WTS 1 and 2

Vocabulary Instruction and Reading Comprehension

Beth Duellman
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 1 & 2
EDUW 691 Professional Skills Development
Caroline Hickethier, Instructor
February 20, 2016

page 1 of 21

WTS 1 and 2

page 2 of 21

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching.
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
subject matter meaningful for students.
Knowledge. The teacher understands major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes of
inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the discipline(s) s/he teaches.
Dispositions. The teacher is committed to continuous learning and engages in
professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and children's learning of the discipline.
Performances. The teacher effectively uses multiple representations and explanations of
disciplinary concepts that capture key ideas and links them to students' prior understandings.

WTS 1 and 2

page 3 of 21

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 2: Teachers know how children grow.

The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and develop, and
can provide instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal development.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how learning occurs-how students construct
knowledge, acquire skills, and develop habits of mind-and knows how to use instructional
strategies that promote student learning for a wide range of student abilities.
Dispositions. The teacher appreciates individual variation within each area of
development, shows respect for the diverse talents of all learners, and is committed to help them
develop self-confidence and competence.
Performances. The teacher accesses students thinking and experiences as a basis for
instructional activities by, for example, encouraging discussion, listening to group interaction,
and eliciting samples of student thinking orally and in writing.

WTS 1 and 2
Danielson Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals
Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Component 1f: Assessing Student Learning
Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3a: Communicating Clearly and Accurately
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

page 4 of 21

WTS 1 and 2

page 5 of 21

Pre-assessments
Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
For Wisconsin Teacher Standards (WTS) 1 and 2, I wanted to focus on strengthening my
vocabulary instruction in reading. I teach 23 fourth grade students with a wide variety of needs
and abilities. The class consists of seven special education students including speech and
language, learning disabilities (LD) in reading, autism, Tourettes Syndrome, and emotional and
behavioral disorders (EBD). Of my students, seven have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
with accommodations of behavior breaks, extra time on tests, push in and pull out support, check
in check out sheets, and tests read aloud. I will work towards my targeted student learning
objectives of understanding grade level vocabulary by improving how I instruct vocabulary
within my reading block.
I chose six WTS 1 and 2 descriptors to guide my learning process. I started my focus on
the WTS 1 performance descriptor that a teacher effectively uses multiple representations and
explanations of disciplinary concepts to make vocabulary instruction meaningful for the
students. In this research I found that Marzano & Simms (2013) suggest a six-step process for
direct vocabulary instruction. Robert J. Marzano is a leading researcher in education including
vocabulary instruction. Throughout that process, WTS 2 performance descriptor of encouraging
discussion, listening to group interaction, and eliciting samples of student thinking orally and in
writing is brought to the forefront. Vocabulary instruction had consisted of looking up
definitions of unknown words and discussing those definitions. I am currently involved in book
group with my colleagues to improve vocabulary instruction. Implementation of the six-step
process has transformed my vocabulary instruction by allowing students to work together to
show their understanding of vocabulary words in pictures, synonyms, and descriptions.
The disposition descriptor of the teacher is committed to continuous learning and
engages in professional discourse about subject matter knowledge from WTS 1 supports my

WTS 1 and 2

page 6 of 21

current learning goals. Based on my schools state report card, our reading scores need
improvement. Vocabulary instruction was an area to focus on and has been the focus of the last
two book studies. I am shifting my schedule to allow for more time to implement the six-step
program. Working with my colleagues, I have grown in my understanding of vocabulary
instruction. The WTS 2 disposition descriptor that appreciates individual variation within each
area of development is also encompassed by the new approach I am implementing for
vocabulary instruction. With the combination of steps, students have the opportunity to work
with words in many different ways. This allows diverse learners to succeed and grow their
academic vocabulary. The one size fits all method of dictionary definitions did not allow for any
variation. Working through the six-steps will give students a chance to understand vocabulary on
different levels helping them develop self-confidence and competence.
Implementing my plan for improved vocabulary instruction will support my growth in
WTS 1 knowledge descriptor that the teacher understands major concepts that are central to the
discipline of reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. The current curriculum used at
my school does not have a strong vocabulary component. I will be using professional judgment
to reorganize the structure of the English Language Arts (ELA) block of the daily schedule to
include more explicit instruction of vocabulary. The WTS 2 knowledge descriptor which states
that a teacher understands how learning occurs how students construct knowledge, acquire
skills, and develop habits of mind will guide the learning activities used to improve vocabulary
instruction. Students will be discussing words, playing games with words, writing about words,
illustrating words, and sharing their learning about words. The wide range of activities will meet
the needs of the different learning styles. With a large variation of abilities in my class, this new
method for vocabulary instruction will allow me to meet the needs of more students. I will also
strengthen my knowledge of ELA instruction with a focus on vocabulary acquisition and use.

WTS 1 and 2

page 7 of 21

Assessment of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)

Currently, I teach reading, writing, math, social studies, and science. According to the
STAR assessment, my students range from a first grade reading level to twelfth grade reading
level. My STAR reading class average was below the district, state, and national averages. On
the 2014-15 Badger exam, 53.2% of students were proficient or advanced in reading. Overall,
there was a need to improve reading scores for this group of students.
Digging into student reading performance a little deeper, I found that understanding of
complex words was lacking. Students struggled with constructed response and reading
comprehension because they didnt understand the meaning of the words in the question. Student
responses were minimal and did not demonstrate a higher level of thinking because the
vocabulary was basic. When asked to work with vocabulary words, students would find the
definition in a dictionary. Furthermore, when students were asked to use the new vocabulary
work in a sentence, it would be the word followed by the dictionary definition. It was clear
students were not making the connections to understand new vocabulary words. Vocabulary
instruction needed modification to make an impact on student learning.
Assessment of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
At Sam Davey, we use a balanced literacy approach to teaching reading. Good Habits,
Great Readers is the curriculum that guides our instruction of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS). There are over 2 hours each day devoted to literacy with guided reading, shared reading,
writing, and word work. Many of the basic skills are embedded within the program, but there is
little additional time to properly instruct students on those skills. A master schedule and pacing
calendar keep our schedule tight without room for additional ideas. Vocabulary was one of the
areas that did not get the attention it deserved. There needed to be a shift in the system in order to
add more robust vocabulary instruction.
Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research

WTS 1 and 2

page 8 of 21

The self-assessment, assessment of student performance, and learning environment

assessment show that I need to devote more time to meaningful vocabulary instruction. With a
deeper understanding of academic vocabulary, student assessment scores should increase in all
areas. All assessments show a class with a wide range of abilities that struggles overall compared
to others. I want to learn more about instructional strategies to support my students growth of
strong vocabularies. Additionally, I want my students to be more confident when completing
assessments, and I think vocabulary knowledge will support that. Finally, my essential question
to guide my learning is How does vocabulary instruction affect reading comprehension in the
general education classroom?
Research Summary
Academic vocabulary is used frequently in schools, but how much of that language is
comprehended by students? The answer is that it varies widely. Unfortunately, there is not much
attention given to vocabulary within reading basals. Many schools, including my own,
approached vocabulary instruction in the form of traditional dictionary definitions and short
exercises (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013, p. 2). This is not enough to make vocabulary
instruction rigorous and meaningful. With the research piling up, it is clear that direct vocabulary
instruction is needed in the classroom.
Language begins at birth with each new experience adding to the development of
vocabulary. Explicit instruction that allows students to use words extensively in the classroom
starting in preschool will benefit all children (Stoner, Beck, Dennis, & Parette, 2011, p. 44).
Language development takes place in naturally occurring contexts and instructional contexts.
Students in different socioeconomic groups have a wide gap in vocabulary due to the lack of
exposure to academic language at home. The vocabulary divide continues to widen as students
get older. Cunningham and Stanovich (as cited in Beck et al., 2013) stated that First-grade
vocabulary predicted students reading achievement in their junior year in high school (p. 2).

WTS 1 and 2

page 9 of 21

The divide in vocabulary levels and correlation of vocabulary knowledge when

predicting future success is strong evidence to support a more direct instruction of vocabulary in
schools. Beck et al. (2013) explained that robust vocabulary instruction is effectivefor
affecting reading comprehension (p. 3). With the continued pressure on students and schools to
perform well on academic tests, schools are looking for ways to improve reading comprehension.
Vocabulary instruction throughout the school should be well thought out to ensure academically
disadvantaged students close the achievement gap between them and the academically
advantaged students (Marzano & Pickering, 2005).
Marzanos six-step process for vocabulary instruction is an effective choice to implement.
Vocabulary instruction takes place over several exposures and through different activities.
Knowledge of vocabulary words starts minimally and grows with each new interaction. Students
vocabulary knowledge will move from no knowledge to a general sense to a narrow,
context bound knowledge to a rich, decontextualized knowledge of a words meaning (Beck
et al., 2013, p. 11). Taking students through the Marzanos six-step process will help students
move through the stages of understanding new vocabulary words.
Marzanos first step is to provide a description, explanation, or example of the new
term (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 14). Before beginning to understand new words, the teacher
can find out what the students know about the word. This gives the teacher a chance to identify
any misconceptions. This step involves providing descriptions rather than definitions for
vocabulary. Students can learn about the words through stories, current events, pictures, or
experiences (Marzano & Pickering, 2005, p. 15).
The second step in Marzanos six-step process is to ask students to restate the
description, explanation, or example in their own words (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 19). This
step, along with step three, requires students to record work in their own words in a vocabulary
notebook or model (Artifact A). Students can begin to self-reflect on their level of understanding

WTS 1 and 2

page 10 of 21

during this phase and can use Marzano and Pickerings (2005) four-point scale for selfevaluation of knowledge of vocabulary terms (p. 32).
Marzanos third step is to ask students to construct a picture, symbol, or graphic
representing the term or phrase (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 22). Students quick sketch the
actual object or a symbol if the term is abstract. Students continue to revisit their vocabulary
notebooks adding details as they learn them.
Moving on, the fourth step in Marzanos six-step process is to engage students
periodically in activities that help them add to their knowledge of the terms in their vocabulary
notebook (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 24). Steps 4-6 can be done periodically and are less
sequential. Some of the activities students could complete would be to identify similarities and
differences, compare and contrast, classify, create metaphors and analogies, and examine affixes
and root words (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 24-34). Graphic organizers provide structure to
many of these activities. In this step, students are digging deeper to strengthen their
understanding of vocabulary words.
The final two steps of Marzanos six-step process are to periodically ask students to
discuss the terms with one another and to involve students periodically in games that allow
them to play with terms (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 34, 36). Working with classmates to
discuss vocabulary will allow students to potentially get a different perspective and deepen their
understanding of the vocabulary word. Games provide students a chance to have fun and practice
using the words they have learned.
It can be overwhelming to think about all of the potential academic vocabulary words that
would need to be covered by each teacher. That is why it is important to systematically identify
appropriate word lists for grade levels to realistically cover in a year. Through collaboration,
teachers should determine the vocabulary that is most critical to the grade level. Marzano and
Pickering (2005) provide a five-phase process for creating a list of academic vocabulary words:

WTS 1 and 2

page 11 of 21

Phase 1: Makes decisions about the target number of words to be taught at each grade
level.
Phase 2: For each academic content area in the program, create a rank-ordered list of
words considered important to the grade-level interval.
Phase 3: Based on the length of these lists, determine how many terms should be taught
in each academic area.
Phase 4: Generate the final list of terms for each academic area by making additions,
deletions, or other alternations.
Phase 5: Assign terms to specific grades. (p. 9)
In the end, vocabulary development directly relates to reading comprehension. Marzano
and Pickering (2005) and Marzano and Simms (2015) both presented strategies for implementing
and delivering a robust academic vocabulary program. These strategies move students beyond a
simple dictionary definition to a multi-level understanding of academic vocabulary.
Research Implications
Guiding my research was the question How does vocabulary instruction affect reading
comprehension in the general education classroom? The research showed a strong correlation
between reading comprehension and direct vocabulary instruction. Marzanos six-step process
for vocabulary instruction provided the framework for my action plan. I began with transforming
my current vocabulary instruction method using this process. Moving forward, I also plan to
work with my school professional learning community (PLC) to identify a list of vocabulary
words for our grade level using the five-phase process given by Marzano and Pickering (2005).
Based on student surveys, creating a visual and finding visuals were steps the students thought
best helped them understand vocabulary words. I plan to implement Marzanos six-step process
when studying academic vocabulary. Doing so should help students acquire and use new
academic vocabulary.
Research-based Action Plan
Action Plan Summary Outline

WTS 1 and 2

page 12 of 21

1. Design lesson using Marzanos six-step process for vocabulary instruction. Begin with
Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes novel unit and gradually add other subjects.
2. Implement Marzanos six-step process for vocabulary instruction within the Sadako
and the Thousand Paper Cranes novel unit. Assess vocabulary from the unit.
3. Compare assessment results with dictionary definition vocabulary instruction from the
Esperanza Rising novel unit.
Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
1. Standardized goal: College and Career Readiness Anchor Standard ELA RL.4.10.
Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and
proficiently.
2. Targeted learning objective: CCSS ELA L.4.4 Vocabulary Acquisition and Use.
Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases
based on grade 4 reading and content, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies.
Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Task 1: Students will increase vocabulary knowledge as measured by novel
unit assessment scores.
2. Task 2: Students will increase reading comprehension as measured by the
STAR reading assessment.
3. Criteria that Prove Proficiency in Meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)
a. Task 1: Students will increase overall vocabulary score to 80% correct on
novel unit assessment.
b. Task 2: Students will increase overall reading grade level equivalency
by .3 years on the STAR reading assessment.
Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Students will complete an assessment based on vocabulary words from a novel
unit that were learned through Marzanos six-step process.

WTS 1 and 2

page 13 of 21

2. Students will complete the STAR reading assessment. Grade level equivalency
will increase 0.3 years from the previous test date in December.
Post-assessments
Instructional Insights Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
Researching vocabulary instruction is a current topic we are focusing on in our
professional development at within my K-5 elementary school. Vocabulary instruction was
minimal at best throughout our school. Our schedules are packed with content without much
flexibility for anything not explicitly in the curriculum. As we studied vocabulary words,
students would look up definitions in the dictionary which just is not enough. Students did not
have skills to deeply understand vocabulary words, and our new STAR assessment system
seemed to rely heavily on vocabulary.
I welcomed a new approach to teaching vocabulary. Instantly, I could see the change in
the understanding students demonstrated. It verified that dictionary definitions are not providing
students with the tools needed to understand academic vocabulary. We started Marzanos six-step
process in whole group with students sharing ideas together. We then moved to small groups to
research and discuss academic vocabulary with the students presenting their results (Artifact B).
Finally, students worked independently on academic vocabulary in their vocabulary packet.
After completing steps 1-5, students participated in games using the academic vocabulary
we just studied. Students were engaged and enjoying the activities using academic vocabulary.
Some of the students favorites were playing I Have/Who Has? and Scatter on Quizlet. After
completing the activities, students were begging to do more with the words. I was confident that
they had a deeper understanding of the vocabulary and would demonstrate this on the
assessment.
One of the biggest surprises was how long students would stay engaged in the six-step
process. For a short period, vocabulary took over a majority of reading time. Students were
involved in discussions and collaborating on new vocabulary words. Adding a game aspect to

WTS 1 and 2

page 14 of 21

vocabulary instruction also added to the excitement. The room was lively and full of discussion
during this time. I was hooked on this method of instruction. That also led to one of the problems
of using Marzanos six-step process for vocabulary instruction. Vocabulary instruction was so
engaging that we were using most of our reading block. It was hard to work through the process
in a timely fashion, and that is something I will continue to work on.
Comparison of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
This school year, we adopted the STAR reading assessment as our progress monitoring
tool. It appeared to be heavily weighted with vocabulary understanding as compared to our other
district reading assessments that were heavy on constructed response for comprehension. With
added vocabulary instruction from Marzanos six-step process, I expected students to show
positive growth on the STAR assessment. I looked at the class average for grade level
equivalency (Artifact C). At our winter checkpoint in December, my class grade level
equivalency on the reading assessment was 5.4 years. I expected the students to have at least 0.3
years growth when we took it again. In April, my class grade level equivalency on the reading
assessment was 5.9 years. Overall, the students had .5 years growth during that time.
During the Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes novel unit, I wanted to make
vocabulary the main focus. I sought to see if their understanding of the story was improved
compared to other years with a deeper knowledge of the vocabulary. The class average on the
vocabulary assessment from Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes was 80%. During our
novel unit for Esperanza Rising students learned vocabulary through reading the definitions and
playing some games. The class average on the vocabulary assessment from Esperanza Rising
was 71%. Overall, using Marzanos six-step process for vocabulary instruction proved to be
more successful than just using the dictionary (Artifact D).
Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
Completing dictionary definitions was not a student favorite. Most completed it quickly
and without much thought. Certainly no one requested more dictionary definitions.

WTS 1 and 2

page 15 of 21

Implementing Marzanos six-step process was refreshing because students were collaborating
with others. When students were surveyed about vocabulary instruction, many said being able to
draw pictures and share ideas with others really helped them understand the vocabulary. Other
comments revealed that it was more fun to collaborate using Marzanos six-step process than to
just look up the definitions in the dictionary.
Students were more confident with their understanding of academic vocabulary using this
process. I think improved understanding will help students in all subjects at school as well as
perform better on standardized tests. I will continue my work with this group, and I look forward
to fully implementing Marzanos six-step process next school year.
Reflection of Entire Learning Process
I began to focus on how vocabulary instruction affects reading comprehension this
year. I did not realize how unprepared our students were when it came to vocabulary knowledge.
Marzanos six-step process for learning academic vocabulary is easy to implement and is
effective. Throughout this process, I also learned how connected vocabulary in early childhood
and future success in reading comprehension were. This is a topic that is still not getting the
attention it needs in schools, and I hope that is changing. We have the tools to make a difference
with vocabulary instruction. I will continue to implement Marzanos six-step process and work to
make my activities meaningful and varied to hold students attention when learning vocabulary.
What Worked and Why
1. Students retained a better understanding of vocabulary words as demonstrated by
higher assessment scores. Marzanos six-step process includes many exposures to the vocabulary
words allowing students to use them in different contexts.
2. Students were engaged and enjoyed learning vocabulary through Marzanos six-step
process as stated in a majority of student surveys.
What Did Not Work and Why

WTS 1 and 2

page 16 of 21

1. Robust vocabulary instruction was too time consuming in our daily schedule. It may
have been because it was a new process, but I would devote 50% of our time each day to
vocabulary. I need to balance literacy and not over instruct one area.
2. There are still some misconceptions and disconnects when studying academic
vocabulary. Some students wrote on the survey that learning vocabulary is to help with your
spelling.
My Next Steps
1. Work with grade level partners and literacy coach to identify academic vocabulary
word list for all subject areas.
2. Develop step four from Marzanos six-step process to move beyond just synonyms to
include similarities and differences, affixes and roots, metaphors and analogies, and
classification.

WTS 1 and 2

page 17 of 21

References
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teacher's manual.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., & Simms, J. A. (2013). Vocabulary for the common core. Bloomington, IN:
Marzano Research Laboratory.
Stoner, J. B., Beck, A. R., Dennis, M., & Parette, H. J. (2011). The use of instructional
technology in direct vocabulary instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology,
26(3), 35-46.

WTS 1 and 2

page 18 of 21

Artifact A: Vocabulary Graphic Organizers (old vs. new)

The first image is our previous graphic organizer for vocabulary work and the bottom graphic
organizer is to be used with Marzanos six-step process.

WTS 1 and 2

page 19 of 21

Artifact B: Examples of Student Work Using Marzano

Student samples of vocabulary study from the novel Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes by
Eleanor Coerr using Marzanos six-step process.

WTS 1 and 2

page 20 of 21

Artifact C: STAR Reading Assessment Scores

STAR reading assessment data from April 2016. Grade level equivalency (GE) increased .8 years
in reading. Overall reading performance is improved.

WTS 1 and 2

page 21 of 21

Artifact D: Vocabulary Assessment Scores

Photo 1 was from Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes vocabulary assessment. Marzanos
six-step process was used to learn vocabulary. Student performance was 80% accurate. Photo 2
was from Esperanza Rising vocabulary assessment. Dictionary definitions was used to learn
vocabulary. Student performance was 71% accurate.