English Learners’ Acquisition of Academic Vocabulary: Instruction Matters, but So Do Word Characteristics

Abstract

In this cluster randomized control trial study, the authors explored the efficacy of an intervention designed to improve second‐grade English learners’ knowledge of challenging, high‐utility English vocabulary. The authors also examined whether the intervention had a differential effect on content words that differ on two attributes (cognate status and abstractness designation) and whether the effects lasted across time. Within schools, teachers were randomly assigned to treatment or control conditions, resulting in 12 treatment classrooms and 10 control classrooms. Teachers in the treatment condition developed vocabulary using six methods: interactive shared reading, direct instruction of individual words, instruction in cognate use, activities to foster word consciousness and reinforce instructed words, and use of visual and linguistic supports. Teachers in the control condition read the same books with the target vocabulary inserted into the stories. Findings on the curriculum‐based and standardized measure of vocabulary indicated that the intervention implemented for four 50‐minute lessons per week for 18 weeks was effective in helping English learners acquire challenging high‐utility school‐relevant vocabulary (Cohen’s d = 1.88 for content words; d = 0.41 for connecting words; d = 0.47 for the Test of Oral Language Development). The effects differed by word characteristics, with higher effect sizes for words that are noncognates (d = 1.57 for both concrete and abstract noncognates; d = 1.02 concrete cognates; d = 0.81 for abstract cognates). Ten months after the intervention, treatment students still outperformed control students on content vocabulary learned during the intervention (d = 1.31). This study helps validate a multifaceted approach to vocabulary intervention and research.

Assessing the Nexus of EFL Learners’ Academic Self-concept and Their Formal English Vocabulary Knowledge

“…Li & Hafner, 2022). Furthermore, Formal English vocabulary is usually used in academic English writing which is characterized by fewer personal pronouns and no slang or colloquial phrases (August et al, 2021;Wei, 2021). It also has more sophisticated sentence patterns.…”

“…Having a large repertoire of vocabulary, especially formal vocabularies or words may support the EFL learners in listening, reading, and speaking skills. Furthermore, researchers (August et al, 2021;Wei, 2021) assert that having a command of EFVK can improve the quality of the learners' writing and ease of understanding messages connotationally or denotationally conveyed within texts. Although the accuracy of choosing a formal vocabulary is not the only thing to make writing considered to be credible and make it easier to understand the content of the writing (Lestari et al, 2022).…”

“…Understanding various words in learning English will have an impact and the ease of communication carried out by fellow students and foreign speakers (Asgari, 2012;August et al, 2021;Csomay & Prades, 2018). In the process of mastering vocabulary, especially of the English language, it is necessary to pay attention to many aspects, among which are the understanding the patterns of word formation, types of words, the meanings, and usage, specifically in sentences or in context levels.…”

Meeting the Language Needs of Emergent Multilingual Students at Risk for Learning Disabilities through Multitiered Systems of Support

“…Some interventions have used explicit bridging techniques to promote cognate awareness (Baker et al., 2014; Carlo et al., 2004; Gersten et al., 2007; Graves et al., 2012; Kieffer et al., 2009). For example, students can receive explicit instruction about cognates and false cognates, work with peers to find cognates in their texts, and then analyze the cognates for similarities and differences across languages (e.g., August et al., 2018; August et al., 2021).…”

“…Taking a higher–level view of this body of research, a recent meta–analysis of 43 empirical studies conducted by Silverman et al (2020) found that multicomponent interventions focused on language produced moderate positive effects for both EM students and non–EM students, but the effects were more strongly positive for EM students. Specifically, interventions that incorporated a focus on syntax were found to impact reading comprehension (e.g., by supporting students’ access to sentence–level meaning–making skills, interventions helped them make meaning of texts; see also August et al, 2021), whereas interventions that incorporated vocabulary and morphology as key foci were found to affect vocabulary outcomes (e.g., by giving students tools to understand and apply the meanings of words).…”