Vocabulary: Caught or Taught?

Frank Serafini

Like the debates regarding the development of spelling and decoding abilities, the debate concerning vocabulary development seems to hinge on the question, “Is vocabulary better Caught or Taught?” That is, is vocabulary most effectively developed through explicit instruction or exposure to a wide variety of literature and print resources? Both groups would agree that vocabulary plays a significant role in the comprehension of texts, and that readers that read extensively have larger oral and sight vocabularies. Most the research on vocabulary development supports a balanced approach, blending the acquisition of new vocabularies through exposure to print, classroom discussions, and explicit instruction on specific words, in meaningful contexts (Beck & McKeown, 1991; Rupley et al., 1998/1999).

On one side of the debate, calling students’ attention to particular word families, root word structures and specific vocabulary words and definitions is an important factor in expanding readers’ vocabularies. On the other side of the debate, research suggests that so many words are learned each year by students independent of explicit instruction, estimates range from 2,000 to 6,000 words a year, that time is better spent having young children read and write for extended amounts of time, and increasing working vocabularies through classroom discussions. Each side of the debate has its merits and I would like to explore these before offering some instructional suggestions for developing young readers’ vocabularies.

Vocabulary Instruction

I will begin with the “taught” side of the debate. Beck and McKeown (1991) assert that direct instruction is more effective than incidental learning and exposure to print for the acquisition of a particular vocabulary. Their research focuses on teaching readers specific sets of words, in meaningful contexts, and indeed, this may be where explicit instructional strategies may be most effective. When teachers target a specific set of words in meaningful contexts, vocabulary activities and instruction has been shown to be most effective.

Research suggests that vocabulary instruction done through inquiry projects in content area reading and meaningful contexts is more effective than the isolated memorizing or defining of predetermined, targeted words (Fischer, 1994). Explicit instruction that focuses on both definitional and contextualized information has been shown to be most effective in building readers’ vocabularies (Blachowicz & Lee, 1991; Rupley et al., 1998/1999). In this instructional approach, teachers call students’ “conscious awareness” to particular vocabulary words in the context of reading, writing and content area instruction, actively involving them in the processing of meanings of new words. Classroom discussion of particular vocabulary words is used to establish relationships to and among words. This has been shown to be more effective than simply requiring readers to look up words before reading a passage, or copying down definitions. It is the process of constructing and discussing word meanings, not simply memorizing dictionary entries, that help readers expand their vocabularies.

When specific purposes for acquiring particular vocabulary words can be demonstrated and students understand the reasons for studying particular words, explicit vocabulary instruction has been shown to be an effective instructional strategy. The research on developing a more extensive general vocabulary through explicit instruction has a more inconsistent track record.

Vocabulary Acquisition

Now I will focus on the “caught” side of the debate. Common sense holds, and contemporary research demonstrates, a strong correlation between the amount of reading a person does and the depth and breadth of their general vocabulary (Beck et al., 2002). The more a person reads, the larger their sight and working vocabularies. Classroom discussions, instruction focusing on calling attention to environmental print, written language demonstrations, and opportunities to read extensively have all been shown to contribute to readers’ vocabulary development (Stahl, 1986).

Readers are able to infer the meanings of many words through the context in which they appear. However, this assumes readers are actively making sense of what they read and are attending to vocabulary in doing so. Reading for pleasure exposes readers to new vocabulary words but does not guarantee that readers will attend to new words or seek out their definitions.

Research in this area has demonstrated strong correlations between time spent reading and the size of one’s vocabulary. What has not been adequately demonstrated is whether basic exposure to new words is sufficient for developing new vocabularies, or whether people with extensive vocabularies simply read more because they are successful readers and enjoy reading.

Instructional Recommendations

Rupley et al. (1998/1999) recommend a balanced approach to vocabulary instruction, blending explicit instructional approaches with vocabulary development through extensive reading and exposure to print. They discuss the importance of developing readers’ experiential and conceptual backgrounds and the active processing of vocabulary words during the reading process. “When instruction is based on building connections, students are not just asked to supply words that fit the example, but rather to describe how words fit in the stories and informational text that they read” (Rupley et al., 1998/1999).

Stahl (1986) has developed three principles of vocabulary instruction: a) include both definitional information and contextual information about each word’s meaning, b) involve children more actively in attending to and investigating new vocabulary words, and c) use discussion to actively teach word meanings. New vocabulary words are learned in meaningful contexts and purposeful activities. The more we can contextually ground vocabulary instruction on specific words for specific purposes, the better our efforts will be rewarded.

Some instructional approaches that have been shown to be effective in developing vocabularies are semantic or graphic organizers and classroom discussions. Using visual organizers to help readers associate known words with new words, and classroom discussions to introduce and call attention to specific vocabulary words are effective instructional practices for enlarging students’ vocabularies.

Some Cautions

If instruction focusing on developing readers’ vocabularies assumes prominence over constructing meaning in transaction with texts or responding aesthetically to what has been read, we may distract readers from the primary objective of reading, namely, comprehending what is read. We don’t want readers to spend so much time defining or memorizing individual words that they no longer pay attention to making sense of what they are reading. However, as educators we must remain cognizant of the fact that without an extensive vocabulary comprehending texts can be challenging.

There is an important difference between defining words by looking them up in a dictionary and understanding how words are used in the context of written and oral language. Vocabulary instruction needs to blend dictionary definitions with contextual understandings to be most effective. Learning words from a predetermined list in isolation is a waste of time and energy. Any words selected for explicit instruction should be words that aren’t deducible from context, are rarely encountered in print, and will be used in a specific area of study. Helping readers become active processors of vocabulary words in the context of reading and learning helps them to become more effective comprehenders of texts.

Concerns offered by educators on the “taught side” of the debate should be considered when developing instructional approaches. Simply providing time for extensive reading is a necessary, but insufficient, instructional component for developing readers’ vocabularies. While research has demonstrated that explicit instruction has been most effective when it focuses on specific vocabulary words in purposeful contexts, calling attention to unknown words remains an important consideration in a comprehensive reading instructional framework.

In closing, developing an extensive general vocabulary through explicit instruction may be problematic. On the other hand, we don’t learn new words simply by coming across them in our reading for pleasure. We learn words that we encounter regularly, that catch our attention, and we have a purpose for knowing. If we want children to develop a more extensive oral and reading vocabulary we need to include new words in our classroom discussions, demonstrate the importance of attending to novel words, provide instruction focusing on word families, roots and derivatives, and provide extensive amounts of time for students to transact with texts in meaningful contexts. Direct vocabulary instruction cannot substitute for time spent reading and talking.

References

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2000). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. 2). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.

Blachowicz, C., & Lee, J. (1991). Vocabulary development in the literacy classroom. The Reading Teacher, 45, 188-195.

Fischer, U. (1994). Learning words from context and dictionaries: An experimental comparison. Applied Psycholinguists, 15(15), 551-574.

Rupley, W. H., Logan, J. W., & Nichols, W. D. (1998/1999). Vocabulary instruction in a balanced reading program. The Reading Teacher, 52(4), 336-346.

Stahl, S. A. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruction. Journal of Reading, 29, 662-668.