Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The Comeback of Words (Pearson)

This post is courtesy of Dr. P. David Pearson.  David is a faculty member in the programs in Language and Literacy and Cognition and Development at the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley, where he served as Dean from 2001-2010. Current research projects include Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading -- a Research and Development effort with colleagues at Lawrence Hall of Science in which reading, writing, and language are employed as tools to foster the development of knowledge and inquiry in science--and the Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP)--a collaboration between UC Berkeley, Stanford, and the SFUSD, designed to embed research within the portfolio of school-based issues and priorities. Across his career, David has earned numerous awards for his contributions to reading research. He is the founding editor of the Handbook of Reading Research, now in its fourth volume.  David taught elementary school in California for several years.

I have been a fan of vocabulary, both as a conceptual/theoretical issue and as an instructional phenomenon, for well over 40 years. I have always loved dictionaries, and thesauruses even more. And I never ceased to be amazed at how easily vocabulary maps onto our conceptual understanding of the world(s) in which we live, both the natural world that surrounds us and the intellectual conceits that we create in our imagined worlds.

I have this vivid recollection of a conversation between me and two ardent whole language advocates in 1977, just a few months after Dale Johnson and I published a book entitled, Teaching Reading Vocabulary, in which we made a case for the explicit teaching of words in several senses and contexts. "How could you publish a book about words?" they complained. "Words don't really exist, except as a convenient orthographic convention. And in writing about words, you encourage teachers to focus on them rather than on the meaning of text." So went  the battle for about two hours (along with a good bottle of Cabernet, as I recall, maybe two!). Neither they nor I changed our positions. They still don't like words, and I do. But it did make me think about why I think vocabulary is so important. And it's because words aren't the point of focusing on words. Meaning is! But words are the convention we have adopted as a species (and words really are a universal component of language) for naming the meanings we wish to point to, highlight, feature, and discuss. And so it is not words for words' sake, but words for the doors of meanings they open for us that really matters.
Click to enlarge

In my own recent work with Gina Cervetti and others at Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, we are working on the role of word learning as an instance of the acquisition of conceptual knowledge about science. And that has led us to our own theory of the development of conceptual knowledge/word meaning, shown here. This is slide 55 of Science and Literacy.

The basic idea is that we have to encounter words in many settings in order to "own" it: (a) as a "representation" to pronounce or decode, (b) as a "definitional" entity (where a definition is something like a "summary" of one's word knowledge), (c) as an entity that we meet in a range of oral, written and experiential contexts, (d) as a part of a semantic network of related concepts/words, (d) as a "sign" we use when we DO something in the world (I have learned, in my work on the role of language in hands-on science, that this embodied connection is much more important than I ever thought it might be), and (e) as a label we use when synthesize our knowledge about a topic or an experience. That is the essence of slides 54-55 in the Powerpoint presentation at this link. To that list, if I were revising that slide knowing what I have learned from Susan Ebbers, I would add a morphological setting in-between the definitional and the semantic settings. 

All of these settings are important, none moreso than any other. The simple truth is that when it comes to learning vocabulary, nothing beats exposure and use--in every possible learning modality. In Seeds and Roots, we say, when it comes to learning new vocabulary, Read it! Write it! Talk it! Do it! There is no better--maybe no other--way.

That's all for now.  Thanks, Susan, for giving me a little space in your blog.  Look forward to hearing from lots of you.
David

7 comments:

  1. Reading the recollection of David's conversation with his peers years ago reminded me of a conversation I recently had with a friend. I was talking rather passionately about this quest for vocbulary aquisition in my 6th grade Science classroom. I was speaking of my frustrations with the lack of foundation on which to build academic language. I have recently realized (at Susan's workshop) that I am not going far enough back to lay a foundation, which I am determined to lay as best I can. And the question was asked, "Why go to so much trouble if this has been ignored by everyone else until now? Why be so passionate about it? Won't they pick it up through meaning later?" I answered them with a quote from Plato that Susan reminded me of. "When the mind is thinking, it is talking to itself." I then followed with the question,"What then would be true if the mind that is hungry to think does not have an adequate vocabulary with which to hold its own conversation? What is that mind to do at that point?" As a teacher of Science I can think of other things that I would rather champion than language and vocabulary aquistion. But I am not sure that anything else would have as great an impact on the children entrusted to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Karen Romney11/04/2009

    I have found that using word webbing similar to your example is an effective tool in helping students create a learning structure as they approach new and challenging vocabulary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I remember you, Michelle! Thanks for the follow-up. If you go to the Seeds of Science url in David's blog you will find an approach that allows you to champion science, as you always have, and also promote academic literacy. Yes!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey David,

    Thanks for your post. Among other ideas, I was delighted with this "And it's because words aren't the point of focusing on words. Meaning is!" My own work is built very much on this view. The centre of my own work with teachers and students is to dive into investigating how the spelling/meaning connections of words work. However, I always emphasize that the ultimate target of any word investigation is never the word itself, but instead a deeper understanding about how spelling structure works to represent the meaning of words, and skills for making connections of meaning within and between words. I often use a line from Alfred North Whitehead that gets at your point as well. To paraphrase: "The job of the educator is to help the learner see the woods by means of the trees". If we want to understand how the spelling/meaning system works in English (the woods) we need to study words (the trees) that reveal how that system works.

    "Never send a test out to do a curriulum’s job!" is a line from your slide show that gets at the critical role of the type of experiences we give students with words through our instruction.

    Judging by your post, I suspect you will find much of interest at this link of videos from classrooms and workshops. http://web.mac.com/peterbowers1/Site_29/Videos_from_WW_World_Tour_09.html

    Video #2 provides a good example of using an investigation of how the spelling of a word and its morphological family are related by consistent structural conventions. This kind of investigations demands the kind of deep processing during vocabulary instruction that you are discussing. As Susan's work has pointed out working with a morphological relatives at one time is extremely valuable, and by treating a set of words from a morphological family as the "data" that kids investigate to make sense of how words work, students learn not just about the meaning of the original word and words that share its base, but also they gain skill, knowledge and motivation for investigating any family of words.

    Thanks for you post!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for your comments, everyone. Very informative. Peter, I went to your site to view the video. Love the idea of word sums!!! Very generative.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Elaine Roberts6/05/2013

    Hi David,
    I appreciate your thoughts about words including the Cervetti concept map and your idea for adding a morphological piece to vocabulary graphic organizers. Students need to be able to pronounce the word, understand it's meaning, and not be overwhelmed by it in order to recognize, understand, and use it readily when reading and writing.
    Elaine Roberts
    Author, Keys to Literacy Instruction for the NET Generation, Grades 4-12, 2013, Roberts, E., & Coffey, D., Kendall Hunt Publishing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David,

    I enjoyed your nostalgic introduction, and the debate it inspired. Thank you for including an excerpt from your slideshow concerning words conceptualized. It is a visual that will continually remind me of the importance of vocabulary enrichment in my instructional practices. I generally lead students to a stage of contextualization, yet it is critical to apply and synthesize words just as often. Thanks again, and have a great day.

    Kelsey Hall

    ReplyDelete

Comments are published after they are reviewed, to ensure they are not SPAM.