Students need multiple exposures
to a word to learn it well.
the program benefited even more from
program participation than did students
who spoke English at home.
We also conducted analyses to
determine whether students who participated in the program improved in their
reading ability, as measured by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment
System (MCAS). Word Generation students who improved their vocabulary
scores also tended to improve their
MCAS scores. We are not suggesting,
however, that merely learning additional academic words was sufficient to
improve student performance on a state-mandated achievement measure. Rather,
we believe that the program’s regular
debate, persuasive writing, and critical-thinking activities improved both students’ academic word knowledge and
their broader literacy skills.
In a follow-up longitudinal study,
we administered assessments in the
fall and spring of the following year
to determine how well students
maintained and consolidated their
knowledge of target academic words.
In both follow-up assessments, students who participated in the program
maintained their relative improvements
(Lawrence, Capotosto, Branum-Martin,
White, & Snow, 2010).
to word learning appear to improve
reading comprehension (as measured
by improved word knowledge). Vocabulary gains for participating students
are still apparent even a year after the
instruction has ended.
Our experience with Word Generation provides evidence that cross-content vocabulary instruction can
provide rich word-learning opportunities, which translate into improved
reading achievement. EL
aptitude, time spent reading, and text
type. Reading Psychology, 30( 5), 445–465.
Lawrence, J., Capotosto, L., Branum-Martin, L., White, C., & Snow, C.
(2010). Learning and maintaining academic
vocabulary. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., &
Pople, M. (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.
Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. C.
(1985). Learning words from context.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20( 2),
233–253.
National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development. (2000). Report
of the National Reading Panel. Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (NIH Publication No.
00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Perfetti, C., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical
quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C.
Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors
of functional literacy (pp. 189–213).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snow, C., Lawrence, J., & White, C. (2009).
Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness, 2( 4), 325–344.
Snow, C., Porche, M. V., Tabors, P., &
Harris, S. (2007). Is literacy enough?
Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Zeno, S., Ivens, S., Millard, R., & Duvvuri,
R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency
guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied
Science Associates.
Expanded Vocabulary,
Improved Reading
Although a randomized trial of the
Word Generation program is still
underway, the results from the quasi-
experiment described here suggest
that combining the research-based
components of vocabulary instruction
in a schoolwide program can improve
student word learning in urban middle
schools. In addition, these approaches
References
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002).
Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford.
Beck, I., Perfetti, C., & McKeown, M.
(1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary
instruction on lexical access and reading
comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74( 4), 506–521.
Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: Needed if
more children are to read well. Reading
Psychology, 24( 3), 323–335.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in
vocabulary development: Implications
for choosing words for primary grade
vocabulary instruction. In E. Hiebert &
M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning
vocabulary: Bringing research to practice
(pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bolger, D., Balass, M., Landen, E., & Perfetti,
C. (2008). Context variation and definitions in learning the meanings of words:
An instance-based learning approach.
Discourse Processes, 45( 2), 122.
Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below
the bar: Profiles of students who fail state
reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24( 3), 219–239.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word
list. TESOL Quarterly, 34( 2), 213–238.
Kieffer, M., & Lesaux, N. (2008). The role
of derivational morphology in the reading
comprehension of Spanish-speaking
English language learners. Reading and
Writing, 21( 8), 783–804.
Lawrence, J. (2009). Summer reading: Predicting adolescent word learning from
Joshua F. Lawrence is a postdoctoral
fellow, Harvard Graduate School of
Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
joshua_lawrence@gse.harvard.edu.
Claire White is director of the Strategic Education Research Partnership’s
Word Generation program; cwhite@
serpinstitute.org. Catherine E. Snow
is Patricia Albjerg Graham Professor of
Education, Harvard Graduate School of
Education; catherine_snow@gse.harvard
.edu.
