Home
> Reading Comprehension
>
Building Vocabulary In Remedial Settings
Building Vocabulary in Remedial Settings: Focus on Word Relatedness
by Camille L. Z Blachowicz and Peter Fisher
Reprinted with permission from the International
Dyslexia Association quarterly newsletter, Perspectives, Winter
2004, vol. 30, no. 1, Camille L.Z. Blachowicz and Peter Fisher.
(It's worth joining IDA just to get Perspectives, which by
the way has articles you're not going to find in academic
databases & libraries, and there are many other benefits.
Their website is http://www.interdys.org.
Significant research suggests that one difference between
achieving and non-achieving students is their level of vocabulary
development (Elley, 1988; Hart & Risley, 1995). While general
principles of word learning, such as the need to connect new
learning to prior knowledge and the importance of developing
an active learner, hold true for all students, some students
may require particular attention because of special needs.
For struggling readers with limited vocabularies it may be
appropriate to make vocabulary the focus of instruction simply
to develop their knowledge of word meanings. We are not maintaining
that the meanings of all the words that students need to know
in school can be taught but we do believe that students can
benefit from being taught vocabulary without any other instructional
purpose. Further, playing with language and being interested
in words per se have benefits in many areas of the curriculum
and beyond school (Nagy & Scott, 2001; Blachowicz & Fisher,
2003). For these students, careful and systematic planning
and instruction are the keys to successful vocabulary learning.
In this article, we introduce some strategies and techniques
that we have found, in our clinical work, are especially appropriate
for older struggling readers, although they can also be used
with the general student population as well.
The Importance of Building Categories
As we learn vocabulary, the process of categorization
is a way of ordering and organizing concepts. We suggest that
part of vocabulary learning is making associ-ations. For learners
with special needs, we feel that this process needs to be
strengthened through careful use of categorization and classification
(O’Rourke, 1974). Such an approach should be systematic in
terms of selecting the words to be learned and in grouping
words for instruction according to some criteria.
Under such a system, for example, younger students
would not learn the words bed, potato, table, chair, carrot,
cabbage, couch, and beans on the same day, but would focus
on vegetables for one day and furniture on another, building
knowledge about a category along with the new words. Older
students would not learn telephone, polygamy, polymorphous,
telegraph, polytechnic, telephoto, telescope, and polytheism
at the same time, but would learn about the roots poly- and
tele- and the words that use them as a root on different occasions.
By categorizing words using some criterion, students are able
to more easily see and learn the connections between them.
Some experts advocate the use of lists of core words that
students in each grade level or those belonging to a particular
population should learn, but we believe that these lists can
be misused, and teachers are better able to select words for
their particular students that will meet specific needs. So,
while making these connections between words is important
for all students, making them explicitly and systematically
can be particularly important for those who have special needs.
For learners with special needs, we offer the following
guidelines for instruction:
- Vocabulary should be addressed as a separate subject for
instruction, as well as in relation to other areas of the
curriculum.
- Careful attention should be paid to the selection of appropriate
words for systematic instruction and reinforce-ment.
- Meanings should be made explicit and comprehensible through
demonstra-tion, discussion, usage, and further dis-cussion.
- Multiple modalities and avenues of expression should
be used in instruc-tion and learning.
- Attention should be paid to creating categories, such
as semantic, thematic, or morphemic, for example, and not
teaching isolated words.
n the following sections we share strategies that we
have found successful in our remedial work at The Reading
Center of National-Louis University (www2.nl. edu/reading_center).
The strategies we describe are ones focusing on word relatedness:
-
building word fluency
-
developing categories of relatedness for synonyms, antonyms
and analogies
-
building morphological categories
-
using imagery to categorize
Building Word Fluency
Readence and Searfoss (1980) outline a technique that encourages
students to use categorization to learn vocabulary. The task
initially seems very simple—to name as many words as possible
in one minute. In the beginning, the task can be demonstrated
with one student before the class works in pairs. The teacher
needs a watch or a clock with a second hand and pencil and
paper. With the chosen student, the following directions can
be given:
I want to see how many words you can name in one minute.
Any words will do, like story, book, or
friend. When I say “ready” you begin and say the
words as rapidly as you can and I will count them. Using sentences
or counting numbers is not allowed. You must use separate
words. Go as rapidly as you can. (Readence & Searfoss, 1980,
p.43)
The teacher can tally the words as the student says them.
If students hesitate for 10 seconds or more, she can clue
them to look around the room or to think about an activity
the class did recently. Sophie, a fourth-grade student, managed
the list in column 1 in Table 1 when she tried this the first
time. Once the students have had a chance to work in pairs
to see how many words they can name, the teacher asks for
them to time her. The teacher models naming words in categories,
which is much easier and faster than choosing random words.
When Sophie had practiced thinking in categories, she was
able to generate the longer list in column 2 in Table 1.
Table 1: Sophie's Word Lists
Generated in One Minute
Before Categorization |
After Categorization |
tree
fish
computer picture
bee
eye
you
see
touch
feel
|
flour
table
chair
bear
flowers
window
cars
books
door |
Computer Stuff:
CD Rom
Printer
Mouse
BIRDS:
albatross robin
crow
|
Tools wrench
knife hammer screwdriver nails
nuts
bolts
Buildings tar
roof
bricks
signs
chair radiator playground
|
Transportation
car
bus
truck |
|
|
|
|
Students can practice this every day and graph their increased
ability to name words. They might use these rules for scoring:
- No repetitions, no number words, no sentences;
- One point for each word; and
- One point for each category of four words or more.
Once students are familiar with the activity, the teacher
can ask them to name words on a particular topic or theme
– animals, science, or families, for example. Word fluency
could also be used with a unit of study to reinforce vocabulary
that has been taught in another way. Students in groups can
also take turns to say a word on a particular topic that has
been studied, for example, the Revolutionary War. If they
do not say a word in 10 seconds, they lose a “life” out of
three “lives.” The student who remains alive longest is the
winner.
List-Group-Label
Readence and Searfoss (1980) also outline a technique
called List-Group-Label, which they attribute to Hilda Taba
(see also McKenna, this issue). The name of the technique
summarizes its procedure, which asks students to list words
on a particular topic, group them, and then specify the criterion
they have used for grouping with a label. For example, the
teacher could ask students to think of words to do with danger.
The list might include:
enemy |
alarm |
fire |
red |
shout |
snake |
scare |
cry |
siren |
fright |
shoot |
wolf |
poison |
warn |
escape |
run |
bug |
safe |
peril |
shelter |
hazard |
die |
|
|
Students might select enemy, snake, wolf, poison, and bug
as being things that are dangerous. Others might select shout,
cry, shoot, run, alarm, and scare as things that they do if
there is danger. The teacher can collect different categories
of words (allowing words to be in more than one category)
and display them. If certain words do not fit in any category,
a miscellaneous category can be created, or students can brainstorm
words that might go with them to create a new category. Readence
and Searfoss recommend keeping the list to about 25 words,
depending on ability and grade level.
These two categorization exercises allow students to practice
and develop their vocabularies without having to be concerned
with definitions or supplying meanings. The categorizing in
itself supplies sufficient structure for students to begin
to learn meanings with which they are unfamiliar or to refine
their understanding of meanings partially known and develops
automaticity as well.
Developing Conceptual Vocabulary Through Word Relatedness
This section addresses teaching word meanings through focusing
on the semantic relatedness of words. The idea seems almost
tautological – when you relate a word to a meaning,
then you must be talking about semantic relationships. What
we mean, however, is that a teacher chooses a group of words
for instruction based on its semantic relatedness rather than
on some other criterion (such as theme or orthographic similarity).
Three specific criteria will be examined – synonymy,
antonymy, and morphology (using units of meaning within words).
In addition, we look at analogies as a way of demonstrating
the semantic relation between particular words.
Synonyms
We know that synonyms are especially useful in helping define
adjectives and adverbs, such as big and tall or badly and
poorly. However, as can be seen from these examples, all synonyms
have a slightly different meaning than the target word. While
a big tree is usually a tall tree, we would not normally think
of a big mushroom as being tall. If words did not differ slightly
in meaning, why would there be a need for two words? Understanding
these shades of meaning is something that can be problematic
for students. Two instructional techniques that are extensions
of ideas we presented earlier can help – synonym webs
and synonym feature analysis.
Synonym Webs. The idea of a syn-onym web
is similar to a semantic map, but it refines the idea of a
semantic web, which includes all types of related concepts,
to an examination of relation-ships that are only synonymic.
This type of web is particularly useful with words that have
multiple meanings (Paul & O’Rourke, 1988).
Figure 1 shows a synonym web for the word loose. To complete
such a web, students
-
Brainstorm various synonyms and use a thesaurus to identify
others
-
The teacher then works with the students to determine
which words “go together.” This requires that
the students categorize the words in some way and share
their understandings of how the words are related.
-
The words are connected on a web to show their relationships
-
Students create personal webs for their vocabulary notebooks
or on computer using a program such as Inspiration.
FIgure 1.
Figure 2.
Although this activity makes clear the synonymic connections,
it does not distinguish between the denotations and connotations
of words (see the following sections). Students can, however,
talk about this as they construct the web.
An alternative synonym web can be developed with usage attached
to each synonym (see Figure 2). The advantage of this web
is that it reminds students of appropriate uses of the word.
The disadvantage is that it does not show the immediate connections
between the synonyms. We have tried a combination of the two
types of web, but found that it becomes cumbersome and confusing
to many students.
As with many webbing activities, the discussion that goes
along with the webbing may have the strongest impact on students’
learning. The usage web may be more helpful, therefore, for
less advanced students who need the usage to remind them of
class or group discussions about appropriate contexts for
the word.
Connotations: Synonym Feature Analysis
Since even synonyms have slightly different meanings, it
is important for students to learn the difference between
the denotations and the connotations of the word. The denotation
of a word is its general or literal meaning. For example,
while clothing and raiment may have the same denotation, the
connotation is very different. Thus clothing is “what
people wear” but the word has connotations that would
normally include the mundane or utilitarian, such as outdoor
clothing. The connotation of a word is what may be suggested
by or associated with the use of a word. The connotation for
raiment is something splendid, such as clothing worn by princes
and princesses on formal occasions, even though the denotation
is still what people wear. Students often use the words inappropriately
when they understand the general meaning of a word, but not
its connotation. So a student might write, “He put on
his raiment to go out in the rain.”
Baldwin, Ford, and Readence (1981) suggest a method of using
feature analysis that utilizes a thesaurus. They suggest that,
before developing the feature analysis, teachers draw students’
attention to connotative differences between synonyms by presenting
words in a sentence frame. The teacher writes a sentence frame
for a word, (for example, gathered), and the students use
a thesaurus to substitute possible synonyms in the frame.
For example,
The friends gathered in front of the ice cream stand.
The friends collected in front of the ice cream stand.
The friends harvested in front of the ice cream stand.
The friends accumulated in front of the ice cream
stand.
The friends assembled in front of the ice cream stand.
The friends congregated in front of the ice cream
stand.
The teacher and the students then discuss the differences
they notice between the meanings of the sentences, and they
decide which sentences are acceptable and which are not. Sometimes
sentences result that students find amusing, as in the third
sentence above. Once students understand the denotative meaning
of the word, the teacher and students together can create
a semantic feature matrix.
If the teacher then provides an appropriate sentence context
for each synonym, attention can be drawn to distinctive features.
For example, the teacher might provide the sentence, "Congress
assembles in Washington after each election." The students
can note that Congress does not accumulate in Washington because
people do not accumulate. Also when Congress assembles, it
is a more formal gathering than when people congregate.
As students complete the matrix, they can add distinguishing
features that help them remember when to use one synonym or
another. There may be differences of opinion as to the distinguishing
characteristics, but this allows for good discussion where
students have to justify their thinking. Finally, it may be
appropriate to "explore the matrix" (Baldwin, Ford,
& Readence, 1981). The teacher can ask questions that
explore the use of each synonym. For example, "If you
wanted to describe how people gathered for a wedding, which
would be the best word? If you were gathering signatures for
a petition, which would be the best word to describe what
you were doing?" Baldwin, Ford and Readence maintain
that this system of presenting words in context, detennining
distinguishing features, and then reinforcing them in new
contexts is a more effective and naturalistic way of instructing
students in connotations than traditional methods which tend
to present words in isolation.
Teaching connotative meanings is extremely difficult. Even
effective users of the English language may have difficulty
verbalizing why they use one synonym rather than another in
certain contexts. For learners with special needs, particularly
ESL students, exercises that make connotative differences
between words as clear as possible can help develop confidence
in language use.
Antonyms
Although many words do not have antonyms (for example, tree),
the use of polarity in defining words sets clear parameters
in meaning. If you know that something is an opposite., then
you understand along which dimensions, or by which features,
the two words differ. Thus, knowing big is the antonym of
small, you know that size is the characteristic in which they
are opposites. If you know that gather is the antonym of disperse,
you know that the dimension on which they differ is aggregation.
Powell (1986) argues that the use of antonyms can be one of
the most powerful tools in vocabulary instruction. He notes
that semanticists identify three main types of word opposition:
contradictories (complementaries), contraries, and reciprocal
(converse) terms. Contradictories are mutually exclusive (single/married;
part/whole). Contraries allow for gradations (big/small; transparent/opaque).
In reciprocal terms, one word reverses or undoes the meaning
of the other (buy/sell; gather/disperse). However, for instructional
purposes, Powell suggests drawing a distinction between polar
antonyms and scalar antonyms. Polar antonyms are categorical
and allow no intermediate terms (husband/wife; buy/sell).
In other words, the assertion of one denies the possibility
of the other. Both contradictories and reciprocals would fall
into this category. Scalar terms, in contrast, allow gradations
between extremes (gigantic, big, large, small, tiny). One
of the instructional techniques possible with scalar terms
is a semantic gradient. In this technique, students arrange
words on a gradient from one scale to the other, such as hot
__________________cold. Placing tepid and cool on this line
would show their relationship to other term. We give an example
of a related process in our section on analogies below.
Powell (1986) suggests an alphabetic-generative activity
that requires students to use their vocabulary knowledge and
a dictionary, thesaurus, or synonym/antonym dictionary. The
teacher
-
Selects words beginning with the same letter
-
Prepares a two-column table with antonyms of the target
word listed in the first column
-
Students first work on the table without references
-
After 5 minutes they may use references to complete it
-
Discussion and explanation follows
-
Tables are retained in their vocabulary notebooks for
reference.
An example might be if a teacher selects fail, forbid, forget,
fraction, and front as target words. She then presents the
antonyms to the students, without the target words-in this,
example succeed, allow, remember; whole, and back. The students
have to guess the target words, knowing that they all begin
with the letter f For younger students, the activity can be
done with the whole class or in groups. For older students,
the teacher can use a word list where she wants students to
learn the meanings of the words she gives them, rather than
the words beginning with. the same letter. Students enjoy
puzzles such as this and can easily learn to construct them
for each other using a synonym/antonym dictionary or a thesaurus.
Analogies
Hofler (1981) suggested a way of using scalar terms to teach
analogies to students. He used a word line, which is similar
to a semantic gradient. The teacher can demonstrate how to
develop an antonym analogy, a synonym analogy, and a degree
analogy in relation to the words on a particular line. Then
students can use a thesaurus or dictionary to construct their
own word lines and analogies and try them out on each other.
With many scalar terms, there may be some discussion as to
which term goes where on the word line, for example whether
murky or gloomy is closer to dark on the word line in the
figure. This discussion, as with those about synonyms in the
activities described earlier, can help students clarify their
understandings of terms.
Figure 3.
Feature Analysis for gather and its synonyms.
Word |
Done with people |
Done to things |
Formal |
Deliberate |
Work |
Etc. |
gather |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
? |
|
collect |
+ |
+ |
? |
+ |
? |
|
harvest |
- |
+ |
? |
+ |
+ |
|
accumulate |
- |
+ |
- |
- |
- |
|
assemble |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
? |
|
congregate |
+ |
- |
+ |
+ |
? |
|
Making Connections Through Morphology
As part of vocabulary instruction, structural analysis of
words can draw
students' attention to the morphemes that compose a word,
and from an analysis of the meanings of the individual morphemes,
students are helped to understand the meaning of the whole
word. A morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning in a language.
For example, cats has two morphemes: "cat" and the
plural marker "s."
A word may have several morphemes, but there is a general
distinction between free morphemes, which can stand alone
(for example, cut), and bound morphemes, which need to be
attached to another morpheme (for example, -ing in cutting,
or un- in uncut). Free morphemes are commonly called root
words, whereas bound morphemes are affixes (prefixes and suffixes).
Two free morphemes can bind together to form compound words,
such as airplane. There is no agreement about the best way
to structure lessons for teaching morphemic analysis, so in
this section, we describe instruction that relates to compound
words, incidental morphemic analysis, affixes, root words,
and teaching spelling and morphemic analysis together.
Compound Words.
Students can have strange ideas about how compound words get
their meanings. Gleason (1969, reported in Lapp & Flood,
1986) found that one small boy thought that an airplane was
so called because it was a plain thing that went in the air.
Another child believed it was the quickness with which it
was consumed before school that made the meal breakfast. What
both of these children understood, however, was that you could
try to work out a word's meaning from its parts. A good place
to begin instruction about structural analysis, therefore,
is to have students generate as many compound words as they
can. Once you have the list, ask students to divide them into
the following categories:
1. Words where the meaning is a combination of the two parts
(for example, sidewalk, birthday).
2. Words where the meaning is related to, but not completely
represented by, the meaning of the two morphemes (for example,
cowboy, shipyard).
Notice that there may be some words where idiomatic or figurative
use has changed the meaning (for example, moonstruck), but
these are uncommon. Students can then discuss how words in
the second category may have developed different meanings.
Students may also draw pictures to show a possible meaning
as compared to the real meaning. This activity can introduce
how word meanings may change over time and can prepare students
for the idea that spellings, as well as meanings, change (see
Templeton, 1983 and below).
Incidental Morphemic Analysis. Manzo and
Manzo (1990) suggest that mor phemic analysis is best taught
incidentally. They recommend watching for words in reading
assignments that may be unfamiliar to students but that have
familiar word parts. The procedure suggested is:
1. Present the word with helpful morphemic elements underlined.
For example, seis mo graph.
2. Ask students to use the underlined words to determine the
meaning if they can and to explain their reasoning. If they
correctly predict the word meaning, write it under the word
and go on to steps 3 and 4.
3. Give extra "level-one clues" to the students
by writing easier words using the same morphemes written underneath
Ask for predicted meanings.
4. Give extra "level-two clues," which are the morpheme
meanings, and ask for predictions until they determine the
correct meaning.
You can see that although this is incidental instruction,
the method includes using familiar words to help students
make analogies with the new word. For some students, it may
be appropriate to teach affixes more formally.
Affixes. Knowledge of the meanings of common
affixes may help students generate the meanings of new words
that they encounter. Fortunately, words with common affixes
(such as return) are a part of most children's speaking vocabulary.
This means that instruction can begin from what students know
and proceed to the unknown.
Graves and Hammond (1980) argue that there are three reasons
for teaching prefixes: first, that there are relatively few
prefixes, and many are used in a large number of words; second,
that most prefixes have relatively constant meanings that
are easily definable; and third, that prefixes tend to have
consistent spellings. White et al. (1989) report the most
Commonly used prefixes, noting that according to some calculations
four prefixes (un-, re-, in-, and dis-) account for about
half of the common prefixed words in English, and that 20
prefixes account for nearly all prefixed words.
Prefixes |
Suffiixes |
1, un - not |
-s, -es
|
2. re- (again)
|
-ed |
3. in-, im-, il-, ir- (not) |
-ing |
4. dis |
-ly |
5. en-, em- |
-or (agent) |
6. non |
-ion, –tion, -er, ation, ition |
7. in-, im- (in) |
-able, -ible |
8. over- |
-al, -ial |
9. mis |
-y |
10. sub |
-ness |
11. pre- |
-ity, -ty |
12. inter- |
-ment |
13. fore- |
-ic |
14. de- |
-ous, -eous, -ious |
15. trans |
-en |
16. super |
-er |
17. semi |
-ive, -ative, -tive |
18. anti- |
-ful |
19. mid- |
-less |
20. under- |
-est |
From White, Sowell, & Yanagihara (1989) |
For teaching prefixes, a context and definition procedure
might be useful (Graves and Hammond, 1980):
• Present the prefix in isolation and also attached
for four words (es, con-, construct, converge, conference,
connect
• Define the prefix. Ex- con- means put together
• Use the whole words in sentences
Builders construct houses.
The train and the bus converged on the intersection.
The conference on dieting attracted 2000 people.
He connected the TV and DVD with a cable.
• Define the words
To construct means to put or fit together.
To converge means to come together at a point.
A conference is a meeting where people come together.
To connect things is to join together.
• After completing and discussing the above steps, students
find other words exemplifying the prefix
• Students add examples to vocabulary notebook
Irwin and Baker (1989) recommend teaching one prefix at a
time and constructing original words with the students. They
suggest:
-
Explain the prefix, for example, mono-.
-
Have students construct a word family list (for example,
monotony, monocycle, monocle, monologue).
-
Develop original words and definitions with the students
(for example, “one-headed” would be monoheaded).
- Have students create their own new words and illustrate
them. Create an Our Own Words dictionary.
Irwin and Baker emphasize that this is an activity to demonstrate
how prefixes work and that it should be applied to meaningful
reading tasks.
A similar dictionary-type activity has been suggested by
Lindsay (1984). Students construct their own "affixionaries"
in which affixes are listed alphabetically, with one page
for each affix. The entry on each page might have the definition
at the top, followed by words using the affix and sentences
that have examples of the words. Table 2 shows what this might
look like for the con- words used above.
Students may choose to list the prefixes and the suffixes
separately to avoid confusion.
Root Words.
Breen (1960) analyzed one list of words commonly
used by elementary school children and found that only 82
Latin roots and 6 Greek roots occur 10 or more times in children's
vocabulary. Templeton (1983) suggests that instruction should
begin with the Greek roots first, since they are easier to
locate within words, although typically instruction begins
with Latin roots. For example, it is easier to work with tele-
as in telephone and telegraph than it is with the Latin regere,
which takes the forms reg (as in regular), rect (as in direct),
and rol (as in roler). A list of the most useful root words
appears in Table 3.
Templeton (1983) suggests that, after the most Common Greek
roots, the Latin roots that have the most stable form and
meanings should be the focus of root
word instruction-namely spect (to look), press (to press),
port (to carry), form (to
shape), pose (to put or place), tract (draw or pull), spir
(to breathe), and dict (to say or speak). A good procedure
is to work by analogy in a manner similar to that outlined
for affixes. The teacher could begin with a word the students
know (such as porter) and develop with the students a list
of words that have the same root (export, transport, teleport,
for example). The methodology is similar for all word families,
whether teaching affixes or root words.
The advantage of teaching words in families is that students
learn new words by analogy with familiar words, which is what
you want them to do when they come across an unfamiliar word.
However, the research on the advantage of teaching root words
is sparse, and there seems to be no agreement about the grade
levels at which particular morphemes are best taught.
Spelling and Morphemic Analysis. Templeton
(1983) points out how morphemic analysis helps with spelling.
His sophisticated recommendations for instruction begin, for
example, with showing how silent consonants make sense when
studied in relation to morphemes (such as sign/signal, and
condemn/condemnation). His five-stage sequence of instruction
includes:
-
Silent/sounded consonants in related words,
-
Absorbed or assimilated prefixes (for example, the ad-
in attached),
-
Alternation patterns in related words that involve a
change in vowel sound (for example, sane/ sanity, and
admire/admiration),
-
Roots and combining forms, and
-
Alternation patterns in related words that involve a
change in spelling (for example, assume/ assumption).
Many spelling series for the older grades combine instruction
in morphemic analysis with vocabulary instruction. Since spelling
is not our focus here, we will leave the reader to consult
the original article or other references if interested (see
Bear, Templeton, Invernizzi, & Johnston, 2000).
Making Connections with Imagery
It is important to recognize that, although vocabulary learning
has to be verbal in nature, other modalities can be used to
help reinforce and supplement learning. One of the strongest
techniques for linking word meanings and images is the keyword
method, which has received much attention in the literature
for ESL instruction and developmental education (Mastropieri,
1988; McCarville, 1993).
Table 2. A page from an ”Affixionary”
The prefix “con-” means “together” |
construct |
Builders construct houses. |
converge |
The train and the bus converged at the intersection. |
conference |
The conference attracted 2000 people. |
connect |
He connected the TV to the DVD with a cable. |
Table 3.
Common affixes and their meanings
PREFIXES |
Meaning |
Examples |
ab |
away from |
absent |
act, ap, at |
to, toward, near |
advance, appeal, attract |
bi |
two |
bicycle |
com, con, col, co |
with, together |
combine, conference, collide cooperate |
de |
from, reverse |
defect decompose |
dis |
not, opposite from/of |
disappear, disconnect |
em, en |
in, into |
embed, enroll |
ex |
out, former, beyond |
explode, ex-wife, exceed |
in, im, in, into |
not |
inside, immoral, incorrect |
mono |
one |
monorail |
ob, op |
against |
obstruct, oppose |
post |
after |
postdate |
re |
back, again |
return, replay |
sub |
under |
submarine, subsoil |
super |
over, greater than normal |
supervise, superstar |
trans |
across |
transcontinental |
tri |
three |
triangle |
un, non |
opposite of |
unequal, unpopular |
SUFFIXES |
al |
referring to |
optical |
ble |
likely to be |
lovable, divisible |
ence, ance, ancy |
act or state of |
difference, acceptance, truancy |
er, or |
someone who does |
teacher, actor |
ful |
ful of, tending to |
powerful, forgetful |
ian |
someone who is an expert at |
mmusician |
ic, ical |
like, referring to |
symbolic, logical |
ist |
someone who does/ believes |
pianist, abolitionist |
less |
without |
painless |
ly |
in the manner of |
safely |
ness |
state of being |
happiness |
ous, ious |
like, full of |
nervous, tedious |
tion, sion |
act of |
permission, action |
ty, ity |
quality of |
tasty, rapidity |
ward |
in the direction of |
backward |
A Final Word
In this article we have shared ideas for building students’
funds of relational vocabulary. We have suggested that focusing
on semantic categories (words related to transportation),
relational categories (words that are similar, opposites,
gradations of meaning, words that share morphological units)
and words connected by to visualization are all ways to extend
word knowledge of struggling readers. Though these words may
be selected apart from the everyday demands of the curriculum,
they are not taught in isolation but in connection to one
another and to larger categories of meanings and of the ways
words “work.”
We, and others, have written extensively in other pieces
on the importance of play in learning of new words (Blachowicz
& Fisher, 2001; 2004). The constraints of this article
limit our ability to extend that discussion here but we would
like to emphasize that relational vocabulary instruction lends
itself to word play, puzzles, games, puns, riddles and jokes.
In our clinic, we include word play in each clinical session.
The instructional and motivational aspects of play cannot
be underestimated in the success of any word learning program.
–––––––––––––––
Some of the contents of this article adapted with permission
from: Blachowicz, C. & Fisher, P. (2001) Teaching Vocabulary
in All Classrooms. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
References
Baldwin, R.S., Ford, J.C., & Readence, J.E. (1981). Teaching
word connotations: An alternative strategy. Reading World,
21(2), 103-108.
Bear,D.R. , Invernizzi,M., Templeton, S. & & Johnston,
F. (2000). words their way. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice
Hall.
Blachowicz, C. & Fisher, P. (2001). Teaching Vocabulary
in All Classrooms. 2nd Ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill.-Prentice
Hall
Blachowicz, C. L. Z. & Fisher, P. (2003). Vocabulary instruction.
In Guzzetti, B.J. (Ed), Literacy in America: An Encyclopedia.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Guzzetti, B.J. (Ed), Literacy
in America: An Encyclo-pedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z. & Fisher, P. (2004). Putting the
“Fun” back in Fundamental. In Kaméenui,
E. & Baumann, J. Reading Vocabulary: Research to Practice.
New York: Guilford.
Breen, L.C. (1960). Vocabulary develop-ment by teaching prefixes,
suffixes and root derivatives. Reading Teacher, 14, 93-97.
Elley, W. B. (1988). Vocabulary acquisition from listening
to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-87.
Graves, M. & Hammond, H. K. (1980). A validated procedure
for teaching prefixes and its effect on students ability to
assign meanings to novel words. In M. Kamil and A. Moe (Eds.),
Perspectives on reading research and instruction (pp.184-188).
Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences
in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore:
P.H. Brookes.
Hofler, D.B. (1981). Word lines:An approach to vocabulary
development. The Reading Teacher, 35, 216-218.
Irwin, J.W. & Baker, I. (1989). Promoting active reading
comprehension stra-tegies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Lapp, D. & Flood, J. 1986). Teaching students to read.
New York: Macmillan.
Lindsay, T. (1984). The affixionary: Personalizing prefixes
and suffixes. Reading Teacher, 38, 247-248.
Manzo, A. & Manzo, U. (1990). Content area reading: A
heuristic approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Mastropieri, M.A. (1988). Using the keyboard method. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 20 (Winter), 4-8
McCarville, K. B. (1993). Keyword mnemonic and vocabulary
acquisition for developmental college students. Journal of
Developmental Education, 16(3), 2-4,6.
Nagy, W. & Scott, J. (2001). Vocabulary processes. In
Kamil, M.L., P. B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr.
(Eds.) Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 269-283).
New York: Longman.
O'Rourke, J.P. (1974). Toward a science of vocabulary development.
The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Paul, P.V., & O’Rourke, J.P. (1988). Multimeaning
words and reading comprehension: Implications for special
education students. Remedial and Special Education, 9(3),
42–52.
Powell, W.R. (1986). Teaching vocabulary through opposition.
Journal of Reading, 29, 617-621.
Readance, J.E. & Searfoss, L.W. (1980). Teaching strategies
for vocabulary development. English journal, 69, 43-46.
Templeton, S. (1983). Using the spelling /meaning connection
to develop word knowledge in older students. Journal of Reading,
27, 8-14.
White, T. G., Sowell, J., & Yanagihara, A. (1989). Teaching
elementary students to use word-part clues. The Reading Teacher,
42, 302-308.
Camille Blachowicz and Peter Fisher are Professors of Education
at National College of Education, National-Louis University
where Blachowicz directs the Reading Program and Fisher co-directs
clinical pratica and the Storytelling Institute. They have
authored numerous studies and articles on vocabulary instruction
including the chapter on studies and articles on vocabulary
instruction including the chapter on this topic in the Handbook
of Reading Research III and the volume Teaching Vocabulary
in All Classrooms (Merrill-Prentice Hall). They also speak
and consult widely on topics related to vocabulary.
|