Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Tool

Readingpen®
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Tool

Scientific Base

The National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP) finds that almost 40% of the nation’s fourth graders cannot read at the basic level. Worse yet, this problem does not cure itself over time: approximately 26% of eighth and twelfth graders cannot read at the basic level (Institute for Education Sciences, 2003). In the words of the Partnership for Reading Policy, “the stakes are too high to take chances with unproven methods of reading instruction. Strong reading skills prepare children to meet the challenge of education and life and take full advantage of the opportunities presented by the Information Age. All children are entitled to the best preparation possible” (Partnership for Reading, 2004).

Reading comprehension, the capacity to derive meaning from written text, is the lynchpin or “essence” of reading (Durkin, 1993; Flood, Lapp, & Fisher, 2002). A high degree of literacy is becoming increasingly necessary to proceed successfully through school and to function effectively in society. “The U.S. Economy today demands a universally higher level of literacy achievement than at any other time in history, and it is reasonable to believe that the demand for a literate populace will increase in the future” (RAND, 2001). Clearly, increasing the literacy level means improving the key components of vocabulary and comprehension.

Through the work of the National Reading Panel, our national understanding of the instruction-related factors that promote reading comprehension is growing (Snow, 2002). The NRP has ascertained that “… computers can provide opportunities for students to interact instructionally with text for greater amounts of time than they can if only conventional instruction is provided” (National Reading Panel, 2000). The Readingpen, a simple, handheld technology, is an invaluable tool to assist teachers and students with the acquisition of vocabulary and reading comprehension skills.

The process of developing and improving reading comprehension is an area of great interest to researchers and teachers alike. Gough and Tunmer (1986) argue that children who can decode words in texts will be able to comprehend them. Other researchers agree that there is a connection between decoding and comprehending, but they do not go so far as to say that the ability to decode is equivalent to the ability to comprehend. They do assert that problems with word-level decoding create a critical bottleneck in comprehending a text; if readers cannot decode words, they will not be able to comprehend them (Adams, 1990; Pressley, 1998).

There is long standing recognition that vocabulary knowledge strongly influences reading comprehension (Baumann, Kameenui, & Ash, 2002; Davis, 1944). While there is consistent evidence that vocabulary can be directly taught (Beck, McKeown, & Omanson, 1987), it has also been reported that many vocabulary words are learned incidentally as a function of encounters with words in oral and written contexts (Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987; Sternberg, 1987). Most of our word and world knowledge is learned through learning opportunities that are incidental.

This explains the phenomenon noted by several researchers—readers who read most frequently and most widely possess the greatest vocabularies. Several researchers maintain that reading and knowledge of information are interdependent (Cunningham & Stanovich, 2003).

The interdependence between vocabulary and comprehension becomes more pronounced in higher grades (Simmons & Kameenui, 1990). In the primary grades, vocabulary knowledge is identified as an isolated skill, whereas the higher grades, vocabulary is more content-based. If students progress with inadequate vocabulary knowledge, they do not possess sufficient tools to decipher or grasp new concepts.

When examining the relationship between vocabulary and reading comprehension, it is important to consider the levels of word knowledge and the tasks that students need to perform. Associative knowledge, the level most commonly linked to vocabulary learning, takes place when a student is able to link a word with a vocabulary definition. At the next level, comprehension knowledge, the student is able to demonstrate a broad understanding of the word, such as being able to classify the word in categories, finding antonyms, etc. Finally, generative knowledge requires the student to apply the usage and meaning of the word, creating an original sentence or interpretation of the definition (Simmons & Kameenui, 1991).

Whether a student needs to have associative, comprehension, or generative word knowledge depends on the reading task. For example, to understand a part of story, a student may just need to have a general sense of the word, “recharge.” However, to conduct an experiment on aquifers, it is imperative for the student to understand the entire concept of “recharge” and its relationship to the water cycle.

In the area of sentence and text level processing, researchers have found that competent readers have a vast storehouse of knowledge about many topics that they access when they are reading. This knowledge is organized in their minds in such a way that readers can “get at” the knowledge to help them make sense of the text. This organization of knowledge, sometimes called schema knowledge, serves as a structure for organizing relations between and among ideas (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). While schema theory is a decidedly top-down model of meaning-making, reading comprehension also sometimes occurs from bottom-up processing (Graesser, 1981). For example, a reader may be lost in the text until a specific word or familiar image clarifies what went before (e.g., a barking dog, a lithe dancer, a speeding car). These familiar words and images evoke a connection between the text and the readers’ prior knowledge, helping them comprehend the text they are reading.

Successful comprehenders know how to pay attention simultaneously to parts of words, to individual vocabulary words, and to “big ideas” as they read. Analysis of the ways in which able readers comprehend texts has provided important information for educators as they develop effective instruction that will help students develop the same comprehension skills.

The Readingpen assists in developing these vocabulary and comprehension skills and those that are mandated by state standards and curriculum frameworks. Because it highlights text as it reads it aloud and provides definitions of unfamiliar words, students who use the Readingpen can focus on meaning and also extend their vocabularies. Table 1 details how the Readingpen provides support for the grade 4 English Language Arts Standards for California Public Schools. Table 2 shows how the Readingpen supports the Florida Sunshine State Standards and grade level expectations for grade 4. Table 3 shows the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for grade 4 that the Readingpen facilitates.

Table 1: English Language Arts Standards for California Public Schools and the Readingpen

Table 2: Florida Grade Level Expectations, Vocabulary, Comprehension, and the Readingpen

Table 3: TEKS English Language Arts and Reading Vocabulary Standards and the Readingpen

The two scenarios that follow illustrate ways the Readingpen can be incorporated into ongoing classroom vocabulary and comprehension instruction.

Scenario #1: Emergent Literacy

At B. Elementary School, to help her first-grade students with decoding, Mrs. P. uses the Readingpen to play a phonics game with the class. This is a game that she plays all year round to practice phonics and increase word-recognition skills. First, she passes out reading material in the form of reading books or printouts of a poem or rhyme for each student. Each student also receives a Readingpen. Before they begin, Mrs. P. explains the rules of the game. Students must find words in the text she has distributed that match the rule on the board. For example, “Find the word that has the same sound as the beginning of the word ‘tree’.” Her students are excited about the game, because it is like a word scavenger hunt. When students have located a target word, they use the Readingpen to scan the word. Each student shares the word with a classmate by reading the word out loud. Students may use the audio function in the pen to check their pronunciation.

This interactive game allows students to practice phonemic awareness and phonics, improve word recognition, and increase opportunities for incidental word learning opportunities by reading through the longer text to locate the target words and sounds.

Scenario #2: Content Area Vocabulary

Learning is a process of building on what the learner already knows. Reading comprehension, emphasized as a language-arts based learning activity, is greatly dependent on vocabulary knowledge. Students with inadequate vocabulary knowledge do not possess sufficient tools to decipher text or grasp new concepts. Since vocabulary growth differences between students are vast, the Readingpen provides both teachers and students a way to support and enhance vocabulary development in a classroom.

At C. Middle School, sixth grade students are typically given homework assignments to read text in a particular subject area such as social studies or science. Since the Readingpen has the capability of saving up to 80 words that a student has investigated during a session, students create personal word lists pertinent to themes, subject areas, and/or chapters. A student’s word list can include content specific vocabulary, as well as any other words that he or she does not recognize. Individual word lists from a Readingpen can be reviewed on the built-in display and recorded by the teacher or a student.

The teachers at C. Middle School have developed a series of vocabulary activities to develop associative, comprehension, and generative vocabulary knowledge that incorporate the capabilities of the Readingpen.

• On first day of the unit, the teacher selects words from a word list and introduces vocabulary inferencing strategies.

• During the second day, students work in groups using the Readingpen to define the words in context.

• On the third day, students engage in activities to explore the different uses and meanings of the words. For example, students interview each other using questions that contain the target words (e.g., What types of things do you do to recharge your energy). As students use and practice the selected vocabulary words, they are also encouraged to monitor each other’s usage, noting explicitly if the question makes sense. This strategy encourages students to take an active role in their own learning process.

• Finally, on the fourth day, students use the Readingpen to work on roots, affixes, synonyms, and antonyms.

This sequence of activities moves students through the three stages of effective vocabulary development.

Because students at C. Middle School take an active role in creating new word lists throughout the school year, they develop a history of documented acquired knowledge, a grouping of clues that aid them in retaining facts and details of a particular subject area. These word lists also empower students to monitor their own progress and growth.

These two scenarios, and the research and standards upon which these practices are based, illustrate how current classroom reading activities focused on vocabulary and comprehension can be enhanced through the use of the Readingpen.

Appendix A: Pen Features and Specifications

Built in Text-to-Speech technology provides immediate word-by-word pronunciation of a scanned English word or full line of text.

Pen Scanning Language: English

Recognizes 6-22 point font size text (bold, italic, underlined, inverted).

Voice: The product's built-in Text-to-Speech technology provides immediate word-by-word pronunciation of a scanned English word or full line of text.

Size: ergonomic 6 inches x 1 1/2 x 1, lightweight three ounces.

Built in Text-to-Speech technology pronounces scanned English words aloud.

Optical character recognition at 97% (based on standard font and size average).

Appendix B: References

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.

Baumann, J. F., Kameenui, E., & Ash, G. (2002). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Jensen, & J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook on research in teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.) (pp. 752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Beck, I., McKeown, J. G., & Opmanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtin (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. (2003). Reading matters: How reading engagement influences cognition. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Jensen, J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook on research in teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.) (pp. 666-678). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension. Reading Psychometrika, 9, 185-197.

Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Fisher, D. (2002). Reading comprehension instruction. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Jensen, & J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook on research in teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and special education, 7, 6-10.

Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Institute of Education Sciences. FY 2002-2004 Grant Awards. Retrieved on October 12, 2004 at http://www.ed.gov/programs/edresearch/awards.html

Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. The nation's report card: Reading highlights 2003, NCES 2004-452, by P. L. Donahue, M. C. Daane, and W. S. Grigg. Washington, DC: 2003.

Institute of Education Sciences. What works clearinghouse. Retrieved on October 4, 2004 at http://whatworks.ed.gov

Morrow, L. M. (2002). Motivating lifelong voluntary readers. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.). Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts. (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nagy, W., Anderson, R., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.
National Center for Technology Innovation. (2004). The Reading Matrix. www.nationaltechcenter.org

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Health (NIH Pub. No.00-4754).

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754).

Partnership for Reading. (2004). Reading: The foundation children need to succeed: For policy makers. Washington, DC: Partnership of Reading.

Partnership for Reading. (April 2004). The Reading Leadership Academy Guidebook CD Companion. RMC Research Corporation.

Partnership for Reading. (2004). The Partnership for Reading: Bringing scientific evidence to learning. Retrieved on October 16, 2004. http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/

Pressley, M. (1998). Elementary reading instruction that works: Why balanced literacy instruction makes more sense than whole language or phonics and skills. New York: Guilford Press.

RAND Reading Study Group (2001). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Prepared for OERI, US Department of Education.

Simmons, D. C. & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Designing instructional strategies : The prevention of academic learning problems. New York: Charles Merrill.

Simmons, D. C. & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M.G. McKeown & M.E. Curtis (Eds.). The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89-105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.