|
COPYRIGHT 2007 College Reading and Learning Association
Scores on a vocabulary test given at the beginning of two semesters in a lane entry-level course predicted performance on multiple-choice exams more strongly than pre-course knowledge and critical thinking. Words on the vocabulary instrument were derived from multiple-choice exam items in the course. Although commonly used in the course, these words were not specific to the technical content of the course. Students took the vocabulary instrument at the beginning and end of the semester, with students in both semesters making significant gains on academic vocabulary. Students in the bottom quartile on pre-course vocabulary who made substantial gains in vocabulary development during the semester scored higher on course exams than similar students who made minimal gains in vocabulary development.
**********
Most college students at major universities are required to take large introductory courses. It is not uncommon for these courses to be taught in a lecture format and to assess student knowledge through multiple-choice exams. Despite this tradition, both students and instructors have voiced numerous complaints about multiple-choice exams. One of the principal complaints is that items on multiple-choice exams can be difficult to understand, causing students to miss items even when they reportedly know the material on which the questions are based (Wallace & Williams, 2003). Both complex syntax and unfamiliar vocabulary on the exam can obscure student understanding of what exam questions are asking, greatly increasing the likelihood of incorrect answers.
Although some instructors permit students to ask about unclear terminology during an exam, students in a large class may be disinclined to request such clarification from an instructor whom they only know as the course lecturer. On the other hand, if all students asked the instructor for clarification of all potentially unclear terms, the amount of distractible movement and conversation in the testing room could be considerable during the exam. Furthermore, the very same students who have difficulty with the language of the exam may be the most distracted by such movement and conversation during the exam. Thus, a more efficient and effective procedure for helping students with the unfamiliar vocabulary on multiple-choice exams needs to be developed for use in large courses that rely heavily on multiple-choice exams.
In addition to its potential impact on multiple-choice exam performance, students' vocabulary appears to be a substantial predictor of academic performance in general. Several studies show that student vocabulary is a consistent predictor of grades in a variety of courses, which presumably included several assessment dimensions besides multiple-choice exams. For example, Pedrini and Pedrini (1975) found that vocabulary scores from the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT) explained approximately 35% of the variance in college grades. Similarly, Emmeluth (1979) reported that the vocabulary portion of the NDRT significantly predicted final grades in an introductory biology course. Finally, Levin (1976) indicated that vocabulary raw scores on the NDRT were positively related to final grades in college freshman and sophomore English and Psychology.
Vocabulary mastery also plays a seminal role in intelligence testing. On the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (WISC-IV), vocabulary subtest scores correlated higher with Full Scale IQ scores (r = .79) than did the other subtests (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Correlations between the other WISC-IV subtests and the Full Scale ranged from .26 to .77. Factor analysis further showed that the vocabulary subtest had the highest g (general intelligence) loading on the test, accounting for 69% of the variance in g. This strong relationship between vocabulary and IQ scores suggests that academic vocabulary may underlie a variety of intellectual skills that contribute to success in college courses.
Despite the potential importance of academic vocabulary in college courses, research indicates that college students are not doing well in their vocabulary development. For example, Greif (1982) found that college juniors and seniors could only define about 19% of selected words from a daily newspaper. A comparison of college freshmen's vocabulary development in 1928 and 1978 revealed that 1928 freshmen performed significantly better on vocabulary development than did the 1978 group (Eurich, 1980). The reading level of the latter group was no better than that of high school juniors and seniors 50 years earlier. More recently, Kuehn (1996) concluded that poor vocabulary development was the most important barrier to lecture and text comprehension in college courses. Simpson and Dwyer (1991) reported that college students consider a limited vocabulary to be a major impediment to course success.
Given the apparent linkage between academic vocabulary and college performance, avenues for improving vocabulary must be given priority (Eurich, 1980; Greif, 1982). Special programs and courses committed to the enhancement of reading skills for developmental students have produced varying degrees of success in promoting vocabulary development (Farley & Elmore, 1992; Hodge, 1993; Joseph, 1984; Miller, 1974; Taylor & Rosecrans, 1986). Some of these studies (e.g., Hodge, 1993; Joseph, 1984) reported good success in improving vocabulary, comprehension, and grades; others (e.g., Miller, 1974) reported success in improving vocabulary but not comprehension; and some (e.g., Taylor & Rosecrans, 1986) were unsuccessful in improving vocabulary scores. However, beyond the systematic vocabulary building attempted in developmental programs, specialized instruction in vocabulary development appears minimal in regular college courses.
For conventional courses to facilitate students' vocabulary development, instructors may need to highlight the words to be learned. For example, Kettlewell (1983) suggested the use of vocabulary previews as one method to help students understand course texts. This procedure could entail identifying new vocabulary to be encountered in a reading assignment and asking students to look up those words prior to reading the assignment. However, mastery of these words will likely require multiple exposures in a variety of contexts. Rott (1999) showed positive results for both acquisition and retention when students had two, four, or six exposures to an unknown word. However, six exposures produced significantly more word knowledge than two or four exposures.
Although the need for additional research on the...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
