WTS 1 and 2

Improving Vocabulary Acquisition

Alexandra Esser
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standards 1 and 2
EDUW 691 Professional Skills Development
Caroline Hickethier, Instructor
March 7, 2015

page 1 of 31

WTS 1 and 2

page 2 of 31

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching.
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
subject matter meaningful for students.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how students conceptual frameworks and their
misconceptions for an area of knowledge can influence their learning.
Dispositions. The teacher has enthusiasm for the discipline(s) s/he teaches and sees
connections to everyday life.
Performances. The teacher effectively uses multiple representations and explanations of
disciplinary concepts that capture key ideas and links them to students' prior understandings.

WTS 1 and 2

page 3 of 31

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 2: Teachers know how children grow.

The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and develop, and
can provide instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal development.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how learning occurs-how students construct
knowledge, acquire skills, and develop habits of mind-and knows how to use instructional
strategies that promote student learning for a wide range of student abilities.
Dispositions. The teacher is disposed to use students strengths as a basis for growth,
and their errors as an opportunity for learning.
Performances. The teacher stimulates student reflection on prior knowledge and links
new ideas to already familiar ideas, making connections to students experiences, providing
opportunities for active engagement, manipulation, and testing of ideas and materials, and
encouraging students to assume responsibility for shaping their learning tasks.

WTS 1 and 2
Danielson Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

page 4 of 31

WTS 1 and 2

page 5 of 31

Pre-assessments
Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
I currently teach four levels of German at Regis Catholic Middle and High School to
eighth grade students through juniors in high school. I want to improve my instructional
strategies in variety and effectiveness regarding vocabulary acquisition and focus on Wisconsin
Teacher Standards (WTS) 1 and 2.
WTS 1 deals with teachers understanding the subjects they are teaching. The knowledge
subcategory I chose focuses on how students conceptual frameworks and their misconceptions
for an area of knowledge can influence their learning. Students knowledge of English can
negatively influence vocabulary acquisition when students are presented with false cognates on a
vocabulary list. I want to decrease how often false cognates interfere with student performance.
The dispositions subcategory I chose states: The teacher has enthusiasm for the discipline(s)
s/he teaches and sees connections to everyday life. When students are presented with new
vocabulary lists they better remember the words when they can connect them to their lives. I
have plenty of enthusiasm in the classroom, but I need to improve on making the connections for
students that they otherwise cannot make on their own. The last subcategory for WTS 1 is about
performances and how the teacher effectively uses multiple representations and explanations of
disciplinary concepts that capture key ideas and links them to students' prior understandings. I
mostly use two or three strategies I am comfortable with when I present vocabulary. I need to
increase the variety of strategies I use because students need multiple representations and
explanations to recall vocabulary.
WTS 2 is about how teachers know how children grow. The first subcategory,
knowledge, deals with how learning occurs-how students construct knowledge, acquire skills,

WTS 1 and 2

page 6 of 31

and develop habits of mind-andhow to use instructional strategies that promote student
learning for a wide range of student abilities. Before I can develop new strategies I need to
understand how the students learn and develop strategies based on that. I chose the dispositions
subcategory about using the students strengths as a basis for growth, and their errors as an
opportunity for learning because I can more easily modify my strategies after I assess their
effectiveness on student learning. The performances subcategory I chose is about how the
teacher encourages students to reflect on prior knowledge and links new ideas to already
familiar ideas, making connections to students experiences, providing opportunities for active
engagement, manipulation, and testing of ideas and materials, and encouraging students to
assume responsibility for shaping their learning tasks. I chose this because I do not often make
the aforementioned connections explicit to students, and I want to create more active engagement
in the vocabulary acquisition process. Students also need to be held accountable for their own
learning and I feel giving them a choice or responsibility in their learning will improve this.
Assessment of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
Students have German class every day for 44 minutes except Wednesday when they have
37 minutes. Students may first take German 1 in eighth grade. Students have the option to
complete through German 5. The Communication Standard in Wisconsins Model Academic
Standards for Foreign Languages states that students will understand and interpret a language
other than their own in its written and spoken form on a variety of topics. Students have recalled
during class and demonstrated on assignments and assessments that they have difficulties
learning vocabulary associated with a given topic. In regard to the German language, students
also struggle with determining the correct genders of the articles (masculine=der, feminine=die,

WTS 1 and 2

page 7 of 31

neuter=das) for given vocabulary words, and they do not easily associate the articles as a part of
the vocabulary words.
On a vocabulary assessment for my lower level German 2 class, 16 students took a quiz
with 20 different pictured body parts. They had to label each body part in German and include
the correct article (der, die, or das) for full credit. As seen in Artifact A, students on average
answered with the correct article and spelling 84.66% of the time, the wrong article but correct
spelling 5.66% of the time, the correct article but misspelling 8% of the time, and the wrong
article and misspelling 1.25% of the time. Nine students were high-achieving (90-100%
accuracy), three students were middle-achieving (70-85% accuracy), and three students were
low-achieving (65-0% accuracy). To prepare, students labeled the terms on a body, sang a body
parts song in German, and heard the body parts when I used them in class.
On a vocabulary assessment for my upper-level German 3 class, 16 students took a quiz
with 20 different pictured clothing items. They had to label each clothing item in German and
include the correct article (der, die, or das) for full credit. As seen in Artifact B, students on
average answered with the correct article and spelling 70.73% of the time, the wrong article but
correct spelling 8.52% of the time, the correct article but misspelling 13.35% of the time, and the
wrong article and misspelling 7.38% of the time. Four students were high-achieving (90-100%
accuracy), nine students were middle-achieving (70-85% accuracy), and three students were lowachieving (65-0% accuracy). To prepare for the quiz, students translated a list of clothing from
German to English, completed two homework assignments with high-frequency vocabulary
words, and worked with a set of picture flashcards of the clothing items.
A week later, I gave both German 2 and 3 classes a questionnaire that asked them to list
as many vocabulary words as they could remember from the quiz to see how well they retained

WTS 1 and 2

page 8 of 31

the vocabulary words. The German 2 students gave an average of 19.06 vocabulary words with
the correct articles and spellings, 1.56 vocabulary words with the wrong articles but correct
spellings, 2.19 vocabulary words with the correct articles but wrong spellings, and 0.31
vocabulary words with both wrong articles and spellings. It was my understanding that German 2
students had learned the body parts vocabulary last year, which would explain why they included
body parts that I did not teach them. The German 3 students gave an average of 11.81 vocabulary
words with the correct articles and spellings, 0.69 vocabulary words with the wrong articles but
correct spellings, 1.62 vocabulary words with the correct articles but wrong spellings, and 0.37
vocabulary words with both the wrong articles and spellings.
Assessment of Student Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
For the body parts and clothing vocabulary quizzes, German 2 and 3 students sat in
assigned seats in rows with all desks facing the front of the room. To assess whether these
seating charts were affecting student learning, I asked them in a questionnaires to describe how
the current seating chart affected their learning, and to suggest where in the room (front, back,
left side, right side, middle) and by whom they feel they would best learn or not learn at all. Most
students said they liked where they were and felt they could easily see the board and pay
attention. I learned that a number of students, however, actually had trouble seeing the board
when they sat in the back or behind taller students. In both classes, the majority of students wrote
that they would rather sit in the middle or back of the room and were honest about who would
distract them during class. Most students wanted to sit next to their friends.
Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research
The self-assessment, assessment of student performance, and learning environment
assessment show that I need to increase the variety and effectiveness of the vocabulary learning

WTS 1 and 2

page 9 of 31

strategies I use, students need to specifically improve their spelling on vocabulary assessments,
and the current seating chart is not ideal for student learning. My learning goal as a result of this
research draws from both WTS 1 and 2: What strategies, learning experiences, and
environment are most effective for vocabulary acquisition in English-speaking students learning
German?
Research Summary
It is widely accepted among foreign language theorists that learning a second language is
far different than learning a first language. The way one learns a second language, however, is
more complex. Some theorists think learning a second language is innate, some think it is based
on the environment and scaffolding, and others think it can only be done through interaction with
the language (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). While all of these theories have merit and apply to
how humans in general learn a second language, the specific strategies learners use vary between
individuals (Brown, 2007). Brown further states that every person approaches learning a second
language differently because of his or her personal experiences.
It is important to expose students to many different strategies because they do not all
process, conceptualize, and utilize a second language the same way. Kocaman and Cumaoglu
(2014) confirmed that a higher number of strategies students used yielded higher language
proficiency, and simply diversifying strategies improved performance. A problem arises if the
students do not know any learning or communication strategies to help them learn. Many
researches (Kocaman & Cumaoglu, 2014; Webb & Chang, 2012) pointed out that teachers need
to teach suitable strategies to students that students can later use to become autonomous learners.
Second language acquisition (SLA) theorists separate these strategies for language
development primarily between communication strategies and learning strategies (Brown, 2007).

WTS 1 and 2

page 10 of 31

Brown further breaks down communication strategies as avoidance and compensatory strategies,
and breaks down learning strategies as metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies.
While both communication and learning strategies are effective, some strategies are more
effective for learning vocabulary.
Communication strategies, as the name would suggest, focus on producing the language
and not necessarily on using new vocabulary. An example of an avoidance communication
strategy is to completely avoid an unknown word during conversation in the second language
(Brown, 2007). Similarly, a compensatory communication strategy makes up for an unknown
word through circumlocution, for example. Communication strategies are useful to convey
meaning but do not emphasize new vocabulary words. Students must have some previous
knowledge before they can use communication strategies.
Learning strategies focus on the input processes. Cognitive learning strategies in
particular lend themselves well to vocabulary input. They are directly connected to the content
itself, whereas the metacognitive and socio-affective strategies deal more with thinking about
ones learning and interacting with others, respectively (Brown, 2007, p. 134). Brown defines
cognitive learning strategies as repeating, inferencing, grouping, note taking, using keywords,
transferring, and imagining. Brown also includes auditory representation, deduction,
contextualization, elaboration, recombination, and translation in this list.
In a study on translation as a vocabulary learning strategy, Augustyn (2013) found
translation to be a bridge between the familiar and the unfamiliar (para. 18). Augustyn saw
translation to be a crutch for language instruction, especially when textbook vocabulary lists
consisted of concrete objects rather than words most commonly used in the praxis. To avoid this
problem, Augustyn suggested that vocabulary lists include not only concrete objects, but also

WTS 1 and 2

page 11 of 31

abstract concepts (para.14) that are most often used when discussing given topics. In order to
create such lists, Augustyn recommended that the students brainstorm how they interact with a
given topic in their native language and find the vocabulary words they would typically use in
that language. By doing this, students gain a sense of ownership over their own learning, but also
learn practical words they would mostly likely need when communicating in the second
language.
Another problem Augustyn (2013) found with translation was students interactions with
false cognates. Lightbrown and Spada (2006) define false cognates as words that look similar in
the two languages but have different meanings (p. 99). While regular cognates can be helpful to
students and make memorization easier, false cognates can be a problem when not addressed by
the teacher. If these differences are discussed in class, suggested Augustyn, students may
actually enjoy and better remember these vocabulary words because they have processed both
meanings by contrastive analysis.
After a vocabulary list is established, Webb and Chang (2012) proposed teachers provide
students with many chances to read words from the list in many authentic texts. Webb and
Chang (2012); and Augustyn (2013) reported that when students encountered a vocabulary word
or words many times in different written contexts, they developed deeper and broader
understandings for the words. Webb and Chang further stated that if the vocabulary words are
not used very often in a text, a students attention will not be on the use of the vocabulary words
but rather on the rest of the text.
In addition to reading texts as a way to learn vocabulary words, Webb and Chang (2012)
noted the effectiveness of student-focused activities that centered on the understanding and use
of the vocabulary words. If the process and outcome of an activity relied on understanding

WTS 1 and 2

page 12 of 31

certain vocabulary, Webb and Chang reported that students were forced to interact with the
vocabulary words and could not ignore them. These high-frequency encounters in turn
strengthened new vocabulary acquisition.
In contrast, if students are unwilling to communicate or do not feel comfortable
communicating in the second language, Brown (2007) notes that learning cannot take place. This
willingness to communicate (p. 156), as Brown calls it, can be greatly increased if students feel
socially supported in the classroom, particularly by their friends. On other hand, Brown noted
how the over-participation of high-risk takers (p.157) could be detrimental to learning. While
taking risks in a second language shows that students are not afraid to look silly in front of their
peers, students should not let this get in the way of making educated guesses (Brown). Teachers
should encourage students to participate and teach them to make guesses based on the knowledge
they already have.
In conclusion, this research has shown there are many layers to improving vocabulary
acquisition. The right classroom environment must be established that encourages students to
communicate and interact during student-centered activities, but not at the cost of accuracy.
Vocabulary words should be targeted and frequently occur in effective classroom activities and
authentic texts where students can gather more than one perspective on a given word. Students
need to have some responsibility in creating the vocabulary lists, and the words should extend
beyond concrete objects. Finally, teachers must teach and incorporate in their lessons different
learning and communication strategies to reach students within a broader range of abilities and
promote autonomous learning. When considered together, these criteria are most effective for
vocabulary acquisition in the second language.

WTS 1 and 2

page 13 of 31

Research Implications
My essential question for this research topic was What strategies, learning
experiences, and environment are most effective for vocabulary acquisition in English-speaking
students learning German? I found in the research that students need exposure to a variety of
learning strategies so they can identify how they, as individuals, best learn German vocabulary.
Brown (2007) further described each learning strategy as mentioned in the research section, and
these descriptions can be seen under Artifact C. I intend to consult these descriptions when
writing my upcoming lesson plans.
When planning student-centered activities, I found that the teacher can place more
importance on vocabulary words to the extent that the students success depends on their
understanding of the vocabulary words. This forces the students to interact with the vocabulary
words and increases the frequency at which they encounter the words. Well-designed activities
are ones that use many of the vocabulary words in their directions, execution, and conclusion.
Regardless whether students read these vocabulary words in different texts or hear them
frequently in class, almost all of the sources I referenced commented on the importance and
effectiveness of targeting certain words for high-frequency (Augustyn, 2013; Brown, 2007;
Lightbrown & Spada, 2006; Webb & Chang, 2012). Making these targeted words explicit to both
the teacher and students during a lesson might improve high-frequency usage, so it might help to
identify these words in lesson plans or on the white board.
Augustyn (2013) particularly emphasized that the actual vocabulary words teachers need
to include in their lists should not just be nouns (foods, animals, modes of transportation, etc.).
Augustyn further stressed that students should first identify how they talk in their own language

WTS 1 and 2

page 14 of 31

about topics. After students discuss the topic in English, they are more likely to come up with
verbs or other abstract concepts that are more often used in everyday language about that topic.
Encouraging students to participate and communicate with each other in German can be
difficult with teenagers. Teenagers and my students especially really dont want to answer
incorrectly in front of the class and run the risk of looking dumb. Seating students next to their
friends or allowing them to work with students they feel comfortable using German helps this
and increases their willingness to participate. When the opposite is true and students make wild
guesses at random, it is important to teach these students how to make more informed guesses
based on what they have learned and know about German already.
Based on the research, it appears the teacher plans the most for creating a comfortable
atmosphere that encourages students to participate and for designing activities with effective
learning and communication strategies. The students take on the guided responsibility of
developing the vocabulary lists. In the end, the goal of improved vocabulary acquisition will be
met.
Research-based Action Plan
Action Plan Summary Outline
1. Create vocabulary lists with student input that extend beyond concrete objects and
include abstract vocabulary whose meaning may only be derived from the study of German.
Design lesson plans that include a variety of learning and communication strategies.
2. Deliver instruction that targets new vocabulary for high-frequency repetition and
shows students which strategies are used. Present activities that include translation but are not
solely based on it. Implement a seating chart that encourages students willingness to
communicate and feel comfortable speaking German, but discourages uninformed guessing.

WTS 1 and 2

page 15 of 31

3. Assess students growth and performance after implementing these instructional

strategies and compare this data with the data taken before implementation. Use the same
assessment templates for measuring vocabulary acquisition. Assess which strategies were most
and least effect for students vocabulary acquisition.
Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
1. Standardized goal: Wisconsin Standard for Foreign Language Learning 1.2: Students
understand and interpret written and spoken language on a variety of topics and 4.1: Students
demonstrate understanding of the nature of language through comparisons of the language
studied and their own.
2. Targeted learning objective: Students will improve their vocabulary acquisition
performance and strategies in German.
Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Task: Take a vocabulary quiz with 20 new words for the books respective
current chapter topics for German 2 and 3 after using different strategies.
2. Criteria that Prove Proficiency in Meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)
a. At least 90% of all answers are the correct articles and spellings for
German 2, and 85% of all answers are the correct articles and spellings for
German 3
b. Errors made in only spelling are 5% or less
c. Errors made in wrong articles but correct spellings are 5% or less
d. Errors made in wrong articles and wrong spellings are 5% or less

WTS 1 and 2

page 16 of 31

Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)

1. Quiz for German 2 that assesses new vocabulary learned based on the current
chapters topic. Students take this individually in written form.
2. Quiz for German 3 that assesses new vocabulary learned based on the current
chapters topic. Students take this individually in written form.
3. Students assess why they were or were not more successful than their previous
quiz and indicate which strategies and activities worked best for them.
Post-assessments
Instructional Insights Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
As stated in my research, second language acquisition theorists believe it is important to
teach students to become autonomous learners (Kocaman & Cumaoglu, 2014). From the
beginning of my action plan I sought ways for students to take ownership in their own learning
as a way to instill in them autonomous learning. I let students take some responsibility in
constructing their own vocabulary lists by letting them discuss the next textbook topic in their
first language (English). From the lists they came up with and the lists the textbook presented I
was able to construct vocabulary lists that included nouns (concrete objects), adjectives, verbs,
and phrases. Some of the phrases could not be directly translated to English. This met my goal
of having students derive meaning that can only be taken from the study of German.
The activities I designed and implemented in German 2 were very different from those
for German 3. Instead of handing out a vocabulary list, I had students make advanced organizer
houses. Each room had a different flap and students drew and labeled nouns and verbs associated
with each room. They followed my model on the document camera and used their houses as their

WTS 1 and 2

page 17 of 31

vocabulary lists. Students connected the knowledge they had from last year about a house, but
included new verbs and nouns that they themselves came up with.
Instead of giving the German 3 students a list of vocabulary words, I gave them different
colored flashcards they could cut out and translate during class. Each color indicated whether
the words were nouns, adjectives, verbs, or phrases. This helped them classify the words and
learn the difference between nouns, adjectives, verbs, and phrases. As a way to reiterate the
meanings of the adjectives, students had to create a keyword and draw an image of their one
assigned adjective. This was a strategy I had never done myself or in class and the students were
open to trying it. Some of them understood the concept, but some were not able to think
abstractly. In addition to the flashcards I made a presentation with a phrase for the chapter and an
image on each slide. I used these same images on a homework assignment later on for students to
further associate with the given phrases.
When I was teaching these new learning strategies for vocabulary during both German 2
and 3 lessons, I explained what each strategy was in terms the students could understand. I
realize that not all learning strategies will work for all students, but at least they were exposed to
different learning strategies I would have otherwise never taught. As Kocaman and Cumaoglu
(2014) pointed out, introducing students to many different learning strategies is important for
them in order to develop their most preferred leaning styles.
Comparison of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
Before I implemented any parts of my action plan, I used to give students vocabulary lists
comprised of words the textbook and I felt were important and relevant to the current chapter
topic. The only learning strategies students used to learn the vocabulary words were translation,
cognation, and imagery. Students typically translated the given list from German to English and

WTS 1 and 2

page 18 of 31

had to study this at home. Both classes had to label their depicted vocabulary words on a
worksheet in German. I tried to include as many cognates as possible because students were
better at recalling these during class and on quizzes. I did not use any communication strategies.
On the vocabulary quizzes, German 2 students performed on average with 85% accuracy
with correct articles and spellings, and the German 3 students performed on average with 70.73%
accuracy. This data can be seen under Artifacts A and B, respectively. The student learning
objectives for German 2 students were overall 90% accuracy on their vocabulary quizzes with
less than 5% of errors made in any category. The objectives for German 3 were 85% accuracy
with less than 5% of errors in any category for German 3.
After students discussed which vocabulary words would be most helpful for the next
chapter, I compiled a vocabulary list for both German 2 and 3 drawing from what they discussed.
I then taught each class different learning strategies, as described earlier, and designed different
activities based on my research. Students then took a vocabulary quiz in a similar format as the
previous quizzes. The German 2 classs quiz depicted 15 of their vocabulary words which were
nouns, and gave the English for 5 verbs. Students then had to write the German translations for
all nouns, including correct articles, and verbs. As seen in Artifact D, student answered overall
on average with 86.87% accuracy, made 2.81% of all errors because of the wrong articles, 6.87%
of all errors overall were made in spelling, and 2.81% of all errors made in both wrong articles
and spelling. This shows an overall improvement of 1.87% accuracy.
The German 3 classs quiz did not assess concrete objects but rather adjectives and
phrases related to the topic. Students had to give the German translation for given English
adjectives and write out an entire German phrase one might say in a situation described in
English. As seen in Artifact E, students performed on average with 68.75% overall accuracy.

WTS 1 and 2

page 19 of 31

There were no nouns on this quiz so there were no possible errors for the articles. Students made
24.78% of all errors in spelling, 0.60% of all errors in writing the wrong adjective or phrase, but
it was correctly spelled, and 5.80% of all errors in writing the wrong phrase or adjective that was
also misspelled. Overall, students appeared to understand which phrases to use in the described
situations and made the most errors in spelling. Compared to the pre-implementation quiz, one
can see a 1.98% decrease in overall accuracy.
Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
The previous seating chart had students sitting immediately next to one another with no
empty desks between or next to students. This mathematically worked well when I wanted
students to quickly talk to their neighbors to reiterate what we just discussed since every student
was sitting next to a peer he or she could talk to. I noticed during these checks for understanding
that some students did not talk to their neighbors at all, ignored my prompting them to
participate, or stood up and walked over to a friend with whom they felt comfortable speaking. I
also saw that students were easily distracted and tempted to talk because they were so close to
one another.
After I gathered their thoughts on the current seating charts in both German 2 and 3, I
made a conscious decision to spread the students apart which left one empty desk in each row.
The goal was to prevent frequent distractions, but still allow students to talk to each other when
prompted. I also did my best to seat students according to their preferences in the front or back,
and near other students whom they indicated would cause them the least distractions.
Overall, students did not seem to mind the new seating charts and I noticed they stayed
more focused during instruction. The German 3 students did not refuse to participate or talk to
their neighbors, and they chose to work with different students than they had before. I assume

WTS 1 and 2

page 20 of 31

this was because of the closer proximity to their friends. The German 2 students participation,
however, decreased, because they were more spread out. The empty desks gave them fewer
options in regard with to whom they could talk, and as a result they simply refused participation.
After class a student even told me that another student flat-out would not talk to her, but I had
noticed in class that she also made no effort to talk to the other student. In the end I had the
students move forward to fill in the empty desks. This helped with partner participation and
improved my classroom management.
These new seating charts showed me that the younger students in German 2 care a lot
more about appearing dumb in front of their peers, and that their willingness to participate is
greatly decrease if they are not able to easily talk to their friends. The older students in German 3
tended to care less about appearing dumb in front of their peers. They seemed to realize the goal
to learn German in the classroom and were less concerned with socialization.
Reflection of Entire Learning Process
The question that guided this research and action plan was What strategies, learning
experiences, and environment are most effective for vocabulary acquisition in English-speaking
students learning German? I learned how important creating the vocabulary list actually was
and that student-input could influence the textbooks suggestions. I also learned that I as the
teacher have to model and thoroughly explain the learning strategies in my instruction, because
the students were not familiar with any strategies beyond German-English translation. It takes a
lot more preparing and scaffolding to implement learning strategies in my teaching than if I were
to leave them out. I found, however, that students more fully understood the new vocabulary
words when I included different learning strategies, and I would like to include them in the
future.

WTS 1 and 2

page 21 of 31

What Worked and Why

1. It worked in the German 3 class to give students different colored flashcards each for
nouns, verbs, adjectives, and phrases. It was easier for me to tell them the quiz would be on the
pink and yellow cards rather than them referring to a list. Instead of translating side-to-side, the
students translated front-to-back. This way they could only look at one language at a time and
had to recall the other side from memory. The flashcards were also nice for when students
practiced the words in partners.
2. It worked for the German 2 students to make advanced organizer houses and label the
nouns and verbs for each room under the corresponding flap. This grouped certain words
together so they could concentrate on the relationship between the grouped words. They also
brought their model houses with them to refer to during partner work.
3. It worked to let students sit near a friend they had indicated as a good neighbor.
They were, for the most part, honest about this and willingly talked to their friends when
prompted. I noticed that students genuinely wanted to help their friends understand and would
re-explain something during worktime.
4. It worked to include words one would frequently encounter when discussing a given
topic. Although it was not ideal to have students design their own vocabulary lists, I did get some
great words from them that the book did not include. I even learned new words myself in the
process. I think in the future it would be best to still have students discuss a topic, but not let it
become the focus of my lesson.
5. The keyword assignment for German 3 worked well at the time. Each student had the
responsibility to convey the meaning of one adjective for their peers using the English
translation, a keyword, and drawing an image. For some students drawing the image was helpful.

WTS 1 and 2

page 22 of 31

The students seemed to gather the concept of finding a keyword for the word, but more time was
needed to incorporate the keywords into another activity and build upon the concept.
What Did Not Work and Why
1. It did not work to seat the students so far apart from each other since they still relied on
their friends when asked to communicate in German. By separating these students so much from
their friends they were not forced to communicate with whomever was nearby, as I anticipated,
but rather shut down and did not communicate at all. This seating chart more clearly defined
certain friend groupings in the class that I otherwise did not think were as prevalent. In the
German 3 class the seating chart was okay, but a couple students saw this as an opportunity to
yell across the room to each other and I had to put a quick end to that.
2. It did not work particularly well to have students first discuss the topic in English and
come up with the vocabulary words in English. I ended up consulting the textbook and could
only take a few suggestions from their lists. The two biggest problems with this were that the
students had either drilled the nouns associated with the given topic already last year but lacked
any sense of grammar, or they did not have the experiences to draw from and discuss the topic.
3. It did not work to rush the students to take the vocabulary quizzes because they do not
learn new vocabulary like I do. In retrospect this is obvious, but this processes helped me realize
the students learn new words at a much slower pace because everything they are learning is
foreign to them and not just the words. I would attribute the German 3 classs decrease in
accuracy to not having enough time with the new learning strategies and having introduced too
many new things at one time.

WTS 1 and 2

page 23 of 31

My Next Steps
1. Be mindful that students learn new vocabulary at a slower pace and model good
learning strategies as a way to teach new vocabulary. Now I understand I have to teach learning
strategies to students and they do not have an innate ability to quickly learn vocabulary.
2. I need to plan different activities that include a variety of learning strategies that do not
fully rely on translation. While translation can be a very useful tool for learning vocabulary, it
should not be at the heart of vocabulary acquisition. The goal is for students to relate meaning to
a context and something beyond the English word. I realize how much preparation effective
learning strategies can take on the part of the teacher, so it will be a gradual inclusion in my other
classes.
3. Not take students scores as a direct reflection on me as a teacher. I learned that
introducing something new to students will always take time for them to get used to and I cannot
let their performance discourage me if they do not succeed as I anticipated.
Overall this process taught me there is no perfect way to improve vocabulary acquisition
in high school students learning German, but some ways are more effective than others. I learned
that some strategies work well for some students and not for others. I am striving to find these
best strategies and am learning about myself as a teacher through my students learning.

WTS 1 and 2

page 24 of 31

References
Augustyn, P. (2013). Translation and bilingual practice for German vocabulary teaching and
learning. Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German, 46(1), 27-43. doi:10.111/tger/1027
Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed). White Plains, NY:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Kocaman, O., & Cumaoglu, G.K. (2014). Developing a scale for vocabulary learning strategies
in foreign languages. Education and Science, 39(176), doi:10.15390/EB.2014.3611
Lightbrown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed). New Yok, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Webb, S.A., & Chang, A.C. (2012). Second language vocabulary growth. RELC Journal 43(1),
113-126.

WTS 1 and 2

page 25 of 31

Artifact A

These are the results of the German 2 body parts vocabulary quiz that German 2 students took
before new any implementation of the action plan. There were twenty items on the quiz.
Individual data for each student was first collected and later interpreted on the graph below.

Student
a2
b2
c2
d2
e2
f2
g2
h2
i2
j2
k2
l2
m2
n2
o2
p2

Correct
article and
spelling
12
15
19
15
19
20
20
19
19
20
18
12
18
19
12
15

Wrong article
and correct
spelling
5
1
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
3
1
0
1
1

Correct article
wrong spelling
2
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
1
6
4

Wrong
article and
spelling
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0

WTS 1 and 2

page 26 of 31

Artifact B
These are the results of the German 3 clothing items vocabulary quiz that German 3 students
took before new any implementation of the action plan. There were twenty items on the quiz.
Individual data for each student was first collected and later interpreted on the graph below.

Student
a3
b3
c3
d3
e3
f3
g3
h3
i3
j3
k3
l3
m3
n3
o3
p3

Correct article
and spelling
11
18
14
16
18
17
11
15
10
17
17
14
17
17
18
19

Wrong article
and correct
spelling
5
0
4
0
0
2
2
1
8
1
2
3
1
1
0
0

Correct
article and
wrong
spelling
3
2
2
6
3
1
9
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
3

Wrong article
and spelling
3
2
2
0
1
2
0
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
0

WTS 1 and 2

page 27 of 31

Artifact C
The following are tables describing learning and communication strategies taken from Principles
of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed) by H. D. Brown (2007).

WTS 1 and 2

page 28 of 31

WTS 1 and 2

page 29 of 31

WTS 1 and 2

page 30 of 31

Artifact D
These are the results of the house vocabulary quiz that German 2 students took after
implementation of the action plan. There were 20 items depicted given in English on the quiz.
Individual data for each student was first collected and later interpreted on the graph below.

Student
a2
b2
c2
d2
e2
f2
g2
h2
i2
j2
k2
l2
m2
n2
o2
p2

Correct
article and
correct word
16
13
20
17
20
19
18
19
17
20
20
16
18
18
9
18

Wrong article
and correct
word
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
3
1

Correct article
wrong/misspelled
word
4
5
0
3
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
3
1

Wrong article and

wrong/misspelled
word
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0

WTS 1 and 2

page 31 of 31

Artifact E
These are the results of the adjectives and phrases vocabulary quiz that German 3 students took
after implementation of the action plan. There were 28 items on the quiz. Sixteen of these items
were direct translations of adjectives and 12 of these items had a situation described in English
and students had to write an appropriate expression in German for each situation. Individual data
for each student was first collected and later interpreted on the graph below.

Student
a3
b3
c3
d3
e3
f3
g3
h3
i3
j3
k3
l3
m3
n3
o3
p3

Correct
phrase/adjective
and spelling
19
21
22
16
26
28
10
15
14
24
18
13
24
14
18
26

Correct
phrase/adjective
and wrong
spelling
7
5
6
11
2
0
16
13
4
4
7
8
4
13
9
2

Wrong
phrase/adjective
and correct
spelling
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0

Wrong
phrase/adjective
and spelling
2
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
10
0
3
4
0
1
1
0