# data[].attributes.headline
Adams, M.J. (2010-2011) Advancing our students' language and literacy: The challenge of complex texts. American Educator. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Adams, M.J. (2010-2011) Advancing our students' language and literacy: The challenge of complex texts. American Educator. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching Students to Read Complex Text  

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching Students to Read Complex Text  

# data[].attributes.body
Timothy Shanahan

# data[].attributes.headline
Educating Students in the Computer Age to BeMultilingual by Handby Virginia Berninger

# data[].attributes.subject
Educating Students in the Computer Age to BeMultilingual by Handby Virginia Berninger

# data[].attributes.body
https://literacysymposium.letrs.com/login

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 2, Day 3, Unit 6 Comprehension Planning Expository Text "Sounds Good"

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 2, Day 3, Unit 6 Comprehension Planning Expository Text "Sounds Good"

# data[].attributes.headline
HOW WE LEARN ASK THE COGNITIVE SCIENTIST The Usefulness of Brief Instruction in Reading Comprehension Strategies

# data[].attributes.subject
HOW WE LEARN ASK THE COGNITIVE SCIENTIST The Usefulness of Brief Instruction in Reading Comprehension Strategies

# data[].attributes.body
Daniel T. Willingham

# data[].attributes.headline
 Puranik, C.S. & Al Otaiba, S. (2011). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing

# data[].attributes.subject
 Puranik, C.S. & Al Otaiba, S. (2011). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Moats.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 3, Day 3, Units 6-7 Sentence Activities & Mental Model

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 3, Day 3, Units 6-7 Sentence Activities & Mental Model

# data[].attributes.body
All Grade Levels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a vibrant, multicultural society, representing the richness of students' lives in a class or school library takes a conscious effort. Including writers and fictional characters with a variety of backgrounds, beliefs, and life circumstances is a way to increase the chances that students will find, to use the metaphor that Rudine Sims Bishop popularized, both windows and mirrors in the library-books that reflect their lives, and ones that give them insight into the lives and experiences of people who aren't like them.

No book shelf is going to represent the fullness of this nation. From the descendants of people who arrived here more than 15,000 years ago to the newest immigrants, we're simply too much. But the inclusive set of books below-many of which were recommended by multiple teachers-span all grade and Lexile levels up to 1140L, and include award winners and best sellers, books that have stood the test of time and newer options. We hope they reflect human diversity in the broadest sense, addressing race and ethnicity, religion, sexual identity, socioeconomic status, and other special circumstances.

Grades pre-K to 2

Deena Misses Her Mom
Deena is a formerly well-behaved girl who has been lashing out in school ever since her mom was sent to jail. Deena's story-sensitively illustrated by Leslie Jindalay Pyo-was written by high school students Jonae Haynesworth, Jesse Holmes, Layonnie Jones, and Kahliya Ruffin to reflect the lives of the children they were tutoring in Washington, DC. Parental imprisonment is a shockingly common occurrence in America: More than 5 million children in the U.S. have had at least one parent in jail.

Grades 3 to 5

Grades 6 to 8

The Arrival
A sepia-toned marvel, The Arrival conveys in images-there is no dialogue-a man's journey from his troubled home country to a new one. Artist Shaun Tan places the reader in the immigrant's shoes by using an invented alphabet on the signs in the strange new world he enters-the language is as impenetrable to the reader as it is to the protagonist.

Ghost
A National Book Award finalist, Jason Reynolds's Ghost is the story of an African American middle school runner with the talent to qualify for the Junior Olympics-if he can learn to control his temper. Money is tight and his father is in jail, and Ghost has been having a lot of what he calls "altercations." This is the first in a series of books about the members of a track team.

George
George is a transgender fourth grader who wants to try out for the lead role in the school production of Charlotte's Web so that her mother will see her as a girl. Alex Gino presents George's struggles with both bullying and the painful reassurance that she will "turn into a fine young man." George won a Stonewall Book Award-and made the American Library Association's 10 Most Challenged Books list in 2016 and 2017.

Grades 9 to 12

Bless Me, Ultima
A classic of Latino literature, Rudolfo Anaya's coming-of-age tale is an exploration of faith-Antonio, the young protagonist, makes his First Communion in the Catholic Church but also finds a spiritual guide in Ultima, an elderly curandera, or healer, who helps him explore indigenous traditions of New Mexico.

The Hate U Give
Angie Thomas's debut novel was a sensation when it was published in 2017, remaining on The New York Times best-seller list for 50 weeks. It centers on the killing of an unarmed black teen by a white police officer, a shooting witnessed by 16-year-old Starr, whose days are split between her black neighborhood and mostly white suburban school. The killing of her friend Khalil drives those two worlds farther apart than ever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
22 Diverse Book Choices for All Grade Levels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Suggestions from teachers who are working to offer students at every grade level book choices that represent their lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
A Comprehension Check Up. Reproduced with permission from Brookes Publishing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nancy Hennessy, author The Reading Comprehension Blueprint

# data[].attributes.subject
Nancy Hennessy, author The Reading Comprehension Blueprint

# data[].attributes.body
Watch A Comprehension Check Up video.

Reproduced with permission from Brookes Publishing.
https://products.brookespublishing.com/The-Reading-Comprehension-Blueprint-P1197.aspx

# data[].attributes.headline
Handwriting in a Modern World: Why It Matters & What To Do About It by William Van Cleave

# data[].attributes.subject
Handwriting in a Modern World: Why It Matters & What To Do About It by William Van Cleave

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 3, Day 3, Units 6-7 Sentence Activities & Mental Model

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 3, Day 3, Units 6-7 Sentence Activities & Mental Model

# data[].attributes.headline
Collins Cobuild New Student's Dictionary

# data[].attributes.subject
Collins Cobuild New Student's Dictionary

# data[].attributes.body
Use these lists from NEA and Colorín Colorado to connect children and their families to diverse books, languages, and cultures and spread the joy of reading. NEA lists are created on WorldCat, the world's largest network of library content, to help you find these titles in your local library.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
www.readacrossamerica.org needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Want to Improve Children's Writing? by Steve Graham

# data[].attributes.subject
Want to Improve Children's Writing? by Steve Graham

# data[].attributes.body
drcaroltolman.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Take a look at this example of the power of teacher education through the use of LETRS. Sonya, Mary, Erin, and colleagues continue to grow their students' progress, experiencing amazing results! You, too, can do this via the power of LETRS.

What is LETRS all about? Check out this video!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take a look at this example of the power of teacher education through the use of LETRS. Sonya, Mary, Erin, and colleagues continue to grow their students' progress, experiencing amazing results! You, too, can do this via the power of LETRS. What is LETRS all about? Check out this video!

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Demo Slides, Group 5, Day 4,Writing Eval Checklist_ts

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 4, Day 4, Unit 8 Foundational Writing Evaluation Checklist & Spelling Screener

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 4, Day 4, Unit 8 Foundational Writing Evaluation Checklist & Spelling Screener

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Promoting language and literacy skills through diverse children's literature.

# data[].attributes.body
Stanislas Dehaene

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 5, Day 4 Unit 8 Composition Writing Evaluation Checklist

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 5, Day 4 Unit 8 Composition Writing Evaluation Checklist

# data[].attributes.headline
Semantic Maps - The Brain Areas for Vocabulary

# data[].attributes.subject
Semantic Maps - The Brain Areas for Vocabulary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
redirects old huth 2016 brain viewer queries to new site

# data[].attributes.headline
Brown, P.C., et al (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Brown, P.C., et al (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Routledge Press. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Routledge Press. 

# data[].attributes.body
by Jane Oakhill, Kate Cain, and Carsten Elbro

# data[].attributes.headline
Hennessy, N. (2020). The reading comprehension blueprint: Helping students make meaning from text. Brooke's Publishing Co.

# data[].attributes.subject
Hennessy, N. (2020). The reading comprehension blueprint: Helping students make meaning from text. Brooke's Publishing Co.

# data[].attributes.body
Preorder

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading Assessment: Linking Language, Literacy, and Cognition, 1st Edition

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading Assessment: Linking Language, Literacy, and Cognition, 1st Edition

# data[].attributes.body
Melissa Lee Farrall

# data[].attributes.body
sgrisko.contractor@lexialearning.com

C: 847-648-2516

# data[].attributes.headline
Virtual Volume 2 Materials (Google Drive)

# data[].attributes.subject
Virtual Volume 2 Materials (Google Drive)

# data[].attributes.body
Copyrighted material -- for LETRS Facilitator Training participants only -- may not be shared or reproduced

# data[].attributes.headline
NEW: The charts highlight major differences in phonology and grammar between students’ first languages and English.

# data[].attributes.subject
NEW: The charts highlight major differences in phonology and grammar between students’ first languages and English.

# data[].attributes.headline
Links to NEW January 2023 videos for facilitators only: DO NOT SHOW THESE DURING TRAININGS

# data[].attributes.subject
Links to NEW January 2023 videos for facilitators only: DO NOT SHOW THESE DURING TRAININGS

# data[].attributes.headline
Updates - Revisions to Specific Diagrams in Volume 1

# data[].attributes.subject
Updates - Revisions to Specific Diagrams in Volume 1

# data[].attributes.headline
Unit 1 Book Walk with FG, Manual and Video Links

# data[].attributes.subject
Unit 1 Book Walk with FG, Manual and Video Links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LETRS Unit 5 Participant Handouts_12.02.22

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LETRS Unit 6 Participant Handouts_12.02.22

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LETRS Unit 7 Participant Handouts_12.02.22

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LETRS Unit 8 Participant Handouts_12.02.22

# data[].attributes.headline
U5 Facilitator's Guide Book Walk Reference

# data[].attributes.subject
U5 Facilitator's Guide Book Walk Reference

# data[].attributes.headline
African‐American Language (AAVE) Common Rules List

# data[].attributes.subject
African‐American Language (AAVE) Common Rules List

# data[].attributes.headline
Mexican‐American Language (Chicano English) Common Rules List

# data[].attributes.subject
Mexican‐American Language (Chicano English) Common Rules List

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX1-FgkfWo8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DYSA African American English (or Ebonics) in the classroom

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching Vocabulary: Early, Direct, and Sequential By Andrew Biemiller

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching Vocabulary: Early, Direct, and Sequential By Andrew Biemiller

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/spring-2001/teaching-vocabulary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the past 10 years, Jeanne Chall [see A Tribute to Jeanne Chall, in this issue] encouraged me to focus on the study of vocabulary and how vocabulary growth might be encouraged. Both of us had come to the conclusion that vocabulary growth was inadequately addressed in current educational curricula, especially in the elementary and preschool years and that more teacher-centered and planned curricula were needed, just as had been the case with phonics. Jeanne had come to this conclusion through her work on the stages of reading development (Chall, 1983/1996), her work on textbook difficulty (Chall and Conard, 1991), and especially through the findings of her joint research project with Catherine Snow on families and literacy (Chall, Snow, et al., 1982), as summarized in (Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin, 1990). In this book, Chall and her colleagues traced the relative decline in reading achievements experienced by working-class children who had become competent readers by third grade but whose vocabulary limitations increasingly had a negative effect on their reading comprehension as they advanced to seventh grade. (Jeanne mentioned to me several times her disappointment that The Reading Crisis was not more widely discussed.)

I had been particularly influenced by Wesley Becker's famous Harvard Educational Review article (1977) noting that the impact of early DISTAR success with decoding was muted for reading comprehension in later elementary grades by vocabulary limitations. Becker argued that this was a matter of experience rather than general intelligence by observing that while his DISTAR students' reading comprehension fell relative to more advantaged students by grade 4, their mathematics performance remained high. He suggested that the difference was that all the knowledge that is needed for math achievement is taught in school, whereas the vocabulary growth needed for successful reading comprehension is essentially left to the home. Disadvantaged homes provide little support for vocabulary growth, as recently documented by Hart and Risley (1995). I was further influenced by the finding of my doctoral student, Maria Cantalini (1987), that school instruction in kindergarten and grade 1 apparently had no impact on vocabulary development as assessed by the Peabody vocabulary test. Morrison, Williams, and Massetti (1998) have since replicated this finding. This finding is particularly significant in view of Cunningham and Stanovich's (1997) recently reported finding that vocabulary as assessed in grade 1 predicts more than 30 percent of grade 11 reading comprehension, much more than reading mechanics as assessed in grade 1 do. Finally, I have been influenced by the consistent finding in the oral reading miscue literature that when overall error rates reach 5 percent of running words (tokens), that "contextual" errors (those that make sense in context) virtually disappear. I infer from this that when readers (or listeners?) understand less than 95 percent of the words in a text, they are likely to lose the meaning of that text (and be especially unlikely to infer meanings of unfamiliar words).

In short, as Gough and Tunmer (1986) have pointed out, vocabulary development is both important and ignored. Can we-educators-do better, or are we simply bumping into constitutional limitations that are beyond the power of schools to affect? In the remainder of this article, I am going to summarize a few points that support the argument for an increased emphasis on vocabulary and suggest the need for a more teacher-centered and curriculum-structured approach to ensure adequate vocabulary development.

The consequences of an increased emphasis on phonics. In recent years, we have seen a tremendous emphasis on the importance of phonics instruction to ensure educational progress. We also have seen that while more children learn to "read" with increased phonics instruction, there have not been commensurate gains in reading comprehension (e.g., Gregory, Earl, and O'Donoghue, 1993; Madden et al., 1993; Pinnell et al., 1994). What is missing for many children who master phonics but don't comprehend well is vocabulary, the words they need to know in order to understand what they're reading. Thus vocabulary is the "missing link" in reading/language instruction in our school system. Because vocabulary deficits particularly affect less advantaged and second-language children, I will be arguing that such "deficits" are fundamentally more remediable than many other school learning problems.

Schools now do little to promote vocabulary development, particularly in the critical years before grade 3. The role of schooling in vocabulary acquisition has been the subject of much debate. Early (pre-literacy) differences in vocabulary growth are associated with social class (Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov, 1994; Hart and Risley, 1995; McLloyd, 1998). Nagy and Herman (1987) and Sternberg (1987) argue that much vocabulary acquisition results from literacy and wide reading rather than from direct instruction. However, it is obvious that a great deal of vocabulary acquisition occurs before children become literate, and before they are reading books that introduce unfamiliar vocabulary (Becker, 1977). Cantalini (1987) and Morrison, Williams, and Massetti (1998) both report that vocabulary acquisition in kindergarten and grade 1 is little influenced by school experience, based on finding that young first-graders have about the same vocabulary (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) as older kindergarten children. Cantalini reported the same result for second grade.

The relatively small number of words that need to be learned. It is sometimes argued that the number of words children need to learn is so great that this can only happen incidentally through wide reading (Anderson, 1996; Nagy and Herman, 1987; Sternberg, 1987). This argument is quite reminiscent of the argument that the spelling-to-sound structure of English is so difficult that it can't be taught but only learned through experience. In both cases, the complexity of what needs to be learned has been somewhat exaggerated. Many years ago, Lorge and Chall (1963) argued that traditional dictionary sampling methods for assessing vocabulary had greatly overestimated the volume of vocabulary children needed to acquire. As Lorge and Chall, Beck and McKeown (1990), and others have noted, we need to focus on root word growth rather than the acquisition of all inflected and derived forms of words. Jeremy Anglin's (1993) monograph suggests that children acquire about 1,200 root words a year during the elementary years with perhaps half that many root words learned per year prior to grade 1. (He also argues that perhaps twice that many words need to be learned, particularly including idiomatic forms.) My own research (Biemiller and Slonim, in press) suggests that the average number of root word meanings acquired per year may be somewhat smaller, more like 600 root word meanings a year from infancy to the end of elementary school. This conclusion, based on root word meanings sampled from Dale and O'Rourke's Living Word Vocabulary (1981), is partly based on the observation that many similar meanings are acquired at about the same age and probably do not require separate instruction.

Evidence that vocabulary differences present by grade 2 may account for most vocabulary differences in elementary school. There has been relatively little discussion or examination of individual differences in vocabulary growth. Hart and Risley (1995) observed large differences associated with word learning opportunities in the preschool years. In our current research, Naomi Slonim and I are finding that large vocabulary differences are present by the end of grade 2-amounting to more than 3,000 root words between high and low quartiles in a normative population (Biemiller and Slonim, in press). After grade 2, cross-sectional data indicate that the lowest-quartile children may actually add root word vocabulary faster than the higher-quartile children. However, by grade 5, they have only reached the median for grade 2 children. Thus, if we could find ways of supporting more rapid vocabulary growth in the early years, more children would be able to comprehend "grade level" texts in the upper elementary grades. (Note that the "reading grade level" of texts is in fact almost entirely determined by the vocabulary load of those texts (Chall and Conard, 1991; Chall and Dale, 1995). Thus early vocabulary limitations make "catching up" difficult even though once in school, children appear to acquire new vocabulary at similar rates. To "catch up," vocabulary-disadvantaged children have to acquire vocabulary at above-average rates.

The sequential nature of vocabulary acquisition. Much evidence clearly indicates that vocabulary is acquired in largely the same order by most children. The existence of empirical vocabulary norms (as in the Peabody and Living Word Vocabulary) indicate that some words are acquired later than others. Slonim and I have found very high correlations (mostly over .90) between mean scores for words obtained from different grades (Biemiller and Slonim, in press). We also found that when data is ordered by children's vocabulary levels rather than their grade level, we can clearly identify a range of words known well (above 75 percent), words being acquired (74 percent-25 percent) and those little known. Furthermore, these ranges are sequential. At any given point in vocabulary acquisition, a preliminary conclusion from this work is that there are about 2,000-3,000 root words that a child is likely to be learning. This makes the construction of a "vocabulary curriculum" plausible.

Defining an essential vocabulary for high school graduates. A corollary of the sequential nature of vocabulary acquisition is the possibility of defining a common vocabulary needed by most high school graduates. Several studies have shown that college entrants need 11,000 to 14,000 root words, while college graduates typically have about 17,000 root words (D'Anna, Zechmeister, and Hall 1991; Goulden, Nation, and Read, 1990; Hazenberg and Hulstijn, 1996). We need further research on the degree to which we can identify these words. (It is clear that all do not know the same exact words. It is equally clear that there is a substantial common vocabulary plus a further more discipline-specific vocabulary.)

The hypothesis that most root word and idiomatic vocabulary learned before and during elementary school results from direct explanation of words. We know relatively little about the processes by which children add words to their vocabularies. Some of the data are negative-evidence that children do not easily acquire words by inference, especially children younger than age 10 (Robbins and Ehri, 1994; Werner and Kaplan, 1952). In Bus, Van Ijzendoom, and Pellegrini's (1995) summary of the effects of reading to children, there is evidence that younger children profit less from simply being "read to." There is also positive evidence that children do readily acquire vocabulary when provided with a little explanation as novel words are encountered in context (Beck, Perfetti, and McKeown, 1982; Elley, 1989; Feitelson et al., 1986; Feitelson et al., 1991; Whitehurst et al., 1998). Preliminary evidence from directly interviewing children about word acquisition suggests that as late as grade 5, about 80 percent of words are learned as a result of direct explanation, either as a result of the child's request or instruction, usually by a teacher (Biemiller, 1999b). Overall, I believe that before age 10, the evidence supports the conclusion that a substantial majority of new root words are acquired through explanation by others (including explanations in texts) rather than by inference while reading, as has often been argued by Anderson, Nagy and Herman, and by Sternberg. For practical purposes, we should be prepared to ensure the availability and use of explanations of word meanings throughout at least the elementary school years.

Although children differ in their opportunities to learn words and the ease with which they learn words, evidence suggests that most can learn vocabulary at normal rates. There is clear evidence that vocabulary is associated with socioeconomic status-presumably reflecting differences in opportunity (as documented by Hart and Risley, 1995; and Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998). There is also clear evidence relating vocabulary development to various phonological skills or capacities (e.g., Gathercole et al., 1997). It is likely that environment and "capacity" interact-that constitutionally more-advantaged children also may be environmentally more advantaged. However, a number of studies summarized in Biemiller (1999a), Stahl (1999), and elsewhere clearly indicate that children can acquire and retain two or three words a day through instruction involving contextualized introduction and explanation of new words. Furthermore, while less verbally fluent or lower vocabulary children and adolescents have been found to benefit little from inferring word meanings (Cain and Oakhill, in preparation; Elshout-Mohr and van Daalen-Kapteijns, 1987), more-direct approaches have been reported to work well with these children (see Elley, Feitelson, and Whitehurst references cited previously). Overall, I hypothesize that most children (90 percent plus) can acquire new vocabulary at rates necessary to reach "grade level" or near grade level vocabulary in middle elementary school, if given adequate opportunity to use new words and adequate instruction in word meanings.

The need for planned introduction and explanation of vocabulary plus various tools to help children become more independent in dealing with new vocabulary. I have suggested above the hypothesis that 80 percent or more of the root words learned by grade 6 are learned as a result of direct explanation by parents, peers, teachers, and texts. Those who learn more words almost undoubtedly encounter more words and receive more explanations of word meanings. This suggests that we could do considerably more than we now do to ensure the development of adequate vocabulary through systematic exposure to two to three new words a day combined with adequate explanation of these words and opportunities to use them. (I am referring to new meanings not simply words that are unfamiliar in print.) Present school practices fall far short of this objective in the primary grades. (Schools may do better in the upper elementary grades.) Other types of vocabulary instruction (e.g., using affixes, word family approaches, and direct instruction in inferencing) will also be useful, especially in grades 3 and above.

This particular objective raises the possibility of returning to a more basal approach, at least as one component of classroom language and reading instruction. If vocabulary acquisition is largely sequential in nature, it would appear possible to identify that sequence and to ensure that children at a given vocabulary level have an opportunity to encounter words they are likely to be learning next, within a context that uses the majority of the words that they have already learned. Some researchers are already beginning to work on this objective (e.g., David Francis and Barbara Foorman in Texas, Jan Hulstijn in the Netherlands, Margaret McKeown and Isabel Beck in Pittsburgh, William Nagy in Seattle, and John Morgan and myself in Toronto). Many problems need to be solved. Existing lists of words (e.g., Living Word Vocabulary) do not correspond closely enough to observed sequences of word acquisition to be great guides (although they are better than nothing). Word frequency in print data (e.g., Carroll, Davies, and Richmond, 1971) bears relatively little relationship to observed word knowledge. (In my studies, Carroll's SFI index accounted for 7 percent of observed root word knowledge. In contrast, Living Word Vocabulary levels accounted for more than 50 percent of our data.) William Nagy (personal communication) has proposed combining Dale and O'Rourke's data with expert ratings-a very plausible suggestion.

Given the establishment of plausible vocabulary lists, teachers could relate these lists to vocabulary being introduced in books (short stories, novels, texts) being studied, be aware of words to introduce or explain (or to query children about if they don't ask!), and be aware of some important words that aren't going to be covered in the established curriculum. These words could be taught directly, or other materials (e.g., stories to be read to class) could be introduced that include them.

Conclusion: A substantially greater teacher-centered effort is needed to promote vocabulary development, especially in the kindergarten and early primary years. In her last book, The Academic Achievement Challenge, Jeanne Chall (2000) presented a summary of research supporting the effectiveness of "teacher centered" approaches to education. The information reviewed here similarly points to the need for more planned (but contextualized) introduction of vocabulary. This is especially true in the pre-reading years (before grades 3 or 4 when children begin to read books that are likely to introduce new vocabulary). Specifically, increased teacher-centered vocabulary work should include the deliberate introduction of a wider range of vocabulary in the early primary years through oral sources (most children are limited in what they can read at this age level), ensuring coverage of about 4,000 root words by the end of grade 2. In the later elementary years, continued development will include adding another 500 to 750 root words per year, additional idioms, and increased fluency in using derived words. In addition, in the upper elementary grades, instruction is needed in deriving word meanings from affixes, word families, etc., as well as in ways of inferring word meanings. If we are serious about "increasing standards" and bringing a greater proportion of schoolchildren to high levels of academic accomplishment, we cannot continue to leave vocabulary development to parents, chance, and highly motivated reading.

Thus, I strongly recommend a more teacher-directed and curriculum-directed approach to fostering vocabulary and language growth. If education is going to have a serious "compensatory" function, we must do more to promote vocabulary. Our current data show large "environmental" effects in kindergarten to grade 2. Large differences remain by grade 5 (e.g., children in the lowest grade 5 quartile have vocabularies similar to median second-grade children). Is this simply the product of "intelligence"? I believe it is in considerable part the result of different learning opportunities. After grade 2, vocabulary growth rates look similar or faster for "low quartile" children. If we could keep them from being so far behind by grade 2, they apparently wouldn't be so far behind in grade 5!

I don't believe we can make all kids alike. But I think we could do more to give them similar tools to start with. Some kids may have to work harder to add vocabulary. Educators may have to work harder with some kids. So what's new? But now, educators do virtually nothing before grade 3 or 4 to facilitate real vocabulary growth. By then, it's too late for many children.

Andrew Biemiller is professor, Institute of Child Study, Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, University of Toronto, Ontario. His latest book is Language and Reading Success (Brookline Books, Cambridge, Mass.) This article is reprinted with permission from the International Dyslexia Association quarterly newsletter, Perspectives, Fall 2000, Vol. 26, No. 4.

References

Anderson, R. C. (1996). Research foundations to support wide reading. In V. Greanery (Ed.), Promoting reading in developing countries. New York, N.Y.: International Reading Association.

Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 238, 58.

Beck, I., and McKeown, M. (1990). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson, (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, (789-814). New York, N.Y.: Longman.

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C., and McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.

Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518-543.

Biemiller, A. (1998, April). Oral vocabulary, word identification, and reading comprehension in English second language and English first language elementary school children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, San Diego.

Biemiller, A. (1999a). Language and reading success. Cambridge, Mass.: Brookline Books.

Biemiller, A. (1999b). Estimating vocabulary growth for ESL children with and without listening comprehension instruction. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.

Biemiller, A., and Slonim, N. (in press). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, Fall 2001.

Cain, K., and Oakhill, J. (In preparation). Reading comprehension and the ability to learn new vocabulary items from context.

Cantalini, M. (1987). The effects of age and gender on school readiness and school success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Toronto, Ontario.

Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., and Richmond, B. (1971). The American Heritage word frequency book. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Chall, J. S. (1983/1996). Stages of reading development. (2nd edition). New York, N.Y.: Harcourt Brace.

Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom? New York, N.Y.: Guilford.

Chall, J. S., and Conard, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Chall, J. S., and Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, Mass.: Brookline Books.

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., and Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Chall, J. S., Snow, C., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., Hemphill, L. and Jacobs, V. (1982). Families and literacy: The contribution of out-of-school experiences to children's acquisition of literacy. Final report to the National Institute of Education, Dec. 22, 1982. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 234 345.

Cunningham, A. E., and Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

D'Anna, C. A., Zechmeister, E. B., and Hall, J. W. (1991). Toward a meaningful definition of vocabulary size. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(1), 109-122.

Dale, E., and O'Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary. Chicago: World Book/Childcraft International.

Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Klebanov, P. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development, 65, 296-318.

Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-186.

Elshout-Mohr, M., and van Daalen-Kapteijns, M. M. (1987). Cognitive processes in learning word meanings. In M. G. McKeown and M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (53-72). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., and Share, D. I. (1991). Effects of listening to story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in a diglossic situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 70-79.

Feitelson, D., Kita, B., and Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series stories on first-graders' comprehension and use of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339-356.

Gathercole, S. E., Hitch, G. J., Service, E., and Martin, A. J. (1997). Phonological short-term memory and new word learning in children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 966-979.

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

Goulden, R., Nation, P., and Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 341-363.

Graves, M. F., Juel, C., and Graves, B. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gregory, D., Earl, L., and O'Donoghue, B. (1993). A study of reading recovery in Scarborough: 1990-1992. Publication #92/93-15. Scarborough, Ontario: Scarborough Board of Education.

Hart, B., and Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, Md.: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Hazenberg, S., and Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 145-163.

Lorge, I., and Chall, J. S. (1963). Estimating the size of vocabularies of children and adults: An analysis of methodological issues. Journal of Experimental Education, 32, 147-157.

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, J. L., Dolan L. J., and Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123-148.

McLloyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.

Morrison, F. J., Williams, M. A., and Massetti, G. M. (1998, April). The contributions of IQ and schooling to academic achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, San Diego.

Nagy, W. E., and Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown and M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition, (19-36). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A. S., and Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first-graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 9-38.

Robbins, C., and Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 54-64.

Snow, C., Burns, M. S., and Griffin, P. (Eds.), (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Stahl, S.A. (1999). Vocabulary Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Brookline Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G. McKeown, and M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition, (89-106). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Werner, H., and Kaplan, B. (1952). The acquisition of word meanings: A developmental study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 15, (Serial No. 51, No. 1).

Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., and Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552-588.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the past 10 years, Jeanne Chall [see A Tribute to Jeanne Chall, in this issue] encouraged me to focus on the study of vocabulary and how vocabulary growth might be encouraged.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.lena.org/conversational-turns/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Conversational turns are simple back-and-forth alternations between a child and an adult. LENA technology counts that a turn has occurred when an adult speaks and a child follows, or vice versa, with no more than five seconds in between. Any speech-like, non-cry sound counts as a turn - from an infant's coos to a toddler's words (either real or made up). Conversational turns are LENA's proxy for quality "serve and return" interactions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the science behind these brain-building interactions...

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.lenafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LTR-01-2_PowerOfTalk.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some people call it a "talk pedometer." Others simply call it "The LENA." Thousands of children, parents, and teachers have benefited from it. LENA technology delivers reliable, powerful feedback on how much caregivers are talking with infants, toddlers, and preschool students.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Sounds Good" Answer Key for PLFs and not for your participants. 

# data[].attributes.subject
"Sounds Good" Answer Key for PLFs and not for your participants. 

# data[].attributes.body
LETRS Fac PL Vol 2 Day 3 Answer Key Sounds Good

# data[].attributes.headline
U6 Facilitator's Guide Book Walk Reference

# data[].attributes.subject
U6 Facilitator's Guide Book Walk Reference

# data[].attributes.headline
Daniel Willingham: Teaching Content is Teaching Reading

# data[].attributes.subject
Daniel Willingham: Teaching Content is Teaching Reading

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc

# data[].attributes.headline
Vol. 2 Materials to Create Syntax Sorting Activities for In-Person: Product/Process; Noun-Verb-Prepositional Phrases; Phrase/Clause Sort; Sentence Difficulty Sort

# data[].attributes.subject
Vol. 2 Materials to Create Syntax Sorting Activities for In-Person: Product/Process; Noun-Verb-Prepositional Phrases; Phrase/Clause Sort; Sentence Difficulty Sort

# data[].attributes.headline
"No Shoes Allowed" Answer Key for PLFs and not for your participants. 

# data[].attributes.subject
"No Shoes Allowed" Answer Key for PLFs and not for your participants. 

# data[].attributes.headline
U7 Facilitator's Guide Book Walk Reference

# data[].attributes.subject
U7 Facilitator's Guide Book Walk Reference

# data[].attributes.headline
U8 Facilitator's Guide Book Walk Reference

# data[].attributes.subject
U8 Facilitator's Guide Book Walk Reference

# data[].attributes.headline
Vol. 2 - U8 Sorting Activity Higher-Level & Lower Level Cognitive Demands 

# data[].attributes.subject
Vol. 2 - U8 Sorting Activity Higher-Level & Lower Level Cognitive Demands 

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding Dysgraphia: There are downloadable PDFs in English and Spanish

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding Dysgraphia: There are downloadable PDFs in English and Spanish

# data[].attributes.body
https://dyslexiaida.org/understanding-dysgraphia/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dysgraphia is a Greek word. The base word graph refers both to the hand’s function in writing and to the letters formed by the hand. The prefix dys indicates

# data[].attributes.headline
How Explicit Writing Instruction Can Compensate for Gaps in Background Knowledge (EDVIEW360)

# data[].attributes.subject
How Explicit Writing Instruction Can Compensate for Gaps in Background Knowledge (EDVIEW360)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.voyagersopris.com/podcast/2022/how-explicit-writing-instruction-can-compensate-for-gaps-in-background-knowledge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Explicit Writing Instruction Can Compensate for Gaps in Background Knowledge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Writing is potentially the most powerful lever we have for building knowledge and improving reading comprehension.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nancy Fetzer's Writing Connections--Freebie Overview Scope and Sequence     

# data[].attributes.subject
Nancy Fetzer's Writing Connections--Freebie Overview Scope and Sequence     

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When you shop with us, we want you to be completely satisfied. If for any reason you are not satisfied with your purchase, you may return the new and unused product within 14 days of receipt for a replacement or refund of the purchase price.

When your return has been received from USPS, UPS, or Fed X ONLY in resalable condition, we will either:

1. Credit your account for the amount of your purchase, less shipping, handling, and any applicable tariffs and taxes, free shipping promotions and other coupon offers/discounts.

2. Ship you a replacement of your product.

You will need to cover the cost of return shipping. Please use a shipping company, such as USPS, UPS, or FedEx. We are not responsible for lost or stolen merchandise.

FOR DEFECTIVE, DAMAGED, INCORRECT OR MISSING ITEMS:

You must contact us within 7 days of receipt. We will give you instructions on how to prepare the return package. In most cases, we will provide a prepaid shipping label to you. If the item proves to be defective, we will issue a replacement or refund the price of the item plus your original shipping cost.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freebies | Learning Center | Nancy Fetzer's Literacy Connection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
transition sentences, opinion writing, text structure definition, short o words, informational text definition, alphabet learning center, narrative graphic organizer

# data[].attributes.headline
Presenter Resources for Unit 8 Demo Groups 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.subject
Presenter Resources for Unit 8 Demo Groups 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 8 Kindergarten Student Writing Evaluation_052722

# data[].attributes.headline
Presenter Resources for Unit 8 Demo Groups 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.subject
Presenter Resources for Unit 8 Demo Groups 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 8 First Grade Student Writing Evaluation_052722

# data[].attributes.headline
Presenter Resources for Unit 8 Demo Groups 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.subject
Presenter Resources for Unit 8 Demo Groups 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 8 Second Grade Student Writing Evaluation_052722

# data[].attributes.headline
Presenter Resources for Unit 8 Demo Groups 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.subject
Presenter Resources for Unit 8 Demo Groups 4 and 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 8 Third Grade Student Writing Evaluation_052722

# data[].attributes.body
Collaboration and assistance from breakout room participants.  Sue - your positivity and grace!

# data[].attributes.body
Glows -
*Sue, you're amazing!!!
*Sharing in person materials/hacks/resources
*Taking a deep dive into Language Comp.
Grows - N/A