Pedagogical Features of Vocabulary Instruction in Kindergarten Core Reading Curricula

• In Event: Vocabulary Instruction in Early Education Settings: Investigating Curriculum Support, Pedagogical Techniques, and Child Language Outcomes

Abstract

Researchers recommend that explicit vocabulary instruction should be part of the language arts curricula for young children (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Biemiller, 2006; Neuman, 2011). However, a recent observational study in 55 kindergarten classrooms found limited attention to vocabulary instruction, with no differences between classrooms where teachers used core reading curricula compared to classrooms that did not (Wright & Neuman, 2010). Previous studies examining pre-kindergarten core curricula found limited support for vocabulary instruction (Neuman & Dwyer, 2009), suggesting that these observational findings might be related to the content of these curricula. Yet, we do not know whether kindergarten materials might provide more support for vocabulary than those designed for pre-kindergarten. The goals of this study were to determine a) the degree to which kindergarten core reading programs emphasized vocabulary instruction; b) the pedagogical features of instruction; and c) how these pedagogical features might align with research-based evidence on vocabulary development.
We completed a document analysis of the teacher manuals from the four most-commonly used kindergarten core reading curricula (Education Market Research Survey, 2010) to better understand the type of support these materials provide for vocabulary. Two coders (Kappa =.92) examined all materials for 12 weeks (one-third) of each curriculum. All vocabulary words identified by the curricula were located and coded. For each word, did the materials provide a definition, contextualize words, provide practice and review, and suggest methods for progress monitoring? Word selection and difficulty level were examined using three research-based strategies (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Biemiller, 2009; Weizman & Snow, 2001).
Results indicated disparities across curricula in the number of words addressed, ranging from 2 to 20 words identified for instruction per week. Yet, many of these words were rated as too common, easy, or basic for school-based instruction. For example, while Curriculum A identified 20 words to teach per week, more than 60% of these words were rated as tier one (i.e. basic) words that children are likely to learn without explicit instruction. Curriculum A taught only 8 sophisticated words per week, B taught only 5, and C and D taught only 1 word per week that met research-based criteria for word selection. In their instructional regime, curricula typically provided a definition for listed vocabulary words and gave children opportunities to practice saying these words. However, they were less like to promote depth of processing by providing contextual information, a picture, or additional instructional strategies (e.g. acting it out, drawing a picture, synonyms or antonyms). Curricula also made limited use of review to provide additional exposures to meaningful information, reviewing only 4% (Curriculum C) to 46% of (Curriculum A) of target words with only 1 to 1.5 additional exposures per word. Only one curriculum (Curriculum B) provided any progress monitoring at all for vocabulary. These results suggest that vocabulary instruction, as it is currently instantiated in kindergarten core curricula, may not be substantial enough to influence children’s vocabulary learning trajectories.

Authors

• Tanya S. Wright, Michigan State University

• Susan B. Neuman, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor