Visuals, like texts, provide context to help children develop deep understanding of new words. We need to provide multiple exposures to every new word, in a variety of contexts, as well as student-friendly explanations (not dictionary definitions) of word meanings. The multi-exposure approach applies most clearly to words encountered in literary, narrative texts. For new concept vocabulary in expository texts, the best approach might be different. Here, meanings cannot be inferred; they must be directly taught, in depth. Agree, or not?
I don't consider myself a vocabulary expert, but I would say generally that multiple exposures help for all sorts of words, and that the benefits depend more on the meaning of the word--how abstract it is, how susceptible to different nuances or interpretations--than on the type of text.
Even a concrete word like "apple" can have lots of nuance (rotten apple, the Big Apple, etc.). A word like "medieval" can't be understood without some knowledge of history, although it also has a metaphoric aspect ("His ideas are positively medieval"). Generally, though, as I suggest in the post, I think abstract words like "prominent" require the most repeated exposures, and using an array of images might help speed up that process.
So I would say that the meaning of new "concept vocabulary," whether it's in an expository text or a literary narrative, CAN be inferred--and often that's how we acquire new words, although it's more often from context than from images. Directly teaching meanings might help some students, having them make inferences from images might help others. I don't know that there's any one approach that will always be the best.
Thanks for your reply! To clarify: I meant to imply that visuals are, in fact, one type of context.
Freddy Heibert has helped me understand the differences between new words in literary/narrative works and those in expository works (the latter is what I mean by “concept words”--probably an overused or unclear term). New words in literary texts tend to be synonyms of everyday words-- eg, “saunter” for “walk.” Indirect, context-driven learning is often how we develop deep understanding of these words. New words in expository texts, on the other hand, tend to stand for main ideas --eg, photosynthesis, constitution. Context, including visual context, is helpful but not sufficient if the words and concepts are truly new and important.
Natalie, thank you for highlighting this approach on vocabulary instruction and how we can help provide some of the background knowledge and nuanced / abstract vocabulary that students may have missed by not voraciously reading.
Thank you for the distance from looking up words in the dictionary.
Visuals, like texts, provide context to help children develop deep understanding of new words. We need to provide multiple exposures to every new word, in a variety of contexts, as well as student-friendly explanations (not dictionary definitions) of word meanings. The multi-exposure approach applies most clearly to words encountered in literary, narrative texts. For new concept vocabulary in expository texts, the best approach might be different. Here, meanings cannot be inferred; they must be directly taught, in depth. Agree, or not?
I don't consider myself a vocabulary expert, but I would say generally that multiple exposures help for all sorts of words, and that the benefits depend more on the meaning of the word--how abstract it is, how susceptible to different nuances or interpretations--than on the type of text.
Even a concrete word like "apple" can have lots of nuance (rotten apple, the Big Apple, etc.). A word like "medieval" can't be understood without some knowledge of history, although it also has a metaphoric aspect ("His ideas are positively medieval"). Generally, though, as I suggest in the post, I think abstract words like "prominent" require the most repeated exposures, and using an array of images might help speed up that process.
So I would say that the meaning of new "concept vocabulary," whether it's in an expository text or a literary narrative, CAN be inferred--and often that's how we acquire new words, although it's more often from context than from images. Directly teaching meanings might help some students, having them make inferences from images might help others. I don't know that there's any one approach that will always be the best.
Thanks for your reply! To clarify: I meant to imply that visuals are, in fact, one type of context.
Freddy Heibert has helped me understand the differences between new words in literary/narrative works and those in expository works (the latter is what I mean by “concept words”--probably an overused or unclear term). New words in literary texts tend to be synonyms of everyday words-- eg, “saunter” for “walk.” Indirect, context-driven learning is often how we develop deep understanding of these words. New words in expository texts, on the other hand, tend to stand for main ideas --eg, photosynthesis, constitution. Context, including visual context, is helpful but not sufficient if the words and concepts are truly new and important.
Natalie, thank you for highlighting this approach on vocabulary instruction and how we can help provide some of the background knowledge and nuanced / abstract vocabulary that students may have missed by not voraciously reading.