention ESVA. Her ESVA pretest score indicated that she did not have receptive knowledge of the intervention words “larva,” “pupa,” or “metamorphosis” prior to the intervention. However, after the implementation of the intervention, Gabriela used these three intervention words in her CISU. When shown a diagram representing butterfly metamorphosis, she stated:

proficiency) in the intervention class who knew eight of the 20 intervention words on the preintervention ESVA and 10 on the postintervention ESVA did not use any of the intervention vocabulary words on the CISU. When talking about the same butterfly metamorphosis picture, he struggled to convey his developing understanding of the concept:

Gabriela:

Pam: Gabriela:

The life cycle. [Pointing to the stages] Egg, larva, [pointing to a full-grown caterpillar] pupa—that’s not a pupa! [Correcting herself, pointing to the same caterpillar] Caterpillar, pupa. [Pointing to a butterfly hatching from its chrysalis] Gets out of it to an adult. And what do we call that? Metamorphosis. [Looks again at the egg] The egg looks different. (Gabriela, 5/24/07)

I coded Gabriela’s response as scientific understanding on the CISU rubric because she seemed to have a clear understanding of the stages of metamorphosis and that these stages are connected. She also correctly identified each stage and even corrected herself when she misidentified one stage. In contrast, Alejandro, an EL child (who had an early-intermediate level of English

Alejandro:

Pam: Alejandro: Pam: Alejandro:

[Points to the egg.] First it lay a egg. [Skips to the pupa stage.] First it change into a chrysalis. Where’s the chrysalis? [Points to the chrysalis.] They uh, they uh. [Points to the caterpillar.] Caterpillar. [Points to the pupa.] What’s this? Uh . . . (Alejandro, 5/24/06)

I coded Alejandro’s response as transitional understanding on the CISU rubric because, although he identified some stages of metamorphosis and seemed to understand that changes were taking place, he did not appear to clearly understand that the stages were connected. Serena, an African American monolingual English-speaking student in the intervention class who knew 12 of the intervention words on the preintervention ESVA and all 20 on the postintervention ESVA, used four of the intervention words on the CISU. Here, she describes a picture of a bee gathering pollen and drinking nectar: Serena: Pam:

Serena: Pam: Serena: Pam: Serena:

MARCH 2009

The bee’s trying to suck the nectar. He has wings. It’s an insect. And it can sting. [Points to the bee’s leg, covered with pollen.] What about this right here? What do you think that is? Part of the flower. Pollen. How do you think it got there? It stuck to its leg. What do you think is going to happen? It’s going to get to another flower and it’s going to make

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

Pam: Serena: Pam: Serena: Pam: Serena:

. . . it’s going to . . . As soon as he’s done, he’s going to go back to his hive to make honey. He’s going to make honey with the pollen? No. With the nectar. And what about the pollen? You said the bee will go to the other flower. And then he will, and it will go to another flower. And that’s why people like bees. Why do people like bees? Because they take pollen to other flowers and the pollen makes it grow bigger. (Serena, 5/24/06)

Serena’s response was coded as scientific understanding of the concept of pollination on the CISU rubric because she seemed to understand that bees travel from flower to flower gathering pollen on their legs, which is an integral part of the process of pollination. That she mistakenly identified the worker bee as male is not particularly relevant to the concept she was expressing. Other children struggled with their descriptions of the bee photo. Rosa, an EL student in the intervention class at an earlyintermediate level of English proficiency, who knew seven of the intervention words on the preintervention ESVA and 11 on the postintervention ESVA, used five intervention words on the CISU, particularly words pertaining to metamorphosis. However, she did not correctly identify the words “pollen” or “gather” on the posttest ESVA, nor did she use them in her description of the bee picture. Rosa: Pam: Rosa: Pam: Rosa:

That’s a bee. He’s trying to lick something—a flower. Why is the bee doing that? Because it’s scrumptious. (Pointing to the pollen.) What do you think this is? It’s little things like the ladybug. He likes to lick flowers, because they’re scrumptious.

I coded Rosa’s response as everyday understanding because she did not discuss

373

any part of the process of pollination, which was the target science concept. Interestingly, Rosa used one of the intervention words—“scrumptious”—to describe the bee’s interest in flowers. Results of the CISU indicated that many children in the intervention class were able to use some of the intervention words when prompted to do so. The results also showed that children who knew more intervention words on the posttest ESVA and also used the words on the CISU were better able to express their understanding of the science concepts addressed than children who did not know or use the words. The CISU results for science understanding are shown in Table 4. The intervention teacher’s blog entries provided information about the intervention class students using the newly acquired vocabulary spontaneously. In the following entries, the teacher noted instances in which children spontaneously used both tier 2 and tier 3 words during class discussions. (Ernesto, Marcos, and Bernardo are EL students, and intervention words they used are in bold.) “Amazing was the word for today. After a little discussion, Ernesto said, ‘Amazing’ is almost like ‘extraordinary.’ This led to a little discussion about synonyms.” (Intervention teacher’s blog, 5/3/06) “I overheard Marcos say, ‘They’re nibbling,’ as he observed the silkworms.” (Intervention Teacher’s Blog, 5/8/2006) “The word I taught was ‘similar.’ The next day, Bernardo pointed out to me that my shoes were similar to Ms. Smith’s. He said they both were black with a tan stripe, but the style was different.” (Intervention teacher’s blog, 5/14/06) “I read a book about the origin of silk that tells of a Chinese empress. I found many ways to integrate some of the vocabulary we had learned: ‘extraordinary,’ ‘magnificent,’ and ‘amazing.’ At one point the students volunteered that the empress was examining the silk!” (Intervention teacher’s blog, 5/20/06)

374


TABLE 4. Intervention Class Postintervention CISU Results for Understanding of Science Concept (N ! 19) Picture Shown and (Target Concepts) Ladybug eating aphids (Insect eating behavior): EL Non-EL Ant (Insect anatomy): EL Non-EL Bee on a flower: (Insect eating behavior and insect anatomy): EL Non-EL (Pollination and how insects help): EL Non-EL Diagram of butterfly metamorphosis (Stages of metamorphosis, insect life cycle): EL Non-EL Unusual insect (Observing and describing insects, making inferences): EL Non-EL

In his postintervention interview, the teacher commented several times about how children made connections between the language taught in the intervention and science concepts. In the following representative statement, he discusses how the children used their knowledge of vocabulary taught earlier in the intervention to learn something new about insect metamorphosis. I read a book today about mosquitoes and how mosquitoes don’t have a larval stage but they have a nymph stage. One kid said larva, and I clarified, but we were able to talk about it in a way that kids could understand because they’d had that background. . . . We’d talked about larva and pupa when we talked about the butterfly. When they talked about their mealworms they also referred to it—“Oh look, it’s a larva, it’s a pupa.” I think it’s allowed for a richer, more commonly understood discussion. (Intervention teacher’s postintervention interview, 5/31/2006)

In video footage of science lessons during the intervention, children can be seen handling insects and talking with one an-

Everyday Understanding

Transitional Understanding

Scientific Understanding

2 2

6 2

2 5

1 1

3 0

6 8

1 0

4 1

5 8

7 4

3 3

0 2

0 0

1 2

9 7

1 6

6 2

2 2

other about what they observed. In one segment, several children in the intervention class commented on the eating behavior of the silkworms they were observing using intervention vocabulary (“nibble”), as when one EL girl noted, “They’re nibbling the leaf!” In another clip, as the children were examining mealworm larvae and pupae, several remarked to one another about how before, the insects were “larvas,” but now they were “pupas.” Some children in the intervention class also began to use the intervention vocabulary in their writing. The following journal excerpts, written by Ernesto, an EL child with intermediate English proficiency, were accompanied by a detailed drawing of a larva visible inside an egg, a caterpillar, and an adult butterfly. A larva hatch. a larva look food. then the larva trn [turn] to a chrysalis then a bliay [butterfly] com [comes] out. (Ernesto’s journal entry, 5/22/06)

These results indicated that children in the intervention class were using intervention words during class discussions and MARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

other literacy events. Although not all children were observed using words such as “larva” and “nibble,” children who used these words on the CISU and during regular classroom activities were successfully participating in school literacy and language events.

Discussion The results of this study indicate that children in the intervention class, who received intentional vocabulary instruction in science, learned more of the target academic vocabulary than children in the control class, who received implicit exposure to the vocabulary. The pre-postintervention ESVA mean gain scores show that children in the intervention class outperformed those in the control class in receptive knowledge of the target vocabulary. Results also suggest that children in the intervention class may have been able to use more of the intervention vocabulary than children in the control class to discuss science concepts. The CISU results show that intervention children used more of the academic vocabulary when prompted to explain science concepts on the CISU and also used the target words spontaneously in a variety of classroom situations. In addition, children who knew more of the intervention vocabulary tended to express their understanding of the science concepts represented in the CISU more effectively than children who knew fewer words. For example, Gabriela, who used the target words “larva,” “pupa,” and “metamorphosis,” was able to discuss her understanding of the process of metamorphosis. Her use of these general terms to describe the stages of insect metamorphosis, in addition to a specific word pertaining to butterflies (caterpillar), indicates that Gabriela had linguistic resources she could draw on to convey meaning in ways that are expected in school science. In addition, her oral explanation might be considered a precursor to a written scientific description, complete

375

with a topic (“the life cycle”); details about the process, which include scientific technical vocabulary; and a scientific term that sums up the process (“metamorphosis”). Similarly, Serena drew on precise word knowledge, such as “pollen,” “hive,” and “nectar,” in her explanation of pollination. Her response also includes multiple descriptions about the process of pollination, including an emerging understanding of the interconnectedness between beneficial insects and humans. In his journal entry, Ernesto displayed his growing conceptual understanding of insect behavior in linguistically expected ways in school science. Although a description is not the only type of writing children will be expected to produce, the emergent type of expository writing Ernesto produced may serve as a useful foundation as he progresses through the grades. Writing samples from other children in the intervention class, however, included more everyday ways of using language (e.g., “I like butterflies”), suggesting that these children either did not understand the expectations of the science writing task or did not yet have the linguistic resources to convey their understanding in expected ways (Schleppegrell, 2004). Multiple exposure to words in meaningful and relevant contexts is a critical component of deep word knowledge development (Beck et al., 2002; Graves, 2006; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). The intervention lessons and follow up word-development activities in this study provided students with meaningful and relevant opportunities to use the words they were learning. In addition to reading rich narrative and expository texts multiple times to the intervention class, during the vocabulary lessons, the teacher also provided the children with rich explanations of the words and opportunities to use the words in supportive and structured formats. Equitable interaction was promoted by structured-talk activities and substantial teacher support (e.g., sentence frames, the use of visuals). In

376


addition, during science instruction and more open times during the day, students were provided with frequent opportunities to handle real insects and explore their features and behavior while talking to one another about their observations, thereby applying their knowledge of the language they were learning in the vocabulary lessons. These experiences, where children were afforded the time and structured opportunities to intentionally use new language they had been taught, likely were a large factor in their internalization of the science language they were learning. The results suggest that an intentional and scaffolded approach to oral language development improves young EL and non-EL children’s receptive and expressive vocabulary knowledge and potentially their scientific conceptual understanding. These findings are consistent with results from studies with native English-speaking and EL children that demonstrate the effectiveness of an intentional and explicit approach to vocabulary instruction (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Carlo et al., 2004; Collins, 2005; Silverman, 2007). The findings lend support to emerging perspectives that an explicit focus on the linguistic features of science content accompanied by opportunities to use the new language in supportive and authentic contexts improves both science and language learning for EL students (for a review of the literature on science education with EL students, see Lee, 2005).

duration of the study. A longitudinal study that spans an entire school year, or even multiple years, would provide a much better understanding of the lasting effects—on both students and teachers—of an intentional and explicit approach to vocabulary instruction. A third limitation concerns the lack of preand postintervention CISU data on all 39 students in the study. The design of this study could be strengthened considerably by having information on both the control and intervention students’ expressive vocabulary knowledge and understanding of science concepts prior to and following the instructional intervention in order to gauge growth in these areas as a result of the intervention. In addition, because it was impractical in this classroom-based study to control for the number of exposures each child had to each word, it is difficult to know whether the intervention or merely an increase in exposure to the words made the difference for the intervention students. Finally, although the results suggest that, when EL and non-EL students are provided with academically rigorous and engaging vocabulary instruction, they learn the words and use them to convey meaning in expected ways, not all students benefited equally from the instructional approach. Further studies are needed to determine the factors that contribute to differential effects among individual students and groups of students.

Limitations This study has several limitations. The small sample—with only 19 students in the intervention classroom and 20 in the control classroom—makes it difficult to generalize findings. However, although there is less likely to be generalizability, the triangulation of data sources provides an in-depth look at how young children’s academic language development in science can be accelerated when they are provided a particular type of instruction. The second limitation regards the

Implications and Questions for Future Research My findings offer several implications for language and science instruction in primary classrooms with diverse students. Results suggest that an intentional and explicit approach to vocabulary instruction that integrates content learning, multiple readings of rich expository and narrative text, and strategies that scaffold students’ ability to engage in academic talk can help both EL and non-EL children develop a larger and more sophisticated vocabulary repertoire that they may draw on to meet MARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

the linguistic expectations of school contexts. However, multiple questions regarding the characteristics of effective vocabulary instruction remain. Which words are most critical to teach? How much support do children need to understand and use words effectively? Which kinds of support are most critical? How much time should teachers devote to vocabulary instruction? What type of support do teachers need in order to implement effective vocabulary instruction for all students? These questions can only be answered through further studies using methods that integrate multiple perspectives, including the voices of teachers, as well as those of students. Findings indicate that teachers in the early grades do not need to make either/or decisions between reading instruction and science instruction because students in the intervention class were learning vocabulary and building text comprehension at the same time they were learning science concepts. However, rich language instruction that also contributes to science conceptual understanding cannot occur if science instruction has been eliminated, as is the case in many underperforming schools. Cutting or reducing science programs in schools serving low-SES and linguistically diverse students, although seemingly logical in the effort to improve reading scores, severely limits linguistic opportunities for large numbers of students. Where science programs are in place, ignoring the aca-

Appendix A Week 1 2 3 4 5

377

demic language demands of science also creates barriers to students from diverse backgrounds. An intentional, engaging, and purposeful focus on the linguistic features of school science accompanied by multiple opportunities for students to use this academic language in meaningful contexts can help EL and non-EL children traverse the bridges between everyday and scientific ways of using language and thinking about the world around them in order to meet the linguistic expectations of school and beyond. Rather than reducing science curriculum in schools, a more beneficial approach for all students would be to increase the rigor of school science by focusing on both content and language. Note The work reported here was supported in part by a fellowship from the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UC LMRI). The findings and opinions expressed here do not reflect the position or policies of the UC LMRI. I acknowledge the valuable contributions of colleagues in the preparation of this article. Barbara Merino, Cynthia Passmore, and Yuuko Uchikoshi contributed substantially with comments and assistance in structuring and revising the article. Jamal Abedi contributed with his review of an earlier draft of the article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Pamela Spycher, WestEd, 1107 9th Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814-3607.

TABLE A1. Vocabulary Intervention Texts, Words, and Week Taught Texts Read

Insects Change, by Trumbauer (2003); Life Cycle of a Silkworm, by Fridell & Walsh (2001). The Very Hungry Caterpillar, by Carle (1969); From Caterpillar to Butterfly, by Legg, Scrace, & Salayira (1998). The Grouchy Ladybug, by Carle (1977); A Ladybug’s Life, by Himmelman (1998). A Mealworm’s Life, by Himmelman (2001); Busy, Buzzy Bees, by Fowler (2001). I Wish I Were a Butterfly, by Howe & Young (1987); About Insects: A Guide for Children, by Sill & Sill (2000).

Words Taught amazing, describe, examine nibble, scrumptious, larva, pupa, hatch, metamorphosis insist, argumentative, search, escape wander, pollen, gather magnificent, convince, similar, active

378


References

M. C. Colombi & M. Schleppegrell (Eds.), Advanced literacy in first and second languages (pp. 45– 66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Collins, M. F. (2005). ESL preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 406 – 408. Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 337–357. Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Rozelle, New South Wales: Primary English Teaching Association. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition (PPVT-III). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments. Dunn, L. M., Lugo, D. E., Padilla, E. R., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments. Fowler, A. (2001). Busy, buzzy bees. New York: Scholastic. Fridell, R., & Walsh, P. (2001). Life cycle of a silkworm. Chicago: Heinemann. Gańdara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 1–54. Gersten, R. M., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454 – 470. Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Heath, S. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and in school. In B. Schiffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 97–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Himmelman, J. (1998). A ladybug’s life. New York: Children’s Press. Himmelman, J. (2001). A mealworm’s life. New York: Children’s Press. Howe, J., & Young, E. (1987). I wish I were a butterfly. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Kelly, G., & Breton, T. (2001). Framing science as disciplinary inquiry in bilingual classrooms. Electronic Journal of Literacy through Science, 1(1). Lee, O. (2005). Science education and English language learners: Synthesis and research

Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 213–239. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on Language—Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506 –521. 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. California Department of Education. (2007). Language census data 2005–2006 [On-line]. Available: www.http://data1.cde.ca.gov/ dataquest/ Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. New York: Scholastic. Carle, E. (1977). The grouchy ladybug. New York: Harper Collins. Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., Lively, T., & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of Englishlanguage learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188 –215. Christie, F. (1999). Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes. New York: Continuum. Christie, F. (2002). The development of abstraction in adolescence in subject English. In

MARCH 2009

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530. Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607– 636. Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Hart, J., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857– 887. Legg, G., Scrace, C., & Salayira, D. (1998). From caterpillar to butterfly. New York: Franklin Watts. Matthiessen, C. (1995). Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. London: Routledge. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522–535. Merino, B. J., & Hammond, L. (2002). Writing to learn: Science in the upper-elementary bilingual classroom. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 227–243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Michaels, S. (1986). Narrative presentations: An oral preparation of literacy with first graders. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The social construction of literacy (pp. 94 –116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Osborne, R. J., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. Piggott, T. D., & Barr, R. (2000). Designing programmatic interventions. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 99 –108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 54 – 64. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Challenges of the science register for ESL students: Errors and

379

meaning making. In M. C. Colombi & M. Schleppegrell (Eds.), Advanced literacy in first and second languages (pp. 209 –226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Scott, J. A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout the day in twenty-three Canadian upperelementary classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 269 –312. Seńećhal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old children’s acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 218 –229. Sill, K., & Sill, J. (2000). About insects: A guide for children. Atlanta: Peachtree. Silverman, R. D. (2007). Vocabulary development of English-language and English-only learners in kindergarten. Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365–383. Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trumbauer, L. (2003). Insects change. Austin, TX: Steck-Vaughn. Venville, G. (2003). Young children learning about living things: A case study of conceptual change from ontological and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 449 – 480. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from lowincome families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679 – 689. Williams, G. (1999). The pedagogic device and the production of pedagogic discourse: A case example in early literacy education. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 88 –122). London: Continuum. Williams, K. (2001). Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services. Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. London: Blackwell.