Implementing Explicit Vocabulary Instruction and Metacognative

Strategies with English Learnings: An Action Research Project

Suaronne Angeletti
Loyola Marymount University
December 6, 2014

2 | EL Action Research
I. Introduction

This action research project focuses on the effects of integrating

explicit vocabulary instruction on the ability of an English language
learner to comprehend directions and recall the process to solve
mathematical problems. The focus student is a thirteen-year-old
female in an eighth grade Common Core Math class at a charter middle
school in the Watts area of Los Angeles. Seventy-six percent of
students in the school come from homes where Spanish is spoken in
the home. Of those students, 20% are still classified as English
Learners (EL) who need support in the classroom. The focus student is
classified as an Early Intermediate English Learner (Level 2) overall on
the California English Language Development Test (CEDLT), has a
reading level equivalent to the first grade fourth month of instruction,
is performing below grade level in math and is at risk for academic
retention.
For the purposes of this study, explicit vocabulary instruction
refers to activities focused on content specific vocabulary and having
the student construct meaning based on their understanding of the
mathematics instruction. This project intends to measure the impact
of explicit vocabulary instruction on student comprehension of written
or oral directions. The specific strategy for explicit vocabulary
instruction for this student will be the use of the Frayer model, a four-

3 | EL Action Research
square concept map that asks students to provide a definition of the
word, facts or characteristics of the word examples and non-examples.
The goal of the Frayer model is to build deeper understanding of the
concept and a increased level of comfort with the vocabulary as to
allow the student to ask meaningful questions about the content and
understand what a question is asking.
The objective of this action research project is to answer the
question: What will be the effect of utilizing Frayer models for
vocabulary instruction on student comprehension of the directions and
creating a plan to solve problems in a secondary mathematics
classroom?

II. Literature Review

In 1968 the Bilingual Education Act, Title VII was passed to
provide support for and recognize the unique educational
disadvantages faced by English learners (ELs). Since then, educators
have been charged with the task of identifying the difficulties of
learning content in a language not yet mastered and implementing
strategies that will provide these students with the skills that will
enhance their educational experiences and prepare them for the
future. Additionally, as schools move to incorporate the new Common
Core State Standards (CCCSS), a shift toward more complex thinking
and application of math concepts has translated to a crucial need for

4 | EL Action Research
teachers to implement research-based principals to support ELs
(Moschkovich, 2012). Two strategies that are used as scaffolds in the
education of ELs are explicit vocabulary instruction and teaching
metacognitive processes.
Explicit vocabulary instruction has a positive effect on reading
comprehension and should be implemented in each content area
(Harmon, Hendrick, & Wood, 2005). Monroe (1997) examined the
effects of two vocabulary instruction models in a math classroom. She
found that students who learned vocabulary with the model using the
four-square concept map (a Frayer-type model) retained more
mathematical concepts than students who focused on definitions only
(Monroe, 1997). To have lasting results Maltzer and Hamann (2005)
found that vocabulary instruction must encourage students to organize
concepts and terms within their own context, interact with the contentspecific language in a meaningful way, and develop strategies to
connect concepts/ vocabulary to improve their reading comprehension.
To teach mathematics while aligning to the CCSS, teachers must
focus on mathematical reasoning and sense making while maintain
high cognitive demand (Moschkovich, 2012). Metacognitive processes
such as self-assessing ones knowledge, formulating a plan for solving,
and monitoring your progress toward ones goal play a critical role in
mathematical performance, especially as students are continuing to
master a new language.

One pedagogical strategy for helping ELs

5 | EL Action Research
develop higher order thinking skills is to move from concrete to
abstract and back (Thomas & Thorne, 2009). Thomas and Thorne
(2009) moving between concrete and abstract versions of the same
concept can help students build their understanding of the
characteristics and behavior of a concept.
A Benjamin Whorf theorized, an individuals
Understanding of the world is needed to bridge the gap between
language and childrens understanding of mathematics. Hopefully, by
implementing these strategies the population of students I teach will
be enriched and further supported to reach their goals.

III. Cycle 1 Baseline Data

The student chosen for this action research is a 13-year-old

female in an eighth-grade Common Core Math class. The student is an
EL who was born in California, but did not begin speaking English until
she entered Kindergarten at the age of five. She is being raised in a
single-parent household with two siblings (both younger than her). Her
mother understands very limited English and prefers to communicate
in Spanish. Within their home, Spanish is the primary language. The
focus students overall CEDLT score is a 2 (Early Intermediate English
learner). A breakdown of her CEDLT results can be seen in Figure 1.

6 | EL Action Research
Figure 1- Focus Students CEDLT Results

Year Listening
2014 3

Speaking
3

Reading
1

Writing
1

Overall
2

(Intermediat

(Intermediat

(Beginnin

(Beginnin

(Early

e)

e)

g)

g)

Intermediat
e)

The focus school is a co-ed Charter run middle school in the

Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. The school population
consists of 83% Hispanic students and 16% African-American students.
Most families served by the school are impoverished, as evidenced by
98% of the schools students receive Free or Reduced Lunch services.
The school has identified 20% of its students as EL students based on
their performance on the CEDLT exam. The school is on a 115 minute
block schedule where students take 3 classes per day on Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. On Wednesdays, the students attend
all six of their classes for 45 minutes per class.
The teachers are expected to teaching using signature practices
to differentiate instruction for the given population. These include
blend learning and Pick 6station rotation model (Figure 2). Blended
learning is a model of education that blends traditional teaching with
the principles of online learning. In this model, teachers use
technology purposefully as a tool to differentiate and personalize

7 | EL Action Research
learning. During class, students rotate through a teacher-chosen
rotation to meet the goals of the lesson. All rotation models are some
combination of an independent station (where students work
individually on an assignment), collaborative station (students work
with each other to reach a common goal), and/or a teacher-directed
station (teacher works closely with students in an organized manner to
reach goal of lesson).

Figure 2 Pick 6 Station Rotation Model

8 | EL Action Research

The focus class for this study is my 3rd period 8th grade Common
Core Math class with 31 students, five who have an Individualized
Learning Plan (IEP), which identifies a learning or behavior disability,
and six who are classified as ELs. The focus student has consistently
held an NP (not proficient) grade in this course, which is the equivalent
of 65% or below. The student typically speaks in English in class, but
will switch to Spanish in social interactions. She rarely contributes to
discussions of the whole class, but will engage in individual
conversations with the teacher. When questioned, the student rarely is
able to define words or is able to complete mathematics questions
where identifying or formulas are needed.

9 | EL Action Research
For the baseline, the teacher recorded the number of times the
student could correctly state the directions of an assignment in her
own words and relate these directions to a mathematical process
during a week long period (3 class meetings). The teacher also tracked
the type of follow up questions she asked. The baseline data can be
seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 3 Students Ability to Comprehend Directions on Tasks

(Pre-Intervention)

Class

Number of

Number of

Number of

Number of

Meeting

Times

Times

Times

Student

Student was

Student

Student

Asked Follow

asked to

Correctly

Correctly

Up Question

clarify

Restated

Stated

directions
4

Directions
1(25%)

Process
1

1 (33.3%)

2 (40%)

Monday
(115 minute
block)
Wednesday
(45 minute
block)
Thursday
(115 minute
block)

10 | EL Action Research

Figure 4 Type of Follow Up Questions Asked by Focus Student

22%
Clarifying Vocabulary
Clarifying the Process
78%

What do you want me to

do?

Figure 2 shows that the focus student was able to correctly restate the
directions and state the correct process to follow 2 of 12 times during
the three class periods (16.7% of the time). Moreover, figure 3 shows
the student often asked low level follow up questions 78% of the time.
The student was able to ask specific follow up questions regarding
vocabulary 22% of the time. The student did not ask questions that
clarified her understanding of the process during this time.
As a result of this data, it has been observed that the focus
student often does not understand the directions of the problems she
is asked to complete and does not connect the words she can read to
mathematical processes to create a plan to solve these problems.

IV. Cycle 2 Intervention and New Benchmark

11 | EL Action Research
As a result of the baseline data, I know the focus student needs
help with understanding what the directions of a question are asking
and being able to apply the learning appropriately based on that
understanding. For this study, there are two separate, but related
interventions. Both of these interventions are intended to increase the
students acquisition of vocabulary and help her to see the connection
between the vocabulary and the process of solving. The focus student
will create Frayer model concept cards for key vocabulary words. Then
the student will use the Frayer model to annotate a modified practice
worksheet to illustrate and promote metacognition while reading
directions.
After whole class instruction, the focus student will join a small
group of six students to work at the teacher-directed station first. I will
model the process of (1) defining the concept in your own words, (2)
identify essential attributes, (3) give examples and explain why they
are examples, and (4) give non-examples and explain why they are
non-examples. After the process has been modeled the students will
work in pairs to create their own Frayer models. Once the Frayer
models are complete, the students will move to a collaborative station
where they complete 2 practice problems, using their Frayer models as
reference, before moving to independent practice. This intervention
was given twice a week for three weeks.

12 | EL Action Research
Each day I would ask the focus student to restate the directions
and the process necessary to solve then track her responses and the
follow up questions she asked. As seen in Figure 5, the focus student
was able to correctly restate the directions and state the correct
process to follow 4 of 20 times during the three class periods (20% of
the time). This represents a slight increase from the baseline data.
The types of follow up questions the student asked illustrate the
encouraging part of the data. The student decreased asking How do
you do this? by 28% and increased the use of specific questions about
vocabulary and process by 15% and 13% respectively.
Figure 5 Post-Intervention Data
Week

Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Total

Number of

Number of

Number of

Number of

Times

Times

Times

Student

Student was

Student

Student

Asked Follow

asked to

Correctly

Correctly

Up Question

clarify

Restated

Stated

directions
7
7
6
20

Directions
2 (28.6%)
3 (42.9%)
2 (33.3%)
7

Process
1
1
2
4

5
6
5
16

Figure 6 Type of Follow Up Questions Asked by Focus Student

13 | EL Action Research

38%
50%

Clarifying Vocabulary
Clarifying the Process

13%

What do you want me to

do?

V. Discussion and Conclusion

The incorporation of Frayer models and guided practice modified
to encourage metacognitive behaviors yielded little improvement to
the focus students reading comprehension in math class. However, I
did notice gains in the qualities of follow up questions the student
asked. She seemed to understand the value of knowing the
vocabulary in order to understand what a question is asking. She also
applied her knowledge of the mathematical processes she learned but
was often incorrect in the process she chose first.
During the process of implementing this study it was disclosed
that the focus student was diagnosed with Visual and Auditory
Processing Learning Deficiency. I believe this may have affected her
progress and would need to be considered when determining next
steps.
Of the other five students who were in the group that
experienced the same interventions, three improved on assessments
and were proficient in three of the five objectives they were assessed
on. I informally interviewed the students and asked if they found value

14 | EL Action Research
in the Frayer model and modified example. All students said they
found value in the Frayer model and that it was nice to have an
example to look at with the definition. The three students who
improved said they found value in the modified examples but it was
hard for them to use the same thinking on their own. The three
students who showed no improvement said that they did not like the
modified examples because it was more work than usually. This leads
me to believe that incorporating explicit vocabulary instruction is
valuable but changing the mindset about value versus amount of work
is necessary. I have found that most of the lower performing students
in the class have a mindset of completion instead of a mindset of
learning.

15 | EL Action Research

Resources
Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B., & Wood, K. D. (2005). Research on
vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for
struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(3), 261-280.
Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. T. (2005). Meeting the Literacy Development
Needs of Adolescent English Language Learners Through
Content-Area Learning-PART TWO: Focus on Classroom Teaching
and Learning Strategies.
Monroe, E. E. (1997). Effects of mathematical vocabulary instructionon
fourth grade students. Reading Improvement, 34, 120-132.
Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language:
Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned
with the Common Core. Understanding language: Commissioned
papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core
State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 17-31.
Thomas, A., and Thorne, G. (2009). How To Increase Higher Order
Thinking. Metarie, LA: Center for Development and Learning.
Retrieved Nov, 2009,
from http://www.cdl.org/resourcelibrary/articles/HOT.php?
type=subject&id=18