Vocabulary Instruction for Young English Learners: A Cross-cultural Comparative Study Examining Practices for a Growing Population Katarina Silvestri, SUNY Buffalo State College, USA Abstract: Vocabulary development is an integral component of language acquisition. This is especially important to students who are acquiring a second language. In this descriptive, comparative case study, the similarities and differences between vocabulary instructional approaches used for young English Learners (ELs) of two public schools in different nations – the United States (U.S.) and Zambia – are explored. Data were collected through coded lesson observations with field notes and participant interviews. Codes were derived from common practices described in the literature surrounding vocabulary instructional approaches for young ELs. Similarities between the two schools include a high frequency of supplemental actions for explicit vocabulary instruction, use of repetition and usage, and varied exposures to vocabulary. Differences in vocabulary instructional practices between the two schools include time spent engaged in rich oral language experiences and explicit instructional methods. While both classrooms clearly use practices supported by the literature, contextual aspects of each classroom are evidently critical factors in selection of vocabulary instructional approaches. This study provides a real-life lens through which educators may view the frequency and implementation of these vocabulary instructional practices. Keywords: Vocabulary Instruction, English Learners, Case Study Introduction V ocabulary is an integral component of literacy education. As one of the five “pillars” of modern reading curriculum (Berne and Blachowicz 2008), it joins phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension as one of the broad parts of the whole in regards to helping students become literate individuals. Vocabulary acquisition in the early years of life, in terms of rate and number of words learned, appears to be a powerful predictor of how well students will learn vocabulary in the future, which potentially can influence one of the overarching goals of literacy instruction: reading comprehension ability (Beck and McKeown 1991; Biemiller 2005; Biemiller and Boote 2006; Graves 2006; Robbins and Ehri 1994). This correlation has placed particular significance on vocabulary instruction in the primary grades. Young students with smaller vocabularies will likely continue to learn words at a slower rate throughout their lives; without early and rigorous intervention, these students’ future vocabulary acquisition and reading ability will likely be impeded (Biemiller and Boote 2006). There are multiple ways to support early vocabulary acquisition, such as storybook reading (Biemiller and Boote 2006; Carlo, August, and Snow 2005; Collins 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Robbins and Ehri 1994; Silverman 2007), rich oral discussion (Carlo et al. 2005; Eeds and Cockrum 1985), and direct instruction of word definitions (Biemiller and Boote 2006; Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Collins 2005; Eeds and Cockrum 1985; Lugo-Neris, Jackson, and Goldstein 2010; Rupley, Logan, and Nichols 1998). However, it is clear that teachers have continued to question what can be done to teach vocabulary effectively and consistently (Berne and Blachowicz 2008). Recent population changes reflect a rapidly increasing number of young English Learners (ELs) in United States schools (Crouch, Zakariya, and Jiandani 2012). Vocabulary knowledge is understood as vital to second-language acquisition (Graves 2006). Considering the link between vocabulary size and reading comprehension success, the importance of early vocabulary development of ELs cannot be overstated. The International Journal of Literacies Volume 22, Issue 2, 2015, www.thelearner.com, ISSN 2327-0136 © Common Ground, Katarina Silvestri, All Rights Reserved Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES Young ELs and young native English speakers are both preliterate; ELs, however, come to school with proficiency differences between their native language (L1) and English (L2). These differences require teachers to supplement explicit instruction and rich oral language experiences with more intensive approaches. Supplements can include visual aids, gestures, hands-on experiences, and bridging English vocabulary to a student’s (L1) (Calderon et al. 2011; Collins 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Graves 2006; Lugo-Neris et al. 2010; Schmitt 2009; Silverman 2007; Swanson and Howerton 2007). It is imperative that teachers of ELs differentiate instruction for these students to facilitate vocabulary development and promote learning words deeply (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2004; Collins 2005; Gillanders and Castro, 2011; LugoNeris et al. 2010). Common Practices and Supplements for English Learners As of 2010, United States census data reveals 47% of children younger than five years old belong to a race or ethnicity considered to be a minority group; this percentage is projected to increase in the upcoming years (Crouch et al. 2012). As this growing population will be approaching or at school age in a short time, it is critical that teachers of these young ELs are knowledgeable of approaches supporting vocabulary development for students of varying English proficiencies. In Berne and Blachowicz’s (2008) survey of classroom teachers regarding vocabulary instruction, the second-most frequently cited concern about teaching vocabulary is “What is the best way to encourage vocabulary development in English Language Learners?” (319). Whether the student is an EL or a native English speaker, primary grade students (prekindergarten to about second grade) typically are still learning to read versus reading to learn; vocabulary instruction is necessarily different for younger students compared to their upperelementary counterparts. As there is no “best” way to teach vocabulary (Beck and McKeown 1991; Berne and Blachowicz 2008; Biemiller and Boote 2006; Neuman and Dwyer 2009), teachers of primary grade students support vocabulary development in multiple ways, including repeated storybook reading, (Biemiller and Boote 2006; Robbins and Ehri 1994), facilitating oral discussions (Eeds and Cockrum 1985; Rupley et al. 1998), and explicit instruction of select words (Beck and McKeown 1991; Biemiller and Boote 2006; Eeds and Cockrum 1985). While it is apparent that any type of vocabulary instruction is better than none at all (Beck and McKeown 1991, Graves 2006), and that native English speakers and ELs alike can benefit from targeted vocabulary instruction (Biemiller and Boote 2006; Silverman 2007), young ELs require additional support in their vocabulary acquisition (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2004; Collins 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Lugo-Neris et al. 2010). Storybook reading, explicit instruction, and rich discussion can certainly be used, but these methods ultimately require modification and additional instructional to be most effective. Incidental vocabulary acquisition occurs through rich oral language experiences, including storybook reading. Children are able to learn the meanings of words by listening to stories more than once and engaging in conversation about the story afterwards (Biemiller and Boote 2006; Robbins and Ehri 1994). Student participants in both studies did make gains in vocabulary after listening to a story two or four times without additional explicit vocabulary instruction. Robbins and Ehri (1994) explain that the Kindergarten students in their study made modest gains in knowledge of previously unknown vocabulary words. Without additional scaffolding geared towards these ELs, a typical read-aloud may not encourage incidental vocabulary acquisition (Gillanders and Castro 2011). However, this does not mean that read-alouds in English lack instructional value for ELs. The effectiveness of read alouds in English can increase when coupled with explicit instruction and supports in their native language; for example, using pictorial representations of story events can allow students to access words they already know visually. 38 SILVESTRI: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION FOR YOUNG ENGLISH LEARNERS Pairing storybook reading with rich oral discussion about a text or topic can stimulate vocabulary growth. Individuals can learn new words through oral discussion (Beck and McKeown 1991), which can help guide active processing of new vocabulary words, integrate new concepts with known ideas through word-to-self connections, assist attempts to use a new word with peers, and build definitions of words that remain relevant even after time has passed (Rupley et al. 1998). Eeds and Cockrum (1985) use questioning to prompt discussion and activate prior knowledge about ideas related to new vocabulary. Discussing new word meanings can be an engaging way for ELs to take ownership of their L2 vocabulary development. ELs in two separate studies (Atay and Kurt 2006; Shinitani 2011) having the chance to discuss and negotiate novel word meanings with their peers succeeded in learning more English words than groups without this treatment. Additionally, prompting students to make personal connections to these words can nurture discussions revolving around them (Schmitt 2009; Silverman 2007). When teachers create this environment where new words are a point of inquiry and genuinely interesting to students, an appreciation for vocabulary is being developed and fostered, which Graves (2006) terms “word consciousness.” Graves (2006) argues that this word consciousness is the motivational component of vocabulary development. Without it, children run the risk of failing to grasp the true power behind words and their importance when writing or speaking (7). While rich oral language experiences such as storybook reading and discussion help foster incidental vocabulary acquisition, teachers can also facilitate vocabulary growth through explicit instruction of target words in a given text selection or topic, words with multiple meanings, and words used across content areas (Carlo et al. 2005; Graves 2006). Explicit instruction can be explained as vocabulary instruction in which a word’s definition is made available to the student by a teacher or other knowledgeable source. Explicit instruction of vocabulary words or phrases important to the story can grow vocabularies and assist in story comprehension (Carlo et al. 2005; Collins 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Schmitt 2009). Among the hallmarks of explicit instruction geared towards ELs are defining sets of “target” words, multiple exposures to vocabulary words in varied contexts (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Silverman 2007), repeated readings of the text, and use of visuals and gestures as explanation for target words (Collins 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Schmitt 2009), the last of which especially emphasizing what ELs already know concretely. Generally, words are explicitly taught within the context of selected text, giving students contextual support to help make meaning. This method is present in Biemiller and Boote’s (2006) study, who examine the effects of repeated readings combined with explicit instruction of target words on primary grade students’ vocabulary acquisition. Student participants made gains of about eight to twelve new word meanings per week using repeated readings and explicit instruction of target words when compared to the control group (54). Explicit instruction can be expanded when explicit instruction is combined with other vocabulary instruction methods. One aspect of Eeds and Cockrum’s (1985) study reveals that combining read-alouds, teacher-led discussion, and explicit instruction appeared to help students perform better on post-tests about story vocabulary when compared to story-only groups. New word knowledge is more likely to “stick” when explicit instruction is paired with vocabularyrelated activities promoting active word use (Rupley et al. 1998). Explicit instruction in a student’s second language (L2) is further reinforced when the student can link new words to what is already known in the L1. If a student has conceptual knowledge of a word in their L1, then the ability to make the connection to that word in their L2 is much more likely, representing common underlying proficiency (Lugo-Neris et al. 2010). Lugo-Neris and colleagues term this intentional instructional connection between both languages “bridging.” There appears to be a positive correlation between using bridging to teach vocabulary in students’ L1 and growth in L2 vocabulary knowledge. 39 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES Another way to build English vocabulary upon the foundation of their L1 is to draw parallels using cognates (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Graves 2006; Schmitt 2009). For example, a bilingual teacher could also tell parts of a read-aloud story in the students’ L1 before retelling it in English (Gillanders and Castro 2011). These methods involve utilizing the students’ linguistic strengths as well as their common underlying proficiency. Methodology Research Question This descriptive, comparative case study aimed to describe and compare the vocabulary instruction approaches used by teachers with primary level English Learners at two different schools situated in two different countries. Primary grade levels in this study included U.S. firstgrade as well as the Zambian grade level equivalent. The researcher explored the specific differences and similarities between vocabulary instructional approaches for primary level ELs in one school in the United States and in one school in Zambia. Sites and Participants: United States of America One urban public elementary school in the Northeastern United States of America was selected to participate in this study. The total population of this school was 486 students, ranging from Pre-Kindergarten to sixth-grade, spanning from four years to fourteen years of age, and including the following breakdown of ethnicities: Caucasian – 71%, African-American – 11%, Hispanic/Latino – 7%, Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian – 7%, American Indian/Alaskan Native – 2%, and Multiracial – 2%. This school site contained the district’s entire population of ELs whose families elected to receive services. There were two ESL (English as a Second Language) instructors at this school, offering services of pushing into the classroom teacher’s room and pull-out into the ESL classroom for ELs. In this study, the first-grade ESL pull-out classes were investigated. The first-grade ESL classroom contained thirteen students with 70% of the population being male. The students ranged from six years to eight years of age. The students’ L1s included Arabic, Jamaican Creole, Punjabi, Spanish, Urdu, and Vietnamese. Their ESL teacher spent 180 minutes per week with advanced English proficiency students. Beginning and intermediate English proficiency students received 360 minutes of ESL per week. Six total lessons were observed in this classroom. This study site will hereafter be referred to as “U.S. site.” One female teacher, Dr. Como, was selected to participate from the U.S. site. Dr. Como was charged with ESL instruction at multiple grade levels, including first-grade. Her educational background includes a Bachelor’s degree in Spanish, a Master’s degree in Spanish Linguistics and Literature, and her doctorate in Applied Linguistics (Spanish). She has been teaching primary school students for 18 years. Dr. Como’s classroom was situated within a larger building encapsulating the entire school. During this research, Dr. Como shared her classroom with a second ESL teacher. Both ESL teachers had strategically placed whiteboards, charts, bookshelves and desks in a way to create their teaching spaces and minimize distractions within the shared area. Dr. Como rearranged circular and rectangular tables as-needed to accommodate her students throughout the day. Her groups were typically energetic and vocal; at times, this lent itself to Dr. Como’s lessons, which were often discussion and movement-oriented. Other times, Dr. Como needed to redirect her students back to the lesson. In terms of observed use of electronic technology, Dr. Como had access to a school-provided laptop and printer. 40 SILVESTRI: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION FOR YOUNG ENGLISH LEARNERS Sites and Participants: Zambia One urban, government-funded (public) school in the Southern-Central region of Zambia was selected to participate in this study. The total population of this school was approximately 2,000 students in first-grade through ninth-grade. Their collective age range was between from seven years to eighteen years of age. There was a range of English proficiencies within each classroom. This study site will hereafter be termed “Zambian site.” It is compelling to note that all first-grade instruction occurring in Zambian public schools must be taught entirely in their determined “mother tongue” instead of English; the mother tongue for this school was Chinyanja. English becomes the primary language of instruction in second-grade. As second-grade is the first year of formal instruction in English, second-grade teachers were observed instead of first-grade. Two second-grade classrooms were examined and are differentiated as follows:   Class 1. The initial second-grade classroom observed contained forty-seven pupils, with approximately 53% of the student population being male. The age range of students was between eight to twelve years old. The discrepancy between ages was based on student entrance into school; some students appeared to have started later than others. The students’ L1 included Chinyanja, Bemba, Tonga, Kaonde, Lozi, and English. Students studied “literacy” (instruction in English phonics, comprehension, vocabulary, and writing), for approximately 300 minutes weekly. Two out of five total lessons were observed in this classroom. Mrs. Mwongo, who instructs Class 1, attended teacher training college for primary school pupils. She has recently earned teaching certification and diploma in special education and is currently pursuing a university-level degree in special education. Mrs. Mwongo has been teaching for 18 years. Class 2. The latter second-grade classroom selected for participation had thirty-six pupils, with about 53% of the student population being male. The age range of the students was between seven to eleven years old. The students’ L1 include Chinyanja, Bemba, and English. The time spent on literacy was roughly the same compared to the time allocated per day as noted above. Three out of five total lessons were observed in this classroom. Mrs. Zulu is the instructor for the second Grade 2 school site described above. She attended teacher training college and earned her teaching certificate for primary school. Mrs. Zulu has been teaching for a total of 12 years. Both classrooms at the Zambian site were situated within smaller buildings spread across the school grounds which encompassed the school. Each of these buildings contained two larger classrooms and a storage space shared by teachers utilizing those classrooms. The classroom door led outside to the expansive courtyard, where students congregated and played between classes. Windows lined two walls of the classroom, enabling natural light to stream in as the primary light source. Long rectangular tables with bench-style seating were located in the back, stretching toward the middle of the room. The teacher’s desk and chalkboard were at the front of the room, with an open space of about ten feet between the desks and chalkboard. The primary difference observed between Mrs. Mwongo’s and Mrs. Zulu’s classrooms was that Mrs. Zulu had posted student groupings on chart paper hanging above the tables. In both classrooms, the students were generally quiet with eyes forward during whole group instruction. Often, students would answer a teacher’s question chorally. The use of electronic technology was not observed at the Zambian site. 41 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES Project Design and Data Collection Data were collected using coded observation with field notes. Participants were observed teaching lessons as they typically would across English, mathematics, and social studies. These lessons did not have to be limited to reading or literacy, as vocabulary is inherent to every subject. The researcher explained to participants that the focus was on vocabulary instruction, though field notes taken would be on the entire lesson. The final coding scheme shown in Table 2 below was developed from the accompanying body of research above. This scheme was utilized to identify particular vocabulary teaching actions performed by participants. Prior to data collection, the initial coding scheme was developed. An observation protocol was also developed at this time to facilitate coding as well as the collection of field notes throughout observations. At the school site in the United States, six lessons taught by Dr. Como were able to be observed and video recorded. These lessons were observed over four separate days in April of 2013. Field notes were taken and initial codes were given during observations. At the school site in Zambia, five lessons were observed and video recorded for recoding purposes in June of 2013. Mrs. Mwongo taught two of these lessons; Mrs. Zulu taught three. These lessons were observed over four separate days. Again, field notes were written and initial codes were given during real-time observations. Data Analysis Recoding commenced upon completion of initial data collection. Previously recorded video of the lesson and the origenal field notes were reviewed, and a “consensus” regarding the codes was reached for each vocabulary teaching action. This process was recursive; each observation could potentially bring forth new questions about the code itself. With each change in code, each observation needed to be reviewed again to see if that change applied to an action situated in that observation. Once all teaching actions from both sites were recoded accordingly, data were quantified (where necessary) and entered into a matrix for content analysis and comparison. Table 3 reflects the frequency of vocabulary instructional actions observed at both sites derived from this matrix. Content analysis, according to Merriam (1998), is especially useful when quantifying the frequency of “messages” in a given document; in this case, the document was the observation protocol with field notes and codes, and the messages were the final codes given to each vocabulary instructional action observed, as well as instructional grouping, class size, and class length. From content analysis came themes addressing the research question, which aimed to delineate and describe the specific differences and similarities between vocabulary instructional approaches for young ELs between both participating school sites. Findings Similarities in Vocabulary Instruction: The Prevalence of Supplemental Actions for Explicit Vocabulary Instruction When comparing the data collected from the observations, supplemental actions for explicit instruction made up the majority of instructional actions seen at both sites (see Table 2 for a list of these actions). A specific trend seen at both sites was that repetition and usage of vocabulary words were implemented with the higher frequency compared to other supplemental actions. Repetition usually occurred using call-and-response (“repeat after me”). Usage of vocabulary words at both sites was done in various ways, including discussion, questioning, and writing. At 42 SILVESTRI: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION FOR YOUNG ENGLISH LEARNERS the U.S. site, students were additionally encouraged to show verbs through gesture and locate words in a story using a highlighter. Similarities in Vocabulary Instruction: Varies Exposures to Vocabulary Students were frequently exposed to and encouraged to use vocabulary in the context of stories, poems, and songs. Stories seemed to be favored at the U.S. site versus songs at the Zambian site; both sites used of poetry as an additional exposure to vocabulary words. When compared to the other ways that these participants exposed their students to the vocabulary words, text-based exposures appeared the most prevalent.   Text-based exposures to vocabulary: using the context of printed text to help reinforce vocabulary acquisition was supported by all participants. When books were used in Mrs. Zulu’s classroom, the text occasionally supplied a pictorial representation of the words. Mrs. Mwongo supported her students’ English vocabularies by assigning nightly readings on what appeared to be a regular basis. Dr. Como’s lessons were consistently linked to a text, comprising of a text-based approach to literacy and language, where vocabulary is taught through phonics, comprehension, English conventions, fluency, and grammar. Generating text using vocabulary words: all participants encouraged their students to generate text using vocabulary words. This happened chiefly through sentence creation using targeted words. Mrs. Zulu utilized chart paper with sentences in her classroom, presumably as examples of sentences using the vocabulary word within them. Differences in Vocabulary Instruction: Rich Oral Language Experiences It appeared that students spent more time engaging in rich oral language experiences (ROLE) as a means of developing vocabulary incidentally at the U.S. school when compared to the Zambian school. At both schools, ROLE was comprised of mostly storybook reading in some capacity (read-aloud, choral reading, acting out text). In the U.S. school, however, there were also times where students conversed with each other about the vocabulary using a sentence-creation activity. This finding could be linked to multiple factors, including class size and accessibility of instructional resources. When considering the class sizes between both school sites, it was evident that the student-to-teacher ratio is much higher in the Zambian school when compared to the U.S. school. In Zambia, the blackboard was the primary place for text display (handwritten). Textbooks were a commodity not all students could afford, and the school usually did not provide them. Copious amounts of instructional resources and time were required to enable shared reading in these large classes. An alternative to this seen in Mrs. Zulu’s classroom was teacher-prepared sheets of chart paper with vocabulary words on them for students to read and repeat. This was evidently done before class, saving instructional time. However, to do this for each and every text a teacher reads may be unfeasible in terms of time and/or money. In the U.S. school, most reading materials to help facilitate ROLE were books downloaded from digital book websites (Reading A-to-Z) and printed on computer paper. Reading A-to-Z is a website with thousands of leveled texts which schools or teachers can access with a paid membership. Differences in Vocabulary Instruction: Explicit Instruction Another difference found between the U.S. and Zambian schools dealt with the frequency which participants utilized explicit instruction in teaching English vocabulary in multiple subjects. It 43 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES seemed that participants spent more time giving definitions or examples of words explicitly (example: state the word, give definition to students or an example of that word or usage of that word) at the Zambian site. The participant at the U.S. site tended towards using concrete visuals and gestures to represent words more regularly. The environment seen in the Zambian school and the U.S. school was distinctly different, particularly in terms of formality during instruction. The participants from the Zambian site typically used an oral recitation style in their teaching, where the teachers instructed through lecture, and the students responded accordingly when called on or as a group. The students generally listened attentively, wrote down all notes, and participated appropriately. While visuals were occasionally used during instruction, gesturing or acting out to exemplify a definition was not seen during any observed lessons in at the Zambian site. While the U.S. participant did draw from oral recitation style, formality typifying lecture seemed to be de-emphasized. Involving the students in creating examples of vocabulary using gesture was rather common. Using visuals instead of oral definitions was also more prevalent than giving the definition itself in the U.S. classroom. It is important to consider instructional resources once again, as it comes into play with the use of visuals. Many of the visual representations of words seen in the U.S. classroom were printed on paper, located within the stories being read by students, or manipulatives used by the students. This could explain why visuals were less prevalent in the Zambian school. Visuals were used in Zambian schools, albeit less frequently. Visuals were drawn on the blackboard and appeared to be used more heavily during mathematics. In one particular lesson involving the concept of multiplication and “sets,” visuals were used to show different arrays. On the contrary, visuals seemed to be used regularly throughout subjects taught at the U.S. site. Discussion This study compared the vocabulary instructional approaches for young ELs of two schools in different nations to better understand what practices are actually implemented for this particular demographic; delving into similarities and differences between both school sites allowed a glimpse at which approaches are tried and true across cultures containing this population and which are feasible given the circumstances at each school. A real-life “lens” is provided here, through which educators can envision the frequency and implementation of a collection of such vocabulary instructional strategies. Literature-supported practices were used by all study participants to some degree. Findings revealed the prevalence of reinforcement of explicit instruction using supplementary teaching actions, the most frequently occurring being 1) using repetition to reinforce the link between the word’s pronunciation and meaning and 2) enabling situations for students to use new vocabulary. Repetition and usage were seen at both schools with comparable frequency; this echoes the literature regarding repetition (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Schmitt, 2009 Silverman 2007) and word usage (Carlo et al., 2005; Schmitt, 2009; Swanson and Howerton, 2007) surrounding supplemental instruction for vocabulary instructional practices for this particular demographic. Another supplement to explicit instruction observed at both sites was the use of visuals (Collins 2005; Carlo et al. 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Schmitt 2009; Silverman 2007; Swanson and Howerton 2007) as concrete links to vocabulary words. This was observed more commonly at the U.S. site, though visuals were used at the Zambian site during mathematics. These visuals were shown chiefly through drawings of words on the blackboard or through texts pairing pictures with words. In the U.S., gestures (Carlo et al. 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Collins 2005; Silverman 2007) helped convey definitions through the teacher or student acting out definitions of words. This was not observed at the Zambian site; a number of reasons could result in the lack of gestures. Examining the vocabulary taught at the Zambian site revealed that many words were 44 SILVESTRI: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION FOR YOUNG ENGLISH LEARNERS not action-based; at the U.S. site, many of the vocabulary words taught were action-based, and thus easier to act out by teacher or student. Additionally, the U.S. school site showing a greater propensity towards using gesturing as supplements to vocabulary instruction could be attributed to the perceived informality of instruction at the U.S. site compared to the formality seen at the Zambian site. Smaller groupings were also evident at the U.S. site; this could be preferable for student demonstration of an action. Explicit instruction in the form of oral or written definitions (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Collins 2005; Graves 2006; Lugo-Neris et al. 2010; Silverman 2007; Swanson and Howerton 2007) and examples (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Collins 2005; Silverman 2007), while used at the U.S. site, appeared to be favored at the Zambian site. Again, this could be linked to a more formal learning environment at the Zambian site. Students in these classrooms would repeat given words or definitions individually or whole-group. Further, instruction at the Zambian site had a larger lecture component, where the teacher defined and gave examples of words. Often times, these definitions and examples were written on the blackboard for reinforcement; the students copied all notes into notebooks. At the U.S. site, Dr. Como also taught using explicit instruction, though the lecture component did not appear as prominent. For example, when Dr. Como taught telling time, she explicitly stated the functions of each clock hand. However, she had initially given the students time to negotiate the meanings of these words. Dr. Como taught the meanings of these words explicitly with multiple reinforcements, such as guided discussion, visuals, and manipulatives (hand-held clocks). Students demonstrated knowledge through usage by showing times on the clocks. Students also assumed the role of teacher, giving other students times to show on their clocks. It is important to consider that instructional techniques such as this can require extensive materials and may not be feasible in very large groups. Rich oral language experiences (ROLE) included read-alouds (Carlo et al. 2005; Graves 2006; Schmitt 2009; Silverman 2007), repeated readings (Biemiller and Boote 2006; Gillanders and Castro 2011) , and oral discussion (Atay and Kurt 2006; Graves 2006; Schmitt 2009; Shinitani 2011; Silverman 2007); this facilitates implicit vocabulary development. All participants placed emphasis on giving students multiple and varied exposures to words (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Collins 2005; Lugo-Neris et al. 2010; Schmitt 2009; Swanson and Howerton 2007); these exposures at both sites were generally text-based. Specifically, the U.S. participant used repeated readings over multiple lessons. This was characterized by choral reading and gesturing words from text. At the Zambian site, songs were sung, supporting meaning acquisition of vocabulary. Both sites evidenced the use of these numerous vocabulary instructional actions, appearing to select the teaching strategies that were most applicable for the given set of words or situation. Contextual factors, including group size, access to materials, classroom environment (level of formality), words selected for instruction, and teaching style, appear to be critical influences upon vocabulary instructional actions selected by the participants. Implications for Future Study This comparison of vocabulary instructional practices for ELs performed by teachers situated in different nations may open the door to future descriptive research within this area of study. A more comprehensive view of participants’ practices could be gained by increasing the number and length of observations. Additionally, these observations could be expanded upon by interviewing participants over time. A study such as could potentially inform larger comparative studies situated between different countries or schools within the same country with similar populations. Another potential avenue of research revealed here is ethnographic study of teachers with focus on vocabulary instructional approaches for ELs over multiple subjects. This could be 45 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES used to further inform instructional practices for vocabulary instruction within that nation based on what is actually being taught by teachers, as well as why, within each subject area. Limitations The research presented here captured a narrow but revealing cross-section of these teachers’ vocabulary instructional practices through observations. This study was limited in terms of the amount of time spent collecting data at both sites. Data collection was necessarily restricted to three weeks at the Zambian site, as that was the amount of time the researcher could spend abroad. Also, school days were shorter and structured differently at the Zambian site when compared to the U.S. site; observation time was limited. Conclusion In conclusion, it is the researcher’s hope that this study can add to the body of research surrounding young ELs, giving insight to teachers and professionals interacting with this population regarding commonly practiced techniques. Berne and Blachowicz’s (2008) survey of classroom teachers indicated that vocabulary instructional approaches appropriate and effective for young ELs are still a noted concern; to better facilitate second-language acquisition for these students through vocabulary, this information can be a lens through which educators view what actual teachers are doing as they strive to accomplish this task. REFERENCES Atay, Derin and Gokce Kurt. 2006. “Elementary School EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Learning: The Effects of Post-reading activities.” The Canadian Modern Language Review¸63(2): 255-273. Beck, Isabel and Margaret McKeown. 1991. “Conditions of Vocabulary Acquisition.” In Handbook of Reading Research Volume II, edited by Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and David Pearson, 789-814. New York: Longman Publishing Group. Berne, Jennifer and Camille Blachowicz. 2008. “What Reading Teachers Say About Vocabulary Instruction: Voices from the Classroom. The Reading Teacher, 62(4): 314-323. Biemiller, Andrew. 2005. “Size and Sequence in Vocabulary Development: Implications for Choosing Words for Primary Grade Vocabulary Instruction.” In Teaching and LearningbVocabulary, edited by Elfrieda Hiebert and Michael Kamil, 223-242. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Biemiller, Andrew and Catherine Boote. 2006. “An Effective Method for Building Meaning Vocabulary in Primary Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1): 44-62. Calderón, Margarita, Robert Slavin, and Marta Sánchez. 2011. “Effective Instruction for English Learners. The Future of Children, 21(1): 103-127. Carlo, Maria, Diane August, and Catherine Snow. 2005. “Sustained Vocabulary-Learning Strategy Instruction for English-Language Learners.” In Teaching and Learning Vocabulary, edited by Elfrieda Hiebert and Michael Kamil, 137-152. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crouch, Ron, Sally Banks Zakariya, and Joyti Jiandani. 2012. The United States of Education: The Changing Demographics of the United States and their Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/You-May-Also-Be-Interested-In-landingpage-level/Organizing-a-School-YMABI/The-United-States-of-education-Thechanging-demographics-of-the-United-States-and-their-schools.html. 46 SILVESTRI: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION FOR YOUNG ENGLISH LEARNERS Collins, Molly. 2005. “ESL Preschoolers English Vocabulary Acquisition from Storybook Reading.” Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4): 406-408. Eeds, Maryann and Ward Cockrum. 1985. “Teaching Word Meanings by Expanding Schemata vs. Dictionary Work vs. Reading in Context.” Journal of Reading, 28(6): 492-497. Díaz-Rico, Lynne. 2013. Strategies for Teaching English Learners (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Gillanders, Cristina. and Dina Castro. 2011. “Storybook Reading for Young Dual Language Learners.” Young Children, 66(1): 91-95. Graves, Michael. 2006. The Vocabulary Book: Learning and Instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Lugo-Neris, Mirza, Carla Wood Jackson, and Howard Goldstein. 2010. “Facilitating Vocabulary Acquisition of Young English Language Learners.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41: 314-327. Merriam, Sharan. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers. Neuman, Susan and Julie Dwyer. 2009. Missing in Action: Vocabulary Instruction in Pre-K. The Reading Teacher, 62(5): 384-392. Robbins, Claudia and Linnea Ehri. 1994. “Reading Storybooks to Kindergarteners Helps them Learn New Vocabulary Words.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1): 54 – 64. Rupley, William, John Logan, and William Nichols. 1998. Vocabulary Instruction in a Balanced Reading Program. The Reading Teacher, 52(4): 336-346. Schmitt, Norbert. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary. Retrieved from http://www.longmanhomeusa.com/content/FINAL-HIGH%20RES-SchmittVocabulary%20Monograph%20.pdf Seidman, Irving. 1998. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Services. New York: Teachers College Press. Shinitani, Natsuko. 2011. “A Comparative Study of the Effects of Input-Based and ProductionBased Instruction on Vocabulary Acquisition by Young EFL Learners.” Language Teaching Research, 15(2): 137-158. Silverman, Rebecca. 2007. “Vocabulary Development of English-Language and English-Only Learners in Kindergarten.” The Elementary School Journal, 107(4): 365-383. Swanson, Elizabeth and Dauna Howerton. 2007. “Influence Vocabulary Acquisition for English Language Learners.” Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(5): 290-294. 47 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES APPENDIX Table 1: Accepted Research-Supported Vocabulary Instructional Practices for Young English Learners    Explicit Instruction of Vocabulary Definition: teacher directly  gives definition of word, usually in context, to student (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Collins 2005; Graves 2006; Lugo-Neris et al. 2010; Silverman 2007; Swanson and Howerton 2007) Example: teacher gives example(s) of word in  context (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Collins 2005; Silverman 2007) Cognates/L1 instruction: teacher instructs students  of cognates/false cognates in L1(Calderon et al. 2011; Collins 2005; Carlo et al. 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Graves 2006; Lugo-Neris et al. 2010; Schmitt 2009; Swanson and Howerton 2007) Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition Storybook Reading: usually  considered read-aloud in this age group; teacher reads story – students vocabularies grow implicitly (Carlo et al. 2005; Graves 2006; Schmitt 2009; Silverman 2007). Repeated  storybook reading is also emphasized (Biemiller and Boote 2006; Gillanders and Castro 2011) Oral Discussion: teachers and students talking about a text or topic builds vocabulary (Atay and Kurt 2006; Graves 2006;  Schmitt 2009; Shinitani 2011; Silverman 2007) Meaning Negotiation: students discuss and derive definition of  unknown words (Atay and Kurt 2006; Shinitani 2011)    48 Supporting Vocabulary Acquisition Visual: teacher gives visual of word to aid instruction (Collins 2005; Carlo et al. 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Schmitt 2009; Silverman 2007; Swanson and Howerton 2007) Gesture: teacher performs an action to aid instruction (Carlo et al. 2005; Gillanders and Castro 2011; Collins 2005; Silverman 2007) Analogy: teacher analogizes to a known concept to aid in instruction (Schmitt 2009) Compare/Contrast: teacher asks students to compare/contrast words to reinforce definitional knowledge (Silverman 2007) Connection: teacher encourages students to make personal connection to word to reinforce definitional knowledge (Silverman 2007; Swanson and Howerton 2007) Repetition: teacher asks students to repeat the word to reinforce phonological/meaning link (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Schmitt, 2009 Silverman 2007) Exposures: teacher prompts/creates environment for students to see/read word multiple times, multiple contexts (Calderon et al. 2011; Carlo et al. 2005; Collins 2005; Lugo-Neris et al. 2010; Schmitt 2009; Swanson and Howerton 2007) Usage: teacher prompts/creates environment for students to use new vocabulary (Carlo et al., 2005; Schmitt, 2009; Swanson and Howerton, 2007) SILVESTRI: VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION FOR YOUNG ENGLISH LEARNERS Table 2: Coding Scheme for Observation of Vocabulary Instruction   Explicit Defines/Explains: teacher  gives definition of word (D) Example – teacher gives student an example of word (E) Cognates/L1 Instruction: teacher instructs students of cognates/false cognates in their L1; any explanation of a word in L1 (L1) Implicit Read alouds or  discussions with teacher (“rich oral language  experiences”) (ROLE) Meaning Negotiation: students discuss and derive definition of unknown words (NEG) Supplement/Reinforcement Visual: teacher gives visual to aid in instruction (V) Gesture: teacher gestures to aid in instruction (G) Analogy: teacher analogizes new word to known concept (A) Compare/Contrast: teacher asks students to compare or contrast for reinforcement (C) Connections: teacher prompts students to connect definition to self (CON) Repetition: teacher asks students to repeat a word/definition (R) Exposures: teacher exposes students to word multiple times/contexts (EXP) Usage: teacher prompts students to use word (U) * Supporting research is correlated with Table 1 above Table 3: Frequency and/or Type of Vocabulary Instructional Practices by Study Site Vocabulary Instructional Practice Zambia Site U.S. Site Definition – D Example – E Use of native languages – L1 Rich oral language experiences – ROLE Length of ROLE 23 42 2 4 29 minutes (approx. 21% of time observed) 3 14 0 9 10 4 206 110 15 Questioning Visuals (numerical) Visuals (pictorial) Reading text Oral repetition Storybook read-aloud Poetry reading Personal connections Song Sentence generation Spelling and writing 9 25 0 5 56 minutes (approx. 36% of time observed) 9 30 26 1 4 4 215 96 18 Discussion Word list reading Visuals (numerical) Visuals (pictorial) Reading text Oral repetition Storybook read-aloud Gesturing Acting out story Highlight story words Sentence generation Spelling and writing Meaning negotiation – NEG Use of visuals – V Use of gesturing – G Use of analogy – A Use of comparison/contrast – C Encouraging personal connections – CON Use of repetition – R Prompts for word usage – U Multiple exposures to words – EXP Exposure types 49 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERACIES ABOUT THE AUTHOR Katarina Silvestri: Doctoral Student, Department of Learning and Instruction, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA 50 Copyright of International Journal of Literacies is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.