The study reported here examines the English language knowledge and performance of bilingual school children of Middle School age in Britain, in particular their acquisition and use of vocabulary. One of the chief premises of the research is that pupils from bilingual minority ethnic backgrounds suffer a major disadvantage while learning from the National Curriculum because they lack the necessary richness of word knowledge, accompanied by the conceptual frameworks expected in learning subjects such as science and geography. Furthermore, it is believed that by raising awareness among teachers and by the adoption of appropriate methods of vocabulary teaching founded on research, the vocabulary learning of bilingual pupils can be greatly increased. The aim of the study is to identify, describe and evaluate methods of vocabulary instruction currently used and to provide recommendations for suitable methods to be introduced. By means of an action research methodology implemented in a middle school, and with the joint participation of some members of staff and some pupils, classroom data was collected over a two and a half year period from teachers of science, geography and English and their pupils, supplemented with semi-structured interviews with teachers and support staff and conversations with children. These data provided material for a detailed analysis of exactly how individual words develop from first introduction into the pupils’ active vocabulary.

Teaching and Learning Vocabulary

On Teaching Vocabulary

The researchers of various disciplines often use qualitative and quantitative research methods and approaches for their studies. Some of these researchers like to be known as qualitative researchers; others like to be regarded as quantitative researchers. The researchers, thus, are sharply polarised; and they involve in a competition of pointing out the benefits of their own preferred methods and approaches. But, both the methods and approaches (qualitative and quantitative) have pros and cons. This study, therefore, aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative research approaches and methods in language testing and assessment research. There is a focus on ethical considerations too. The study found some strengths of using qualitative methods for language “assessment and testing” research—such as, eliciting deeper insights into designing, administering, and interpreting assessment and testing; and exploring test-takers’ behaviour, perceptions, feelings, and understanding. Some weaknesses are, for instance, smaller sample size and time consuming. Quantitative research methods, on the other hand, involve a larger sample, and do not require relatively a longer time for data collection. Some limitations are that quantitative research methods take snapshots of a phenomenon: not in-depth, and overlook test-takers’ and testers’ experiences as well as what they mean by something. Among these two research paradigms, the quantitative one is dominant in the context of language testing and assessment research.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1120221.pdf

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of morphological instruction on language and literacy outcomes by synthesizing 92 standardized mean differences (d) from 30 independent studies. Findings show a moderate overall effect of morphological instruction ([dbar] = 0.32), suggesting that children receiving morphological instruction performed significantly better on measures of literacy achievement than comparison groups. Moderator analyses showed that intervention effect varied depending on the literacy outcome. There were significant and moderate intervention effects on morphological knowledge ([dbar] = 0.44), phonological awareness ([dbar] = 0.48), vocabulary ([dbar] = 0.34), decoding ([dbar] = 0.59), and spelling ([dbar] = 0.30) but not on reading comprehension or fluency. Results also suggested differences in effectiveness related to age and research design but not unit of intervention, scope, length, and learner type. Effect sizes decrease by school level (e.g., greater for younger students...

A Meta-Analysis of Morphological Interventions in English: Effects on Literacy Outcomes for School-Age Children

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/fba0d4e6-c04e-40a6-b311-fc174ea92e8d/view/1d9ec620-cb90-412f-90b2-c6e1ed100787/CSD900-Conrad,Duby,Lysay&Smith.pdf

Exploring Pragmatic Language Dysfunction in High Functioning Speakers with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Reliability Study for Transcription using Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT)

This study examines the effect of morphological instruction and synthesizes instructional methods from 30 morphological interventions into four recommended morphological instructional strategies. Results suggest children receiving morphological instruction performed significantly better on measures of literacy achievement, especially in the areas of phonological and morphological awareness, decoding, spelling, and vocabulary skills. Analysis of instructional trends suggests five ways to increase morphological knowledge including 1) segment and build with morphemes, 2) teach affix and root meanings, 3) use morphemes to improve spelling, 4) segment and put together compound words, and 5) identify cognates to support ELLs. This study demonstrates why morphological knowledge is important, determines the overall effect of morphological instruction, and suggests ways teachers can incorporate morphological instruction within their teaching.

Word Detectives: Using Units of Meaning to Support Literacy

Further, the debate around evidence-based research in education has promoted and supported this 
view, despite some acknowledgement of the relevance of qualitative methods (Feuer, Towne, & 
Shavelson, 2002). The history of special education, based on a medical model of disability, has 
not only mirrored but has intensified a positivist epistemology. Indeed, Skrtic’s (1991) analysis of 
special education concluded that the field has been grounded in a “functionalist paradigm,” whose 
emphasis has been on the teaching of discrete skills and measureable, quantifiable outcomes, while 
Artiles (2011) emphasized that categorical thinking has reified beliefs about disabilities and racial 
inferiority.

Qualitative Research on Special Education Teacher Preparation

Research Findings: Vocabulary instruction strategies used by Head Start teachers during storybook reading were examined to quantify the level of language complexity found in these storybook reading interactions. The study also examined the relationship between vocabulary instruction strategies and complexity of language during storybook reading and outcomes in student vocabulary while considering whether teachers’ strategies and language complexity affect children differently based on children's initial vocabulary level or dual language learner status. Participants were 23 Head Start teachers and 210 children (ages 36–59 months, 42.9% dual language learners). Hierarchical linear regression showed that teachers’ use of uncommon words had a different relationship to student outcomes based on students’ prior vocabulary knowledge. In addition, a student's status as a dual language learner, the teacher's ratio of vocabulary instruction strategies to words instructed, and the amount of code switching by the tea...

Head Start Teachers’ Vocabulary Instruction and Language Complexity During Storybook Reading: Predicting Vocabulary Outcomes of Students in Linguistically Diverse Classrooms

Multiliteracies: Beyond Text and the Written Word. Landscapes of Education.

Research Findings: Shared reading is reported to be the single best instructional practice for emergent literacy skills. Vocabulary instruction practices implemented during shared reading by both Head Start (HS) teachers and teachers from more affluent private school settings were compared to determine whether there were differences between the 2 groups of teachers in their implementation of research-based practices. HS teachers implemented vocabulary instruction practices during shared reading more often, and chose different words to instruct, than private school teachers. Whereas 78% of HS teachers provided some vocabulary instruction during shared reading, only 59% of private school teachers did so. Among those teachers who provided vocabulary instruction during shared reading, HS teachers used significantly more contextualization strategies for word instruction than private school teachers. These findings suggest that preschool teachers who work with children from high-needs backgrounds use vo...

Miriam Lipsky

Papers

Word Detectives: Using Units of Meaning to Support Literacy

Qualitative Research on Special Education Teacher Preparation

Head Start Teachers’ Vocabulary Instruction and Language Complexity During Storybook Reading: Predicting Vocabulary Outcomes of Students in Linguistically Diverse Classrooms

Multiliteracies: Beyond Text and the Written Word. Landscapes of Education.

Preschool Teachers’ Implementation of Vocabulary Strategies During Shared Reading: a Comparative Study