Literature Review
After observing my students and contemplating different questions and topics, I settled on working with academic vocabulary. In so doing, I was pointed toward the work of Robert Marzano. He has created not only a systematic approach to teaching academic vocabulary but several handbooks on various aspects of the classroom including management, engagement, and vocabulary development activities for all levels. I initially used his work as a guide for my early development of this project. As I looked further into the literature on this topic, I found Arthur Eisenkraft's work. Although Eisenkraft primarily works in the field of science education, his overriding idea of activity before content, content before vocabulary applies to my field too. My premise is that this is not the best model. Students should get the vocabulary first so that when it comes up during the conceptual learning, they have some basic knowledge of the vocabulary when they see it again.
In addition to Eisenkraft and Marzano, I also looked at the work of Claire Sibold; of particular interest was her work in developing academic vocabulary among English Language Learners. Sibold introduces the notion of a three tiered model for categorizing academic vocabulary. Her tiers are basic words, general academic and multiple meaning words and specific content words. Relating the familiar brick and mortar model, the first two tiers (basic words and general academic and multiple meaning words) are the mortar words because they lay the foundation on which we build the third tier, specific content words which are brick words. She similarly puts her instructional methods into three parts; before reading, during reading, and after reading. In terms of my content area, this is frontloading, during conceptual instruction and reinforcement. One very valuable piece to use is the PAVE method. PAVE stands for Prediction, Association, Verification, and Evaluation. Students first read the word in context and conjecture as to its meaning; the next step is relating it to something in the students' lives. Next, they look up the actual definition of the term and compare it to the on they come up with. In my classroom, as Sibold did, we use graphic organizers for notes so there is a natural progression to use specifically for my research.
Further, I investigated Singapore math to get ideas about pictorial learning and the pedagogies used in the Singaporean system. In that system, they start with concrete foundations, using examples and hands on lessons to build a base of knowledge on which to move toward the abstract concept. My students' predilections are toward visual learning; they tend to do better with pictures. On various assessments I have given them, as a group they perform better on problems presented with pictures than problems presented without. These students have difficulty visualizing problems in their mind as well as mental calculations. The Singapore methods of using concrete diagrams and models are well suited to the learning needs of my students because they allow the students to explore the concepts in such a way that the students create their own learning and discover the concepts in a way they can understand because they
In addition to Eisenkraft and Marzano, I also looked at the work of Claire Sibold; of particular interest was her work in developing academic vocabulary among English Language Learners. Sibold introduces the notion of a three tiered model for categorizing academic vocabulary. Her tiers are basic words, general academic and multiple meaning words and specific content words. Relating the familiar brick and mortar model, the first two tiers (basic words and general academic and multiple meaning words) are the mortar words because they lay the foundation on which we build the third tier, specific content words which are brick words. She similarly puts her instructional methods into three parts; before reading, during reading, and after reading. In terms of my content area, this is frontloading, during conceptual instruction and reinforcement. One very valuable piece to use is the PAVE method. PAVE stands for Prediction, Association, Verification, and Evaluation. Students first read the word in context and conjecture as to its meaning; the next step is relating it to something in the students' lives. Next, they look up the actual definition of the term and compare it to the on they come up with. In my classroom, as Sibold did, we use graphic organizers for notes so there is a natural progression to use specifically for my research.
Further, I investigated Singapore math to get ideas about pictorial learning and the pedagogies used in the Singaporean system. In that system, they start with concrete foundations, using examples and hands on lessons to build a base of knowledge on which to move toward the abstract concept. My students' predilections are toward visual learning; they tend to do better with pictures. On various assessments I have given them, as a group they perform better on problems presented with pictures than problems presented without. These students have difficulty visualizing problems in their mind as well as mental calculations. The Singapore methods of using concrete diagrams and models are well suited to the learning needs of my students because they allow the students to explore the concepts in such a way that the students create their own learning and discover the concepts in a way they can understand because they