Considering Vocabulary: How the Science of Reading Instruction Can Improve Student Learning

• In Event: Considering Literacy Learning: Thinking About Texts, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension

Abstract

The science of reading (SOR) movement highlights national deficits in reading instructional practices. To improve literacy attainment, beginning in 2013 thirty-two states passed legislation revamping teacher preparation and in-service professional development of reading instruction (EdWeek, 2023). Research by Neuman et al. (2023) analyzing 220 state bills since 2019, however, found an overemphasis on reading development, not literacy development. Additionally, less is known about SoRi (SoR instruction), with few studies discussing application of SoR practices in classrooms (Shanahan, n.d.)
Vocabulary learning is a key SoR component. To comprehend text, students must pull word meanings from memory (Ehri, 2014). Unlike decoding, vocabulary learning is unconstrained, developing over a lifetime with wide variability amongst learners (Paris, 2005). Stahl (2011) notes that unconstrained skills depend on multidimensional factors such as background knowledge, text-level features, and conceptual understanding. Constrained skills, like letter-sound knowledge, are more easily mastered and assimilated into knowledge networks (Paris, 2005). We believe the SoR movement has not fully addressed the preparation of pre-service and in-service teachers for teaching unconstrained literacy skills, particularly vocabulary development.
Despite decades of vocabulary instruction research, observational and interview studies highlight multiple barriers associated with implementing vocabulary instruction. First, shear word volume, with estimates reaching well over one million English words (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Second, students enter and continue through school with varying degrees of vocabulary knowledge based on factors like exposure, reading ability, and background knowledge (Graves et al. 2014). Finally, word usage and word exposure differences vary over time, with increasing vocabulary demands from school texts (Fitzgerald et al., 2020; Fitzgerald et al., 2022).
Moreover, teachers identify uncertainty over word selection as a key barrier associated with lack of vocabulary instruction (Berne & Blachowicz, 2008; Brabham & Villaume 2002; Nagy & Hiebert, 2011). Duke and Block (2012) note that school-based vocabulary instruction is happenstance by nature; unplanned and in-the-moment. Observational studies, interviews, and self-reports reinforce the happenstance nature of vocabulary word selection decisions (Nelson & Watkins, 2019; Waters, 2022; Wanzek, 2014). Interviews indicate teachers lack schoolwide structural supports and receive little vocabulary professional development (Berne & Blachowicz, 2008; Brabham & Villaume 2002; Snell et al., 2015). Further teachers report their curricular materials are not aligned with best vocabulary practices or devote little time to vocabulary, discuss little input for selecting vocabulary curriculum, and lack agency about word selection or instructional approaches (Fresch, 2003; Snell et al., 2015).
While SoR guides and social media groups continue to fill a teacher professional development void, in-depth understanding of the unconstrained nature of vocabulary learning remains unactualized. To improve universal literacy, more must be done to enhance vocabulary teaching practices. Models such as tier words (Beck et al., 2002), word lists (Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2013), and content-area word instruction (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2012) are starting points. However, vocabulary learning’s multifaceted nature requires nuanced understanding of word selection and instructional practice. The SoR movement must move beyond constrained skill knowledge and examine training for vocabulary development that empowers teachers to plan, teach, and review vocabulary with their students.

Author

• Susan J Chambre, Kean University