Running Head: PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

The Effect of Preteaching Vocabulary to ELL Students in a Chemistry Class

Teri-Ann Arenstam
University of New England
December 15, 2014

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

Abstract
In the United States during the 2011-12 school year (the last year for which data is
available), the U. S. Department of Education reported English Language Learners (ELL) made
up an average of 14.2 percent of public school enrollment in urban schools and 9.0 percent in the
schools of suburban areas. ELL students face barriers to understanding concepts and scaffolding
their learning that native English speakers do not. In an honors chemistry class, it was observed
that ELL students demonstrated lower scores on language-based assessments than they did on
math-based assessments. This study attempted to close this gap by introducing a vocabulary
intervention at the start of each new unit. Students used a decontextualized vocabulary strategy
that incorporated Marzanos six-step process for teaching vocabulary. This strategy employed
the iPad app Cram which students used to make three-sided flashcards. Data was collected on
several types of language-based assessments and on the math-based portion of unit assessments.
The study focused on five students designated as ELL-1 or ELL-2 by the ELL Department of the
school. Four of the five students showed a narrowing of the gap between the language-based and
the math-based section of unit assessments. Further, each student showed improvement on at
least two of the four different types of assessments employed. Further study is required to
determine if students participation in their required ELL classes contributed to the positive
results of the study.

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

Table of Contents
Introduction..4
Problem Statement.......5
Research Question...5
Hypothesis...6
Literature Review....6
Developing an Effective Strategy7
Summary10
Methodology..10
Research Design.10
Data Collection Plan..11
Sample Selection13
Results14
Findings.14
Discussion..16
Limitations.18
Summary and Further Research.18
Action Plan.19
Conclusion.20
References..21
Appendices.23

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

The Effect of Preteaching Vocabulary to ELL Students in a Chemistry Class

Students who are English language learners (ELL) face barriers to understanding
concepts and scaffolding new learning to old that native English speakers do not. In a school
with a continuing increasing population of ELL students, it is important to use effective
strategies for this student population.
Thornton Academy is an independent town academy serving its host town and several
neighboring communities. The Academy started an international boarding program in 2009 and
has now grown to include over 150 students from more than twenty countries who attend classes
along side the day students. The program has been successful on many levels and has exceeded
expectations of both faculty and administration. The general consensus is that the boarding
program has enriched the school culturally, academically, and financially. However, many
teachers were unprepared for the challenge of teaching ELL students along side native language
speakers in the classroom. ELL students are required to have a minimum level of proficiency to
matriculate at Thornton Academy, but it is not uncommon for students to exaggerate their ability
during the application process. As a result, many classes have ELL students with very poor
English language abilities. The majority of ELL students are bright, motivated, and eager to
learn; but their English language deficits can be an enormous barrier to their learning and
academic success.
In honors chemistry class, ELL students with poor English skills face the added challenge
of being required to work cooperatively in small groups. Honors chemistry is conducted in
accordance with the flipped classroom model, resulting in students spending class time working
on problem solving, laboratory experiments, and other activities within their assigned groups.
The poor English skills of some ELL students can contribute to difficulty in effectively

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

communicating with their group members. Students who are not able to take advantage of the
group dynamic in this class must learn on their own.
Problem Statement
At the start of the school year 2014-2015, a number of ELL students in honors chemistry
demonstrated below average scores on a pre-lab quiz, pre-lab questions, and the multiple-choice
questions on the first test. However, these students did not score lower on the problem portion of
the first test, which was math-based. As a physical science, chemistry requires strong math
skills. The pre-lab quiz, pre-lab questions, and multiple-choice portion of the test are all
vocabulary dependent. The questions involving the lab are all short answer questions. The
multiple-choice questions on the test were used to cover a large amount of material and were
focused on the lectures and readings for the class. It is evident a gap exists between the
vocabulary dependent portion and the math-based portion of assessments.
Research Questions
It appears ELL students are having difficulty with assessments that are dependent upon
understanding specific vocabulary words associated with the unit. Teaching vocabulary
separately is not an instructional strategy previously used in this class. This study attempts to
determine if pre-teaching key vocabulary words at the start of each unit will benefit ELL
students. This leads to two questions. First, will students who are given the opportunity to learn
the meaning of key vocabulary words at the start of the unit demonstrate a narrowing of the gap
that exists between the scores on their language-based and math based-assessments? Second,
will these same students also see an increase in their scores on other language-based
assignments?

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

Hypothesis
ELL students who are pre-taught vocabulary at the start of each unit will demonstrate an
increase in comprehension resulting in higher scores on vocabulary dependent assessments and a
narrowing of the gap between language-based and math-based assessments.
Literature Review
In the United States, during the 2011-12 school year, the last year for which data is
available, the U.S. Department of Education reported English Language Learners (ELL) made up
an average of 14.2 percent of public school enrollment in urban schools and 9.0 percent in the
schools of suburban areas. In York County, Maine, the most recent data from the Maine
Department of Education in April of 2012 indicates 43 foreign languages spoken by K-12
students. The presence of ELL students in the classroom presents unique challenges for both the
teacher and the students. Language barriers prevent students from learning and acquiring the
academic skills necessary to succeed in school. The purpose of this literature review is to
determine effective strategies for teaching ELL students language competency, specifically in a
science classroom. Teachers need to employ effective strategies to aid their ELL students with
language and reading comprehension. Students develop critical thinking skills in science
through making predictions, conducting investigations, analyzing data, and developing models.
This requires a high level of language competency. Studies have shown that high ability ELL
students are underperforming in science classes due to language difficulties (Webster & Hazari,
2009).
In high school science classes, as well as other content areas, a common accommodation
for ELL students is to place them in lower level classes until their English competency improves
to a prescribed level. However, second language acquisition research has consistently shown

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

that ELL students should be allowed access to high level, academic challenging classes while
they are learning English (Cho & McDonnough, 2009). Klingner, Boardman, Eppolito, &
Schonewise (2012) found that schools which excelled in educating their ELL students allowed
students access to academically challenging curriculum and employed teachers who had high
expectations for all of their students. While science teachers agree placing otherwise
academically competent students in lower level classes is neither a good nor fair solution, most
feel inadequately prepared to support their ELL students in ways other than offering extended
time (Cho & McDonnough, 2009). Although allowing ELL students extra time is helpful, it does
not address the underlying problem of language competency.
Developing an Effective Strategy
A review of current literature provides evidence to support a vocabulary intervention as
an effective strategy for promoting language development in ELL students. A survey of ELL
students in high school science classes identified vocabulary development as one of five major
factors that were important to their academic success in the science classroom (Webster &
Hazari, 2009). The results of this same survey indicate effective teachers provide students
opportunities for vocabulary development by using tested strategies that employ visuals,
diagrams, demonstrations, and language related feedback. Teaching ELL students English
language comprehension is not a task solely for the ELL teacher. Webster & Hazari (2009)
concluded that science teachers should be teaching strategies to their ELL students that promote
English language learning in their science curriculums.
There is a great deal of domain specific vocabulary in science. Words that have one
meaning in other content areas may have entirely different meanings in science. An example of
this is the word substance. In most contexts it may mean any kind of material, but in chemistry

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

it refers to only elements or compounds. Additionally, science contains many words that
students have never encountered. Klingner, Boardman, Eppolito, & Schonewise (2012) agree
that the most effective teachers provide multi-modal vocabulary instruction to their ELL
students. While there are many effective strategies around the area of teaching vocabulary, a
recent study showed that preteaching keywords before the start of a new unit had a significant
positive effect on student comprehension of experimental passages (Burns, Hodgson, Parker, &
Fremont, 2011).
There are an abundance of studies that examine the effectiveness of strategies for
teaching vocabulary. Marzano (2009) examined decades worth of research on instructional
strategies and designed what is referred to as the six-step process for teaching vocabulary. The
steps are as follows:
1. Provide a description, explanation, or example of the new term.
2. Ask students to restate the description, explanation, or example in their own words.
3. Ask students to construct a picture, pictograph, or symbolic representation of the
term.
4. Engage students periodically in activities that help them add to their knowledge of the
terms in their vocabulary notebooks.
5. Periodically ask students to discuss the terms with one another.
6. Involve students periodically in games that enable them to play with the terms.
Marzanos six-step process provides a framework for developing a preteaching strategy, but there
are other factors that affect student learning that may be considered.
Vocabulary may be taught using both implicit and explicit strategies. Implicit strategies
involve indirect or incidental learning while explicit strategies involve direct and intentional
methods of teaching vocabulary (Al-Darayseh, 2014). An implicit strategy may involve students
learning the meaning of new words from the context of the reading while an example of an
explicit strategy is the use of flashcards to teach students new vocabulary. A recent study by Al-

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

Darayseh (2014) clearly demonstrated that using a combination of both implicit and explicit
strategies proved to be more effective than using just one or the other in promoting vocabulary
development and reading comprehension. In Al-Daraysehs study, students were pre-taught
vocabulary words and at the same time taught word learning strategies that depend upon
contextual clues. A study by Taboada & Rutherford (2011) however, showed that ELL students
benefitted more from explicit instruction when trying to learn domain specific vocabulary.
Studies have also been done on the effectiveness of contextualized versus
decontextualized strategies. A recent study by Amirian & Momeni (2012) compared both
strategies. One group of students was taught inference strategies in order to determine the
meaning of an unknown word from the context in which it was found. A second group of
students was pre-taught words out of context via a rote memory strategy. The students in the
decontextualized group outperformed the students in the contextualized group.
A final consideration is the use of technology. Todays students have grown up in a world
in which they are constantly connected to an electronic device. Chih-Cheng, Hsien-Sheng,
Sheng-ping, & Hsin-jung (2014) conducted a study with Taiwanese students and found that those
who learned English vocabulary in a technology enhanced environment utilizing touchscreen
desktop computers exhibited greater vocabulary retention than students without technology. Ali,
Mukundun, Baki, & Ayub (2012) found that the use of Computer Assisted Learning Language
promoted a more positive learning attitude among students compared to learning vocabulary
through more traditional methods that do not utilize technology. Students were particularly
engaged when the technology was interactive. There are a multitude of free educational apps,
designed to engage students of all ages.
Summary

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

10

This study asserts that ELL students who are pretaught vocabulary at the start of each unit
will demonstrate an increase in reading comprehension resulting in higher scores on vocabulary
dependent assessments. The research suggests preteaching vocabulary at the start of a new unit is
an effective strategy for increasing language and reading comprehension. Marzanos six-step
process provides an effective framework on which to build this strategy. Further, this
preteaching strategy will utilize technology in the form of iPads and will employ both
decontextualized and explicit teaching of key vocabulary at the start of each new unit.
Methodology
ELL students who do not have strong English language competency are having difficulty
with language dependent assignments and assessments in honors chemistry class. The first
assessments of the school year indicated a performance gap between language-dependent
assessments and math-based assessment. This study seeks to determine whether preteaching
vocabulary at the start of each new unit will have the effect of narrowing the gap between the
scores of these two types of assessments. The working hypothesis of this study is that
preteaching vocabulary will result in higher scores on vocabulary dependent assignments and
assessments.
Research Design
This front-loading vocabulary intervention utilized the iPad application Cram and was
designed around Marzanos six-step process. The Cram application was chosen because it
allows students to construct a three-sided flash card and to play interactive games with their
cards.
Students were instructed to construct a flashcard for each new term. One side of the card
held the term, a second side held a definition or description of the term, and the third side

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

11

contained a picture or symbolic representation of the term along with an example of how the
term is used appropriately in chemistry (see Appendix A for a sample). Students constructed the
cards during class time and finished the set for homework if not completed in class. Once cards
were completed, students shared them electronically with the teacher to be checked for accuracy.
At the start of two consecutive classes, ten minutes was allotted for students to quiz themselves
using their own flashcards. During time allotted for unit review, prior to the summative unit test,
students reviewed vocabulary by playing an interactive game of their choosing with their
flashcards.
This intervention combined facets of Marzanos six-step process as well as utilizing the
explicit and decontextualized strategy discussed in the literature review. In alignment with
Marzano (2009), students provided a description of the new term in their own words, illustrated
the term, engaged periodically in activities to learn the new words, and played a game
constructed around the new vocabulary. Since the vocabulary was front-loaded, students learned
the terms out of context and received information explicitly in the form of recording definitions
for each word. Students were exposed to the new terms in context as they progressed through
each unit.
Data Collection Plan
The data collected in this study is quantitative. Since a discrepancy between languagedependent and math-based assessments was observed, the data was collected on these two types
of assessments. Three types of language dependent assessments were selected based on the
criteria that each requires a high level of language competency yet are different from each other.
The language dependent assessments include pre-lab questions (Appendices B, C, J, & K), prelab quizzes (Appendices D, E, L, & M), and the multiple-choice portion of unit tests

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

12

(Appendices F, G, N & O). The pre-lab questions assess for understanding of the concepts being
covered in the lab, while the pre-lab quizzes test for understanding of the actual lab procedure.
The multiple-choice portions of the unit exam cover a broad range of content and test for
understanding of the concepts covered in the unit. Table 1 illustrates the triangulation matrix for
this study relating the data collection source to the problem attempting to be solved.
Table 1.
Triangulation Matrix____________________________________________________________
Research Question
Data Source
____________
Close the Gap
Between Language
& Math?

Multiple-Choice
Portion of
Unit Exam

Math-Based
Portion of Unit
Exams

3___________

Increase
Pre-lab Quizzes
Pre-Lab
Multiple-Choice
Language-Based
Questions
Portion of Unit
Scores?
Exams
_____________________________________________________________________________
The mean of the pre-intervention scores for the multiple-choice unit assessments was
compared to the mean scores of the math-based portion of the first two unit tests (Appendices H
& I) for each student to demonstrate a discrepancy between the language-dependent and mathbased scores. Scores were collected on all four assessments described for two units prior to the
intervention and for two units during the time period the intervention was in progress.
Data is presented in table form to illustrate the mean scores for each type of assessment
for each student and to compare the language-dependent versus math-based scores both pre and
post intervention. This illustrates whether the gap between language dependent and math-based
assessments has been narrowed by the intervention.

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

13

Since the goal of this study was to help all struggling ELL students, not make claims as to
the external validity of the study, no students were assigned to a control group; all students
participated in the intervention. There are factors outside of the chemistry classroom that may
affect the internal validity of the study. All ELL students whose scores are being examined are
enrolled in a support class for ELL students. They receive no chemistry support in these classes
but they are do receive on-going instruction in English language. However, the time period over
which the scores for this intervention will be collected is relatively short, which may lessen the
chance any improvement observed is due to improvement in English language competency
learned in ELL class versus the vocabulary intervention used.
Sample Selection
The participants in this study were international students categorized as ELL-1 or ELL2
by the ELL Department at this school. Upon arrival at Thornton Academy, student records are
reviewed and students ranked on a scale of one to three with one indicating the weakest level and
three the highest level of English language competency. All students ranked ELL-1 or ELL-2 are
enrolled in a mandatory ELL English class. All students in the chemistry class, ELL students of
all levels as well as native language speakers, will use the preteaching vocabulary strategy, but
data will be collected only on the identified ELL students.

Results
The vocabulary intervention was introduced to aid struggling ELL students with
language-based assignments and assessments. Although all students participated in the
intervention, data was collected on the five students who are categorized as ELL-1 or ELL-2 by

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

14

the ELL Department of this school. These students exhibited both low scores on key languagebased assignments and a significant gap between the language-based scores and the math-based
scores on their unit assessments. The intervention consisted of front-loading vocabulary at the
start of each new unit using an iPad app to make flashcards for each word.
Four different types of assessments were used in this study; pre-lab questions, pre-lab
quizzes, multiple-choice sections of unit assessments, and math-based sections of unit
assessments. Each student completed two of each type of assessment before the intervention and
two during the implementation of the intervention. The score presented for each assessment
represents an average of the two scores for each particular assessment.
Findings
Table 2 presents the results of the gap between the language-based and math-based
portion of unit assessments for each student in the study. Each unit assessment contains a section
of multiple-choice questions (Appendices F, G, N, &O) that are language dependent and a mathbased section (Appendices H, I, P, & Q). Column 4 presents the gap between the scores on the
multiple-choice portion and the math-based portion of the unit assessments prior to the
intervention. Column 7 presents the gap between the scores of the same sections of the unit
assessments after the intervention was begun. Column 8 presents the difference in the gaps
themselves from pre intervention to post intervention for each student.

Table 2.
Pre and Post Intervention Gap Between Language-Based (LB) and Math-Based (MB) Unit Test
Scores (five ELL students)________________________________________________________
Student
Pre-Intervention Scores
Post-Intervention Scores
Net Change
____________LB
MB
Gap
LB
MB
Gap ________________
1
54%
78%
28%
64%
81%
17%
-11%

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

15

66%

74%

8%

77%

81%

4%

-4%

75%

83%

8%

82%

84%

2%

-6%

52%

74%

22%

68%

86%

18%

-4%

5
71%
84%
13%
70%
74%
4%
-9%
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 3 presents the scores on the multiple-choice portion of the unit assessments
(Appendices E, F, N, &O) pre and post intervention. Column 4 shows the change in scores from
pre-intervention to once the intervention was implemented.
Table 3.
Pre and Post Intervention Scores on Language-Based Portion of Unit Tests (five ELL
students)______________________________________________________________________
Student
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Net Change
____________Scores _____________
Scores ____________________________________
1
54%
64%
+10%
2

66%

77%

+11%

75%

82%

+ 7%

52%

68%

+16%

5
71%
70%
- 1%
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 4 presents the scores on the pre-lab questions (Appendices B, C, J, & K) students
complete for homework before the start of a lab. Column 4 shows the change in scores from preintervention to post-intervention.
Table 4.
Pre and Post Intervention Scores on Pre-Lab Questions (five ELL students)_________________
Student
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Net Change
____________Scores _____________
Scores ____________________________________
1
29%
65%
+36%

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

16

71%

82%

+ 9%

79%

94%

+15%

38%

93%

+55%

5
90%
94%
+ 4%
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 5 presents the scores on the pre-lab quizzes (Appendices D, E, L, & M) of the five
students in the study. Students take pre-lab quizzes in class before the start of each lab. Students
are given the lab to study during the previous class and know the first question will be What is
the purpose of this lab? Column 4 shows the change is scores from pre to post intervention.
Table 5.
Pre and Post Intervention Scores on Pre-Lab Quizzes (five ELL students)_________________
Student
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Net Change
____________Scores _____________
Scores ____________________________________
1
20%
65%
+45%
2

63%

34%

-29%

50%

88%

+38%

38%

82%

+44%

5
75%
93%
+18%
______________________________________________________________________________
Discussion
Table 2 shows a narrowing of the gap between the language-based portion of unit
assessments and the math-based portion for all students. It must be noted however, that for one
student (number five), even though the gap was narrowed, it was not due to the fact that this
students multiple-choice score increased. This students multiple choice score actually went
down one percent but the math score went down ten percent, resulting in the decrease in the gap.
The data shows that four out of the five students narrowed the gap between their multiple-choice

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

17

and math scores on their unit assessments due to an increase in their multiple-choice scores,
which was the intent of the intervention. It is also worth noting, that all four students who
narrowed their gap, saw an increase in the scores of their math-based assessments, but also a
proportionally higher increase in their multiple-choice assessments, which is illustrated in Table
3. It is possible that the vocabulary intervention benefitted these students in understanding their
math problems better as well as increase their comprehension of the multiple choice questions.
Table 4 indicates an increase in the scores of the pre-lab question assignments for all
students in the study. Two of the students showed a significant increase of 36% and 55% in their
scores from pre to post intervention. Two students showed a moderate increase of 9% and 15%,
and the fifth student, who saw no increase in the multiple-choice assessment scores, saw only a
4% increase in the pre-lab questions assignment. Of all of the assessments used in this study, the
pre-lab question assignment is the only one that is done outside of class and for which students
are allowed to access notes and texts to complete.
The data in Table 5 shows a significant increase in pre-lab quiz scores for two students, a
significant decrease for one student, and a moderate increase for the fifth student. The student
who exhibited the moderate increase is the same student who showed no increase in the multiplechoice assessments. Three of the five students in the study showed improvement in all areas
assessed. One student showed improvement in all areas except the pre-lab quizzes and the fifth
student showed improvement in the pre-lab questions and quizzes only, not in the unit
assessments.
The working hypothesis of this study is that ELL students who were pre-taught
vocabulary at the start of each unit would demonstrate an increase in comprehension resulting in

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

18

higher scores on vocabulary dependent assessments. The data supports both this hypothesis and
the continued use of this intervention in the classroom.
Limitations
There are two major factors not accounted for that could affect the data in this study.
First, all students on which data was collected are ELL students who are required to attend ELL
class. While students are not learning science in their ELL classes, they are working on their
English skills. Progress students are making in their ELL class could account for some of the
improvement noted in the assessment scores. Second, pre-intervention scores were collected at
the start of the school year when students are new, or fairly new to the class. Honors level
science classes have a steep learning curve for some students regarding workload and the level of
work required. Data collection for post-intervention scores began towards the end of the first
quarter after students had time to adapt to the requirements and rigor of the class. Some progress
could be attributable to students adjusting to the demands of the course.
Summary and Further Research
The vocabulary intervention was successful in narrowing the gap between languagebased assessment and math-based assessment for four out of five ELL students in this study.
Further, all students saw an increase in their language-dependent pre-lab questions and four out
of the five students demonstrated an increase in their language-dependent pre-lab quizzes. The
data suggests the vocabulary intervention is worth continuing as a regular practice in honors
chemistry class. All students in the class, not just the ELL students in the study, participated in
the intervention. Narrowing a gap between math and language-based assessments does not apply
to native language speakers, but further study should be done to determine the effect the
intervention has on the scores of their language-based assignments and assessments.

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

19

Action Plan
In light of the success of the vocabulary intervention, it has become a permanent part of
the honors chemistry curriculum with several minor changes. First, students are now allowed
choice regarding which iPad app they use to create their flash cards. The Cram app was chosen
because of the three-sided feature. Students insert images of the vocabulary word on the third
side. Students may use a different app as long as they are able to insert an image on one side of
the flashcards. This change is a result of student input. Some students prefer to have flashcards
for all of their classes located in the same app. This change does not affect the foundation of
Marzanos six-step process around which the intervention was designed. A second change is that
a more selective process is employed when choosing the words to be front-loaded. In every unit
there are a few words that cannot be effectively learned out of context. They require too much
explanation to be taught at the start of a unit. Words that fit this category will remain on the
vocabulary list, but will be added to the flashcards as they are encountered during the unit.
The information learned from this study is on the agenda to be shared for the January
meeting of the science department at this school. Many science teachers, particularly those who
teach honors level classes are looking for ways to further support their ELL students. The data in
this report has already been shared informally with a number of teachers who have begun using
the Cram app for vocabulary flashcards in their classrooms as well. This study has also initiated
a conversation about being more purposeful in incorporating vocabulary into our science
curriculum.
Conclusion
The number of ELL students has been steadily rising, not only at Thornton Academy, but
at all U.S. schools in recent years. The language barrier poses a unique problem to many ELL

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

20

students in their ability to learn and achieve academic success. Placing bright and motivated
students in a lower level class in order to accommodate their poor English skills is not a good
solution to the problem. Preteaching vocabulary at the start of a new unit has been proven to be
an effective strategy in helping the ELL students in this study to improve grades on languagebased assessments and assignments. The strategy required relatively little class time and was
easily implemented in an honors chemistry class.
All students in the class used the strategy, but data was analyzed only on the identified
ELL students. Further research is required to determine if the strategy had a positive impact on
the scores of the native language speakers in the class.

References
Al-Darayseh, A. (2014). The impact of using explicit/implicit vocabulary teaching strategies on
improving students' vocabulary and reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 4(6), 1109-1118. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1535262681?accountid=12756

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

21

Ali, Z., Mukundan, J., Baki, R., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2012). Second language learners' attitudes
towards the methods of learning vocabulary. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 24-36.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1009897765?accountid=12756
Amirian, S. M. R., Momeni, S. (2012). Definition-based versus contextualized vocabulary
learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2302-2307.
doi:10.4304/tpls.2.11.2302-2307
Burns, M. K., Hodgson, J., Parker, D. C., & Fremont, K. (2011). Comparison of the effectiveness
and efficiency of text previewing and preteaching keywords as small-group reading
comprehension strategies with middle-school students. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 50(3), 241-252. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/878894207?accountid=12756
Chih-Cheng, L., Hsien-Sheng HSIAO, Sheng-ping TSENG, & Hsin-jung, C. (2014). Learning
English vocabulary collaboratively in a technology-supported classroom. TOJET: The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1) Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1519878221?accountid=12756
Cho, S., & McDonnough, J. T. (2009). Meeting the needs of high school science teachers in
English language learner instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 385402. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9136-9
Klingner, J. K., Boardman, A. G., Eppolito, A. M., & Schonewise, E. (2012). Supporting
adolescent English language learners reading in the content areas. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10(1), 35-64

PRETEACHING VOCABULARY TO ELL STUDENTS

22

Maine Department of Education. (2012). Snapshot of statewide distribution of languages spoken

other than English in Maine public schools, grades k-12. Retrieved from
www.maine.gov/education/esl/lmsdmain.htm
Marzano, R. (2009). The art and science of teaching: Six steps to better vocabulary instruction.
Teaching for the 21st Century, 67(1), 83-84
Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing a reading comprehension and academic
vocabulary for English language learners through science content: A formative
experiment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113-157. Doi:10.1080/02702711003604468
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). The condition of education 2014. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96
Webster, B. J., & Hazari, A. (2009). Measuring language learning environments in secondary
science classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 12(2) 131-142