140] On: 21 November 2013, At: 07:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Developmental Education , Hillsborough Community College , Tampa, Florida, USA Published online: 22 Apr 2011.
To cite this article: Aimee Alexander-Shea (2011) Redefining Vocabulary: The New Learning Strategy for Social Studies, The Social Studies, 102:3, 95-103, DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2010.509371 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2010.509371
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Social Studies (2011) 102, 95103 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0037-7996 print / 2152-405X online DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2010.509371
Although vocabulary development is an important part of the social studies curriculum, vocabulary activities are often inadequate, leaving students with cursory knowledge of terms. Worse still is the fact that many of the most critical words demarcating the eld are not included in those activities. Therefore, a transformation from viewing vocabulary instruction as a single activity that takes time away from social studies instruction to recognizing vocabulary development as a powerful learning strategy is needed. This article offers an educational model that threads vocabulary development throughout the social studies curriculum in a non-intrusive manner, enhancing and reinforcing students understanding of social studies. This model is based on educational theories that stress the importance of activating prior knowledge, considering the relationships between concepts, comparing and contrasting ideas, and encouraging students to generate their own meaning of terms. Explanations and examples of vocabulary activities that draw on each of these components are provided. Keywords: secondary students, vocabulary development, social studies, learning strategies, secondary instruction, reading comprehension
commonly occurs by introducing concepts with a textbook and occasionally other text-based resources. Reliance on the textbook makes learning core social concepts difcult for many secondary students because of their deciencies in the tools required to gather information from social studies texts. Therefore, in spite of the symbiotic relationship between social studies, world understanding, and literacy, social studies resources can potentially hinder the development of civic-minded students if the obstacles to comprehending those materials are not addressed by the teacher. This article explains how deciencies in vocabulary instruction create the most critical obstacles to comprehension in the social studies. A model for employing vocabulary development as an effective learning strategy to improve overall instruction is then offered. Each component of the model is based on educational theory and is a critical element in a lesson, thereby transforming vocabulary development from a single, isolated activity to a powerful learning strategy that reinforces social concepts being addressed in the curriculum.
It is no secret that social studies is heavily text-based. Although social studies lends itself to drawing on multiple information sources, in many social studies classrooms teachers rely almost exclusively on the textbook to guide
96
the curriculum. In fact, it is estimated that the textbook is used to deliver 85 to 95 percent of the curriculum in the typical social studies classroom (Jones 1998), which means that use of the textbook far exceeds the use of any other resource, including the teacher (Cruz 2002). In addition to the over-reliance on textbooks, other resources may also be drawn on in social studies. Due to the sheer volume and interconnectedness of information that informs the eld, comprehensive social studies education can easily encompass multiple and varied sources such as the Internet, simulations, debates, movies, storybooks, cartoons, pictures, audio, video, primary sources, newspapers, magazines, and discussions. Just as with most social studies textbooks, supplemental resources such as these are rarely written with the intermediate student in mind. As such, each of the information sources used by social studies teachers has the potential to present a great barrier to all students, especially those who are at risk or who are nonnative speakers of English (Dong 2009). Written well above the grade level for which they are intended (Jitendra et al. 1999), social studies texts cause difculty because they rarely provide requisite background knowledge for comprehension; they incorporate complex sentence structures that present a number of concepts at once; and they use an extraordinary amount of esoteric vocabulary (Brown 2007). For these reasons, students need to be armed with a wide array of learning strategies if they are expected to gather and apply social concepts.
Alexander-Shea
in social studies courses (Jitendra et al. 1999; Wilson, Readence and Konopak 2002), and there is, in fact, a strong basis for such agreement. Some researchers (Archer, Gleason, and Vachon 2003; Nagy and Anderson 1984) estimate that beginning in fth grade and continuing every academic year beyond, students encounter approximately 10,000 words that they have never encountered before. The core concepts in social studies, as well as in other disciplines, are often delivered through use of these unknown words (Archer, Gleason, and Vachon 2003). The obvious problem with relying on unfamiliar vocabulary to teach new concepts is that since students do not know the words, their command of the material is greatly compromised. The predicament of vocabulary attainment becomes even more blatant when considering that, in spite of being exposed to nearly 70,000 new words over the course of seven years, the average high school student graduates with a vocabulary of only 35,000 to 42,000 words (Nagy and Anderson 1984). Therefore, many of the terms students are exposed to never enter into their working language. This fact is not surprising when considering that it takes a minimum of ten exposures to a word to learn it well enough to understand and use it (Short 2002). Since the vocabulary terms that compose the social studies encapsulate an array of social concepts including events, people, hypotheses, theories, regions, laws, and perspectives, among other things, it is clear that vocabulary development is a critical learning strategy that must be consistently and effectively integrated into instruction.
Redening Vocabulary
subtle characteristics of concepts, as well as to grasp the connections among the social concepts they already know and those they are learning while constructing their understanding of the social realm. To meet these objectives, teachers must widen their view of vocabulary development and include meaningful activities that reinforce a more complete understanding of the topics being explored (Billmeyer and Barton 2002; Vacca and Vacca 2002).
97
ceived saliency of a topic is a determining factor in their motivation to learn. The impact that both schema and salience have on the ability to grasp and think critically about social concepts provides a strong rationale for ensuring that vocabulary development includes four key elements: (1) the activation of prior knowledge; (2) consideration of the relationships between concepts; (3) comparison and contrast of familiar concepts; and (4) student generation of meaning. Interestingly, these four components of vocabulary instruction are also foundational elements of effective teaching practices (Billmeyer and Barton 2002; Harmon and Hedrick 2000; Punch and Robinson 1992; Watts and Truscott 1996). As vocabulary instruction incorporates these essentials, it is transformed into a learning strategy that can be threaded throughout social studies curricula in unobtrusive yet meaningful ways.
98
discussion points with the entire group. This strategy differs slightly from mind streaming in that students are given time to generate their own thoughts about the topic before interacting with their partners and the discussion between the pairs is interactive instead of one-sided. The more structured format of a think-pair-share may make this strategy more attractive to teachers who are not adept at leading group work. Knowledge rating (Gifford 2000) is an activity that requires students to evaluate their knowledge of critical words that are related in a lesson or unit of study. In this activity, the teacher provides students with a list of words. Students respond to each word, indicating if they (1) can use the word in a sentence that demonstrates its meaning and denes the word; (2) have heard the word and understand it, but cannot use it; or (3) are completely unfamiliar with the word. Students should use their responses to guide their activities while reading. If they believe they know the word, then they dene it and use it. Next, they should determine if they understand it correctly as they interact with the text. If they recognize the word, then they should look for more information about it in the text with the goal of gaining enough knowledge of the word to begin using it. Finally, if they do not know a word at all, then they should become familiar with it as they read. This activity draws on students background knowledge and provides motivation for actively engaging with the text.
Alexander-Shea
display of relationships between general ideas and specic details (see gure 6). Semantic maps are similar to the structure of a ow chart, with the topic appearing at the top of the map. Branching off of the main topic are components that comprise the topic. There may be several levels of information represented in the map, with each subsequent level becoming more specic. Another activity that helps develop vocabulary while showing relationships between ideas is a RAFT, or a writing activity in which students write for a specic purpose. The teacher provides parameters for student writing based on the RAFT acronym: R stands for the role the student must assume; A stands for the audience that is being addressed by the writing; F stands for the format of the writing; and T stands for the topic being written about. For example, a geography teacher might ask students to take on the role of a travel agent (role) who is advising a group of tourists (audience) visiting a country for the rst time (format) by creating a brochure (topic) informing them of the top ten places they should visit and the historical signicance of each site. In this type of activity, students can be required to use certain vocabulary terms throughout their writing. Not only does using the vocabulary words help reinforce understanding and demonstrate denitional knowledge, but it also exhibits students understanding of the overall concepts they learned (Santa, Havens, and Maycumber 1996). Spoken word is a nal vocabulary strategy that can be used to relate concepts. This strategy is particularly useful in social studies because the teacher gives students the key concepts for the chapter, their denitions, and the context
Redening Vocabulary
99
in which they can be found. Then, students are asked to nd ways in which the terms relate to their personal lives. Students are allowed to use outside resources such as the Internet, books, or even a family member to develop an understanding of the terms and how the concept impacts their own lives. They are randomly asked to share personal stories that relate to each term and then to expand their definitions to include a global meaning of the word (Grubaugh and Metzger 1986).
100
Alexander-Shea
characteristics that only apply to a concept under certain circumstances (Billmeyer and Barton 2002; Bos et al. 1989; Vacca and Vacca 2002). A word sort (Gillett and Temple 1983) helps students deepen their understanding of the distinctions among terms that must be categorized based on their overt and subtle fea-
tures. Word sorts are particularly effective for scaffolding higher-order thinking skills since the teacher initially provides the categories by which students sort the words. As students become more procient, they may create their own categories. Seeing as there are no correct answers to this activity, students are left to justify their choice of category
Redening Vocabulary
101
labels as well as their categorizations (Billmeyer and Barton 2002; Bryant et al. 2003; Punch and Robinson 1992; Vacca and Vacca 2002). List-group-label (Gifford 2000; Taba 1967) is a three-step activity that helps students clarify their understandings of concepts. In the list step, the teacher provides a topic. As a whole group, students come up with a list of about twentyve words that are associated with that topic. During the group step, the teacher reads each word to the class and asks students to categorize words based on similar features. In the label step, students come up with labels for the groups of words. The title for each group should represent the relationship between the words in that group. The class as a whole then evaluates the groupings and labels, determining which are most appropriate. This activity is best used as a postreading vocabulary strategy because students must be somewhat familiar with the topics to be successful.
in the formation of a personalized denition if content is understood. Several activities support student generation of meaning. One activity relies on student predictions of word meanings. This activity is done prior to exposure to the topic. Students are given a list of terms at the beginning of the unit and asked to predict the meaning of each word. As they are introduced to the material through reading or a lesson,
102
they determine if their predicted denitions were correct. This activity helps students draw out prior knowledge and gives them a reason to focus on material they are learning (Santa, Havens, and Maycumber 1996). Another effective graphic organizer that fosters studentgenerated denitions of concepts is the concept denition map (Schwartz and Raphael 1985). To begin with, students list what the concept is like by providing attributes and qualities. After the characteristics are given, students offer examples of the concept. Finally, students dene the concept by using their own words (Billmeyer and Barton 2002; Vacca and Vacca 2002). Concept denition mapping is a useful tool for uncovering shades and variations in the meaning. Figure 1 provides an example of a typical concept denition map, whereas gure 2 offers a modied version. The Frayer model (Frayer, Frederick, and Kalusmeier 1969; see gure 3) is similar to concept denition mapping in that it asks students rst to consider the characteristics and examples of a word. Students are also asked to provide nonexamples, or instances that do not demonstrate the concept. This activity differs from concept denition mapping in that students are prompted to provide examples and nonexamples from their own life experiences. The nal step of this activity is to come up with a personal denition for the word based on the characteristics, personal examples, and nonexamples (Billmeyer and Barton 2002).
Alexander-Shea
Billmeyer, R., and M. L. Barton. 2002. Teaching reading in the content areas: If not me, then who? Aurora, CO: ASCD. Bos, C. S., P. A. Anders, D. Filip, and L. E. Jaffe. 1989. The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 22 (6): 384390. Brown, C. L. 2007. Strategies for making social studies texts more comprehensible for English-language learners. The Social Studies 98 (5): 185188. Bryant, D. P., M. Bryant, B. R. Goodwin, and K. Higgins. 2003. Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 26 (2): 117128. Cruz, B. C. 2002. Don Juan and rebels under palm trees: Depictions of Latin Americans in U.S. history textbooks. Critique of Anthropology 22 (3): 323342. DeRidder, I. 2002. Visible or invisible links: Does the highlighting or hyperlink affect incidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language, Learning, and Technology 6 (1): 123149. Dewey, J. 1953. Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Company. Dong, Y. R. 2009. Linking to prior learning. Educational Leadership 66 (7): 2631. Doty, J. K., G. N. Cameron, and M. L. Barton. 2003. Teaching reading in social studies. Aurora, CO: McRel. Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. 1994. Bulletin 89. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Frayer, D. A., W. C. Frederick, and H. J. Kalusmeier. 1969. A schema for testing the level of concept mastery. Working paper no. 16. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. Freebody, P., and R. C. Anderson. 1983. Effects of vocabulary difculty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 18 (3): 277294. Gifford, A. P. 2000. Broadening concepts through vocabulary development. Reading Improvement 37 (1): 212. Gillett, J. W., and C. Temple. 1983. Understanding reading problems: Assessment and instruction. Boston: Little, Brown. Grubaugh, S. J., and D. J. Metzger. 1986. Increasing comprehension: Level senior high. Social Education 50: 543544. Harmon, J. M., and W. B. Hedrick. 2000. Zooming in and zooming out: Enhancing vocabulary and conceptual learning in social studies. The Reading Teacher 54 (2): 155159. Harmon, J. M., W. B. Hedrick, and E. A. Fox. 2000. A content analysis of vocabulary instruction in social studies textbooks for grades 48. The Elementary School Journal 100 (3): 253272. Irvin, J. L., J. P. Lunstrum, C. Lynch-Brown, and M. F. Shepard. 1995. Enhancing social studies through literacy strategies. Bulletin 91. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Jenkins, J. R., and R. Dixon. 1983. Vocabulary learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology 8(3): 237260. Jitendra, A., V. Nolet, O. Gomez, and Y. P. Xin. 1999. An analysis of four middle grades geography textbooks: Meeting the needs of students with learning problems. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, April 1923, Montreal, Quebec. Jones, R. C. 1998. Making sense in the social studies. Readingquest.org. http://readingquest.org/ (accessed September 15, 2009). Lyman, F. T. 1981. The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In Mainstreaming digest, by A. Anderson, 109113. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press. McClanahan, B. 2008. Help! I have kids who cant read in my world history class. Preventing School Failure 53 (2): 105111. Milligan, J. L., and T. P. Ruff. 1990. A linguistic approach to social studies vocabulary development. The Social Studies 81 (5): 218220. Nagy, W., and R. C. Anderson. 1984. How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly 9 (3): 304330.
Conclusion
Social studies has unique ties to literacy and world understanding. Being a discipline that relies so heavily on text, teachers must reect on how social vocabulary is being taught throughout the curriculum. Vocabulary development is critical to students success in the social studies classroom and should entail activities that encourage a comprehensive understanding of the topics encountered. The view of vocabulary as a sole activity independent of all other instruction is not acceptable if students are expected to understand and apply social studies in their lives. Instead, vocabulary instruction should be threaded throughout the curriculum in ways that allow students to interact with concepts, terms, historical gures, ideas, theories, and other eld-specic language. Changing how vocabulary instruction is viewed is one key to improving students overall comprehension of the discipline.
References
Anderson, R. C., and P. D. Pearson. 1984. A schematic-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Handbook of reading research, by P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, and P. B. Mosentham, 255292. New York: Longman. Archer, A. L., M. M. Gleason, and V. L. Vachon. 2003. Decoding and uency: Foundations for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly 26 (2): 89101.
Redening Vocabulary
Nagy, W. E., R. C. Anderson, and P. A. Herman. 1987. Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal 24 (2): 237270. Punch, M., and M. Robinson. 1992. Social studies vocabulary mnemonics. Social Education 56 (7): 402403. Santa, C. M., L. T. Havens, and E. M. Maycumber. 1996. Project CRISS: Creating independence through student-owned strategies. 2nd ed. Kalispell, MN: Kendall Hunt. Schwartz, R. M., and T. E. Raphael. 1985. A key to improving students vocabulary. The Reading Teacher 39 (2): 198205. Short, D. 2002. Language learning in sheltered social studies classes. TESOL Journal 11 (1): 1824. Taba, Hilda. 1967. Teachers handbook for elementary social studies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
103
Vacca, R. T., and J. A. L. Vacca. 2002. Content area reading. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Watts, S., and D. M. Truscott. 1996. Using contextual analysis to help students become independent word learners. The New England Reading Association Journal 3: 13 20. Willingham, D., and D. Price. 2009. Theory to practice vocabulary instruction in community college developmental education reading classes: What the research tells us. Journal of College Reading and Learning 40 (1): 91106. Wilson, E. K., J. E. Readence, and B. C. Konopak. 2002. Preservice and inservice secondary social studies teachers beliefs and instructional decisions about learning with text. Journal of Social Studies Research 87 (4): 1222.