"Still, none of this fully explains how some students are able to acquire the vast number of words they need to be successful readers."
Well, how about basic cognitive ability, colloquially termed "IQ"? In general, some people are just naturally smarter than others, and the people who are naturally smart tend to do a better job of acquiring vocabulary (as well as learning substantive content). That's true across all demographics -- I attended a private high school where all the students were white and upper middle class, and it was clear even among that privileged group that some of the students were operating with stronger cognitive abilities than others.
Of course native cognitive ability (IQ) isn't the only determining factor. But it's interesting that as I read this article this issue is never raised as an explanatory factor.
Of course individuals vary in cognitive ability, especially with regard to factors like working memory capacity. But I don't think we really know how much they vary because we haven't been using teaching approaches that enable all students to realize their full potential.
IQ tests generally rely a lot on verbal ability, which means vocabulary, which means general knowledge. If we haven't been using techniques that enable all students to acquire the vocabulary they need, then the ones who do well on IQ tests will generally be those who have been exposed to a lot of information, have good memories, etc. You might say they're "smarter," but maybe some of the kids who score lower on IQ tests could score a lot higher if schools used better methods of building their knowledge and vocabulary. And yes, that might well include some students from privileged backgrounds. It's not all about privilege.
A case in point: when my daughter was 4 or 5, she took what was essentially an IQ test (the WISC). Afterwards, the tester came out to tell me she had a question. "When I asked her to name the major bodies of water in the world," the tester said of my daughter, "she said the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which was fine. But then she said something like 'Mwah.' Do you know what that is?" It was only later that I realized that it must have been Lake Malawi, which--for complicated reasons--loomed large in the curriculum at her preschool. But I was surprised that knowing the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans was part of the IQ test. Surely there are many bright 4-year-olds who wouldn't have been able to answer that question, simply because no one has given them access to that information.
"But I don't think we really know how much they vary because we haven't been using teaching approaches that enable all students to realize their full potential."
Strictly speaking, I agree that we can't make a completely accurate assessment of the role of native cognitive ability until we have implemented a perfect teaching regimen. However, in practice that will be very difficult to realize, and so by this argument we'll never be able to determine the impact of cognitive ability.. No matter what we observe, we can't draw any conclusions, because we're not operating in an ideal experimental situation. So this starts to become borderline non-falsifiable.
You could also apply this argument to *any* teaching intervention, including methods that emphasize a knowledge-rich curriculum. How do we "really" know the impact of teaching knowledge, when "we haven't been using teaching approaches that enable all students to realize their full potential."? I think the reasonable response is to concede that things are never perfect, but that in our flawed, imperfect world we can still observe that using a knowledge-rich curriculum leads to better outcomes. I agree with that! But if that's an acceptable argument, then it's hard to see why we can't discuss the impact of native cognitive ability in the same way.
Of course we can discuss the impact of native cognitive ability. Just because I didn't address it in my post doesn't mean we can't discuss it! But I prefer to focus on things we can do something about.
And from what I've seen in classrooms that use knowledge-building curricula, and what teachers have told me, we don't need a "perfect" education system to see a blossoming of hidden potential. It's happening right now in many places, despite inevitable imperfections.
We need to give children more experiential learning (exposure to places, things, and ideas) by going into the neighborhood and out of the neighborhood where they will be exposed to a broader vocabulary. In addition, having children do some long term investigations of topics and be read to and read by themselves using the phonetic tools (along with context) to sound out words and discuss their meanings is another way to broaden their background knowledge in an interesting format.
They also need to do more writing to demonstrate what they have learned, which would give them another opportunity to use new vocabulary. Our receptive vocabularies are always better than our expressive oral vocabularies.
One thing that I noticed many years ago in the South Bronx was that there were words on standardized reading tests that were totally unfamiliar to these young children who were living in an urban environment. That is why it is so important to connect knowledge, decoding skills, and meaning together.
Children need to do more writing where they use the new vocabulary to explain their understanding of the content they are and have learned.
All these parts of comprehension are tied together.
Thank you for such an excellent overview of vocabulary instruction with superb suggestions. The only thing you've left out is the importance of uniting phonology, orthography, and meaning in order for new words to stick--to become 'mapped' to memory. Gentry and Ouellette (Brain Words: How the Science of Reading Informs Teaching) encourage the following sequence for vocabulary instruction at ALL levels: hear it, say it, write it, read it, use it. And Linnea Ehri has done research with fifth graders on how to facilitate 'orthographic mapping'.
Orthographic Mapping in the Acquisition of Sight Word Reading, Spelling Memory, and Vocabulary Learning, Ehri, Linnea C., Scientific Studies of Reading, v18 n1 p5-21 2014
I remember my dad saying "If you don't know how to pronounce a word [common as a young reader hitting new words] say it LOUD". But really, I think this is a case where context does (usually) teach you definitions of new words. But, you might need correction on pronunciation when you start to move them into spoken language!
"Still, none of this fully explains how some students are able to acquire the vast number of words they need to be successful readers."
Well, how about basic cognitive ability, colloquially termed "IQ"? In general, some people are just naturally smarter than others, and the people who are naturally smart tend to do a better job of acquiring vocabulary (as well as learning substantive content). That's true across all demographics -- I attended a private high school where all the students were white and upper middle class, and it was clear even among that privileged group that some of the students were operating with stronger cognitive abilities than others.
Of course native cognitive ability (IQ) isn't the only determining factor. But it's interesting that as I read this article this issue is never raised as an explanatory factor.
Of course individuals vary in cognitive ability, especially with regard to factors like working memory capacity. But I don't think we really know how much they vary because we haven't been using teaching approaches that enable all students to realize their full potential.
IQ tests generally rely a lot on verbal ability, which means vocabulary, which means general knowledge. If we haven't been using techniques that enable all students to acquire the vocabulary they need, then the ones who do well on IQ tests will generally be those who have been exposed to a lot of information, have good memories, etc. You might say they're "smarter," but maybe some of the kids who score lower on IQ tests could score a lot higher if schools used better methods of building their knowledge and vocabulary. And yes, that might well include some students from privileged backgrounds. It's not all about privilege.
A case in point: when my daughter was 4 or 5, she took what was essentially an IQ test (the WISC). Afterwards, the tester came out to tell me she had a question. "When I asked her to name the major bodies of water in the world," the tester said of my daughter, "she said the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which was fine. But then she said something like 'Mwah.' Do you know what that is?" It was only later that I realized that it must have been Lake Malawi, which--for complicated reasons--loomed large in the curriculum at her preschool. But I was surprised that knowing the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans was part of the IQ test. Surely there are many bright 4-year-olds who wouldn't have been able to answer that question, simply because no one has given them access to that information.
"But I don't think we really know how much they vary because we haven't been using teaching approaches that enable all students to realize their full potential."
Strictly speaking, I agree that we can't make a completely accurate assessment of the role of native cognitive ability until we have implemented a perfect teaching regimen. However, in practice that will be very difficult to realize, and so by this argument we'll never be able to determine the impact of cognitive ability.. No matter what we observe, we can't draw any conclusions, because we're not operating in an ideal experimental situation. So this starts to become borderline non-falsifiable.
You could also apply this argument to *any* teaching intervention, including methods that emphasize a knowledge-rich curriculum. How do we "really" know the impact of teaching knowledge, when "we haven't been using teaching approaches that enable all students to realize their full potential."? I think the reasonable response is to concede that things are never perfect, but that in our flawed, imperfect world we can still observe that using a knowledge-rich curriculum leads to better outcomes. I agree with that! But if that's an acceptable argument, then it's hard to see why we can't discuss the impact of native cognitive ability in the same way.
Of course we can discuss the impact of native cognitive ability. Just because I didn't address it in my post doesn't mean we can't discuss it! But I prefer to focus on things we can do something about.
And from what I've seen in classrooms that use knowledge-building curricula, and what teachers have told me, we don't need a "perfect" education system to see a blossoming of hidden potential. It's happening right now in many places, despite inevitable imperfections.
Excellent article.
We need to give children more experiential learning (exposure to places, things, and ideas) by going into the neighborhood and out of the neighborhood where they will be exposed to a broader vocabulary. In addition, having children do some long term investigations of topics and be read to and read by themselves using the phonetic tools (along with context) to sound out words and discuss their meanings is another way to broaden their background knowledge in an interesting format.
They also need to do more writing to demonstrate what they have learned, which would give them another opportunity to use new vocabulary. Our receptive vocabularies are always better than our expressive oral vocabularies.
One thing that I noticed many years ago in the South Bronx was that there were words on standardized reading tests that were totally unfamiliar to these young children who were living in an urban environment. That is why it is so important to connect knowledge, decoding skills, and meaning together.
Children need to do more writing where they use the new vocabulary to explain their understanding of the content they are and have learned.
All these parts of comprehension are tied together.
Thank you for such an excellent overview of vocabulary instruction with superb suggestions. The only thing you've left out is the importance of uniting phonology, orthography, and meaning in order for new words to stick--to become 'mapped' to memory. Gentry and Ouellette (Brain Words: How the Science of Reading Informs Teaching) encourage the following sequence for vocabulary instruction at ALL levels: hear it, say it, write it, read it, use it. And Linnea Ehri has done research with fifth graders on how to facilitate 'orthographic mapping'.
Orthographic Mapping in the Acquisition of Sight Word Reading, Spelling Memory, and Vocabulary Learning, Ehri, Linnea C., Scientific Studies of Reading, v18 n1 p5-21 2014
Orthographic memory is hard for some children, especially those with dyslexia.
Exactly! All the more reason to emphasize it whenever we are dealing with words in any way.
Wonderful essay. Thanks!
I remember my dad saying "If you don't know how to pronounce a word [common as a young reader hitting new words] say it LOUD". But really, I think this is a case where context does (usually) teach you definitions of new words. But, you might need correction on pronunciation when you start to move them into spoken language!