











































Action Research Proposal Template.docx


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

77 
 

 
The Effect of Teacher-Mediated Vocabulary Discussions  

During Read Alouds 
 

Leanne R. Radabaugh 
 

Elizabeth A. Swaggerty 
 

East Carolina University 
 

Abstract 
 

This action research study utilized a quasi-experimental pre-/post-test 
design to examine effect of teacher-mediated vocabulary discussions 
during read alouds. Fourteen second grade students participated in 
teacher-led discussions of new vocabulary in the context of the text and 
their lives. They discussed examples, non-examples, and synonyms for the 
targeted vocabulary. Fifteen comparison group students were incidentally 
exposed to the words during read alouds. Data sources included a pre/post-
test multiple choice vocabulary assessment, open-ended vocabulary 
assessment, and researcher log. The intervention group’s mean gain 
vocabulary scores were significantly higher than the comparison group’s 
scores which ultimately have a positive impact on their reading 
comprehension indicating success of the intervention. Furthermore, the 
intervention showed positive results for students regardless of assessed 
reading ability levels. 
 
Keywords: vocabulary achievement, read alouds, discussion, elementary, 
grade two 

 
Introduction 

 
Limited vocabulary hampers students’ reading comprehension, particularly those 
students characterized by low socioeconomic status (SES). Many low SES students enter 
school woefully behind their more advantaged peers; by the end of second grade, a gap 
of up to 2000 words (roughly equal to two grade levels) may exist. In the absence of 
quality vocabulary instruction in the primary grades, students entering fourth grade will 
likely experience difficulties with reading comprehension due to their lack of word 
knowledge (Biemiller & Boote, 2006). 
 
Beck and McKeown (2006) promote the use of trade books (books with narrative and 
informational content as opposed to text books) as rich sources for new vocabulary and 
conversations about words to enhance word knowledge. Thus, teacher-mediated 
vocabulary discussions during classroom read alouds (sharing a book with a group or 
whole class by reading it aloud) is a practice that may prove useful in helping primary 
school students build more robust vocabularies, thus enhancing their reading 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

78 
 

comprehension. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a teacher action 
research study that examined the following question: “How is vocabulary acquisition 
impacted when second grade students participate in teacher-mediated vocabulary 
discussions during read alouds?” 
 

Literature Review 
 
Much research exists supporting the practice of teaching vocabulary to primary school 
students through teacher read alouds. Beck and McKeown (2007) assert that read alouds 
are effective in building more advanced vocabulary in elementary school children 
because books that are typically read aloud in classrooms “present more complex 
structures and more advanced vocabulary” (p. 252) than books that are within the 
independent reading levels of these students.  Furthermore, according to Kindle (2014), 
read aloud books that are above the independent reading levels of primary grade students 
can be useful in filling in vocabulary gaps because they expose students to “book 
language, which is rich in unusual words and descriptive language” (p. 202). Therefore, 
read alouds are ripe opportunities to help primary school students acquire new 
vocabulary. 
 
Within the read aloud format, repeated readings of the same text have been found to be 
effective for vocabulary acquisition because they help students gain a more thorough 
understanding of word meanings (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Blacowicz & Fisher, 2011). 
Likewise, Kindle (2014) asserts that repeated readings help students because they 
support the movement of word knowledge from fast mapping to extended mapping. In 
fast mapping, students typically understand “only a general sense of the word” (p.203), 
but through repeated exposures (i.e., discussions in and out of the context of a book) to 
the new word, a definition can be “revised and refined to reflect new information” (p. 203) 
that leads to a more complete understanding of the new word (extended mapping) 
 
Research has also been conducted to determine how many readings of a text result in 
optimal vocabulary acquisition. Brabham and Lynch-Brown (2002) found that three 
consecutive days of the same read aloud was effective in producing gains in vocabulary 
knowledge among first and third grade students. Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that 
four readings produced the most vocabulary knowledge for kindergarten and first grade 
students, but the researchers cautioned that four readings might become tedious for 
second graders. 
 
Another finding from research on vocabulary acquisition points to the importance of direct 
teaching. According to Mixan (2013), even though much vocabulary growth occurs in 
children incidentally, incidental learning cannot be the only way that teachers expect 
students to acquire new vocabulary. Students need to learn new words in the context of 
reading, but that they also need to make connections with words and have repeated 
exposures to them in and out of context (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2011; Harris, Golinkoff & 
Hirsh-Pasek, 2010; Kucan, 2012; Mixan, 2013). 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

79 
 

Teacher and student interactions and discussions of vocabulary are more effective than 
students simply passively listening to teachers read (Kindle, 2014; Beck & McKeown, 
2007).  Beck and McKeown (2007) studied a method that they termed Text Talk, in which 
teachers and students engaged in discussions of new words in and out of the context of 
the read aloud. The teacher also gave students a simple definition of the new words. This 
is a method that Kindle (2014) terms adult mediated instruction in which teachers “weave 
in questions and comments as they read, creating conversation between the children, the 
text and the teacher” (p. 203). Research by Harris et al. (2010) further supports that 
dialogic teaching characterized by teachers questioning and prompting of students to 
expand on their responses results in increased vocabulary acquisition. 

 
Lastly, research reveals the importance of purposeful selection of appropriate words for 
study. Beck and McKeown (2007) assert that words are grouped into three tiers, and that 
teachers should target words in Tier Two for direct instruction. Tier Two words are the 
words that students are “likely to encounter in many texts, but are unlikely to be exposed 
to in everyday contexts” (p. 363). They are typically more sophisticated words for 
concepts that students already understand. For example, most primary school students 
understand the word “shy.” However, they may not have been exposed to such words as 
“timid” or “bashful.” As they grow as readers, though, they are likely to encounter those 
words. 
 
In summary, students can show gains in vocabulary knowledge through read aloud 
instruction when teachers facilitate interactive discussions of the targeted vocabulary 
before, during and after the read aloud. This allows students to discuss the new word in 
the context of the reading as well as in other contexts. To enhance students’ 
understanding of the new words and to help them internalize the meanings, multiple 
readings (i.e., up to three or four depending on age) of the same text are necessary. 
Furthermore, to maximize the utility of the words being taught, teachers must ensure that 
words being studied can be classified as Tier Two words. 

 
Methodology 

 
This action research study employed a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest comparison 
group design. See Figure 1 for a description of the research variables and data collected. 
The independent variable consisted of the type of vocabulary instruction to which students 
were exposed and was characterized by two levels: 1) teacher-mediated vocabulary 
discussion during whole class read alouds and 2) incidental vocabulary acquisition (i.e., 
comparison group). Students in the intervention group experienced teacher-mediated 
vocabulary discussions within whole group teacher read alouds. For example, one of the 
words studied was gleaming. On day one, students were asked to only define and discuss 
how the word was used in the context of the book. On day two students were asked to 
think about how the word gleaming could be used in the context of their lives. They shared 
with each other and then shared with the whole group. They talked about the sun 
gleaming off the playground equipment or stars gleaming in the night sky. On the third 
day of the intervention, students were asked to generate examples and non-examples of 
gleaming. The sun was an example of gleaming and a shadow was a non-example. 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

80 
 

Students in the comparison group experienced incidental acquisition, though whole group 
read alouds with the same books, but without discussions of the targeted vocabulary. 
 
The dependent variable, vocabulary acquisition, was operationally defined as the score 
on a multiple-choice assessment and a vocabulary self-assessment.  The researcher-
developed multiple-choice assessment of the targeted vocabulary required students to 
choose the correct definition from among four choices (Appendix B). The researcher-
developed vocabulary self-assessment required students to produce a definition, an 
example and a non-example of each targeted word. Additionally, they rated their 
confidence with word meanings, examples, and non-examples. 
 

Independent Variable: Type of Vocabulary Instruction 

 Intervention Group: Teacher-
mediated vocabulary Discussions 

Comparison Group: Incidental 
Acquisition 

Dependent Variable: 
Vocabulary 
Acquisition 

1. Multiple Choice Assessment of 
Word Knowledge 

2. Open Ended Vocabulary Test 
3. Researcher Log Observations 

1. Multiple Choice Assessment 
of Word Knowledge (The 
open ended vocabulary test 
was not administered to the 
comparison group because it 
assessed skills, generating 
examples, non-examples and 
synonyms, that were 
specifically taught to the 
experimental group as part of 
the intervention.) 

Figure 1: Variables and Data Sources 
 
Participants and Setting 
 
This action research study was conducted at a rural kindergarten through fifth grade 
school that served approximately 485 students in southeastern North Carolina. 
Approximately 60 percent of the school population was Caucasian, 20 percent was 
African American, and 20 percent was Hispanic. This school is a Title I school, which 
means that more than 40% of its students receive free or reduced price lunch. This 
qualifies this school as low SES. At the time of data collection, the school appeared on 
the list of Focus Schools published by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction 
(2012). A Focus School has achievement gaps between in school sub-groups that are 
larger than the state’s average achievement gaps. 
 
There were 14 second grade students in the experimental classroom. Students’ middle 
of the year DIBELS Next composite scores ranged from 123 - 365 (Table 1). According 
to Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. (2010), to be considered on grade level, a second 
grade student should have a middle of the year composite score of at least 190 According 
to the Total Reading Comprehension (TRC) assessment in Reading 3D, these students’ 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

81 
 

guided reading instructional levels ranged from level E to level N. To be considered on 
grade level, a second grade student should have a middle of the year TRC level of L. 
There were 15 students in the comparison classroom. Students’ middle of the year 
DIBELS Next composite scores ranged from 47 - 407. According to the Total Reading 
Comprehension (TRC) assessment in Reading 3D, students’ guided reading instructional 
levels ranged from level E to level S. 
 
Table 1. Groups Assessed Ability Score Ranges 
 

Classroom DIBELS Next 
Composite Scores 

Total Reading Comprehension 
Assessment in Reading 3D Levels 

Group 1 (Experimental Classroom) 123-365 E-N 
Group 2 (Comparison Classroom) 47-407 E-S 

 
The researcher for this project has twenty years of teaching experience, a Bachelor’s of 
Arts in English Education, and is certified to teach English Language Arts in grades six 
through twelve. For the last three years, she has served as a reading interventionist and 
is the district Parent Engagement Coordinator. She was not the teacher of record for 
either the experimental or the comparison group. Mrs. Johnson (pseudonyms used 
throughout for classroom teacher and students) was the teacher of record for the 
experimental group. She had 11 years of teaching experience and this was her first year 
teaching second grade. Mrs. Louis was the teacher of record for the comparison group. 
She had 20 years of teaching experience and this was her second year teaching second 
grade. 
 
Intervention 
 
The teaching intervention occurred three consecutive days per week for six weeks. Each 
week’s discussion focused on words selected from one trade book that was read to the 
class. Each week highlighted a different book, for a total of six books during the 
intervention. The amount and type of discussion varied from days one through three; 
however, all days ‘discussions lasted between twenty and twenty-five minutes. Kucan’s 
(2012) guidelines for choosing Tier two words were utilized to select targeted vocabulary 
words. This research focused on words that primary school students do not ordinarily use, 
words to which they can form a connection, and words they are likely to see again in other 
contexts and contents (i.e. science or social studies textbooks). Harris et al. (2010) found 
that children more effectively acquire new vocabulary if words to be learned are grouped 
into integrated categories (i.e. words that convey feelings, words that are adjectives), so 
care was taken to assure that students were able to see how the new words were 
connected to each other. A list of the books that were read and words that were targeted 
in each book can be found in Appendix A. 
 
On the first day of each week, the text was read aloud and students participated in 
discussion of three targeted vocabulary words within the context of the book. As 
recommended by Harris et al. (2010), they were provided with a student friendly definition 
and then listened for the words as the text was read aloud. The teacher then engaged 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

82 
 

the students in a discussion of how the definition was used in the context of the text. At 
the close of the read aloud on day one, students were asked to review the target 
vocabulary words and how they were used in the book. On the second day of each week, 
the text was read again and discussion focused on connections between targeted 
vocabulary and students’ lives (as proposed by Fisher & Frey, 2012; Harris et al., 2010). 
The third day was characterized by discussion of the targeted vocabulary words beyond 
the text and students. They made connections to words and generated examples, non-
examples, and synonyms (as suggested by Blachowicz & Fisher, 2011; Harris, Golinkoff 
& Hirsh-Pasek, 2010;  Kucan, 2012; Mixan, 2013). This information was recorded on a 
three column chart (see Figure 2) and was posted in the room throughout the duration of 
the six week intervention as Kucan (2012) recommends. 
 
Targeted Word 
Examples Non-examples Synonyms 
   

Figure 2: Three Column Chart 
 

Data Sources and Analysis 
 
Three sources of data were collected for this study: a multiple-choice vocabulary test, an 
open-ended vocabulary assessment, and a researcher log in which the researcher 
recorded observations and reflections for the duration of the intervention. Students in both 
groups were given the multiple choice vocabulary assessment before and after the 
intervention (see Appendix B). An independent sample t-test was used to determine the 
difference in the mean gain scores. An open-ended vocabulary assessment, modified 
from Fisher and Frey (2012), was administered to intervention group students (see 
Appendix C). Students generated definitions, examples, and non-examples of the 
targeted words. They also rated their confidence in their responses between zero and 
three (with three being the most confident and zero being the least). The open-ended 
vocabulary assessment scores were computed separately for each task and a mean gain 
pre-assessment and post-assessment score was calculated. Lastly, observations and 
reflections were recorded in a researcher log and analyzed for observed trends in learning 
behaviors. The researcher log was printed and reviewed to develop codes (i.e. behaviors 
related to student engagement, behaviors that demonstrated the instructional validity of 
repeated readings) related to the research question. Codes were then collapsed and 
themes identified. Themes noted for discussion included observed attitudes toward the 
read aloud activities, enthusiasm for word study, enthusiasm for discussing words in and 
out of the context of the books, and student difficulty with producing non-examples during 
class discussions. 

 
 
  

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

83 
 

Findings and Results 
 
At the close of this study, the results from the multiple choice pre-and post-vocabulary 
assessment were compared. The experimental group (n = 14) demonstrated a mean gain 
of nine words. The comparison group (n = 15) demonstrated a mean gain of 3.93 words 
(See Figure 3). 
 

 
 
Figure 3: Pre and Post Assessment Mean Scores 
 
An independent-samples t-test revealed a significant difference in the mean change 
scores for teacher-mediated vocabulary discussions (M = 9, SD = 2) and the incidental 
exposure (M = 3.93, SD = 3.06) conditions; t = 5.24, p = .00001. Because the p value is 
less than .05, the gains can be attributed to the intervention (teacher-mediated vocabulary 
instruction). These results suggest that teacher-mediated vocabulary discussions 
positively impact vocabulary acquisition more than incidental acquisition (see Table 2). 
 

Table 2        
Independent Samples t-Test of Vocabulary Acquisition based on Pre and Post Test 
        

  Mean SE t-value df 
two-tailed 
p  

Pre/Post 
Assessment  5.07 0.097 5.24 27 0.00001  
        
Multiple Choice Assessment:  p < .05 indicates statistical significance  
        

 
The open-ended vocabulary assessment components were computed separately for 
each task. All mean scores increased from pre to post test (see Figure 4). For the task of 

0
2
4
6
8

10
12
14
16
18

Pre Test Mean Post Test Mean

Pre and Post Mean Scores: Multiple Choice 
Assessment

Experimental Group Comparison Group

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

84 
 

producing a definition, students in the experimental group had a mean score (M = 2.92) 
on the pre-assessment and a mean score (M= 8.08) on the post-assessment. For the 
task of producing an example, students in the experimental group had a mean score (M 
= 0.92) on the pre-assessment and a mean score (M = 4) on the post-assessment. For 
the task of producing a non-example, students in the experimental group had a mean 
score (M = 0.23) on the pre-assessment and a mean score (M = 2.92) on the post-
assessment. For the task of assigning a confidence rating, students in the experimental 
group had a mean score (M = 18.85) on this pre-assessment and a mean score (M = 
23.23) (see Table 3) on the post-assessment. 
 

  Pre Post 
Definition Task 2.92 8.08 
Example Task 0.92 4 
Non-Example Task 0.23 2.92 
Confidence Rating 18.85 23.23 

 
Figure 4: Experimental Group Open Ended Pre and Post-intervention Mean Scores 
 
Of the 226 correct responses given by the experimental group, 110 (49 %) were correctly 
identified words from the first three weeks of the intervention, and 116 (51%) were 
correctly identified words from the second three weeks. Scores from the open ended 
definition task were analyzed in the same fashion. Of the 117 correct responses produced 
for the definition task on the open ended vocabulary test, 58 (49.6 %) were correctly 
defined words from the first three weeks of the intervention, and 59 (50.6%) were correctly 
defined words from the second three weeks. These results suggest that new vocabulary 
knowledge was evenly retained over the course of the six week intervention. 
 
Pre-assessment and post-assessment gain scores on the multiple choice assessment 
were computed separately from students in the following TRC (Total Reading 
Comprehension) groups: Above Proficient, Proficient, Below Proficient and Far Below 
Proficient. These scores were grouped and a mean gain for each group was computed 
(see Figure 5). Students in the Above Proficient group showed a mean gain (M = 10); 
students in the Proficient group showed a mean gain (M = 10); students in the Below 
Proficient group showed a mean gain (M = 8), and students in the Far Below Proficient 
group showed a mean gain (M = 9). This data suggests that the intervention proved 
effective for students across all ability levels. 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

85 
 

 
 
Figure 5: Mean Gains by TRC Level on Multiple Choice Assessment 
 
The researcher log was analyzed and coded for themes related to the research question. 
The most widely coded theme centered on student engagement during all phases of the 
intervention. Of the 18 entries that were made during the course of the instructional 
intervention, the words “engaged,” “enjoyed,” “enthusiasm,” and “eager” appeared at least 
once in 15 of the entries. Entries made on the first day of the intervention each week all 
included language indicative of engagement. For example, it was noted that “students 
were very engaged in the reading” or that “students have a natural curiosity about words.” 
Even though the second day of the intervention each week was the second reading of 
the same book, students expressed their love for the books and their excitement about 
participating in the read aloud. For example, “students gasped and raised their hands” in 
anticipation of the targeted word’s appearance in the text. Day three of the intervention 
was characterized by discussions of the words that generated examples, non-examples 
and synonyms of the words. Although engagement was only coded on three of the six 
days, on the days that it was coded, engagement was high: “students were very eager to 
participate, and get a little miffed at me because I can’t call on everyone every time.” 
 
The next theme is related to the researcher’s realization of the value of repeated readings. 
For example, on the first reading of Watch Your Tongue, Cecily Beasley, it was noted that 
students were so engaged with the story that they were “not as in tune to the targeted 
words.” This prompted the notation that “two readings of the book are certainly 
necessary.” It was also noted during the last week of the intervention that on the second 
reading of the book, students were “more in tune for the words…because they are familiar 
with the story, and they know how and when the words are going to be used. They are 
anticipating their mention.” 
 
Another less frequently coded theme was related to discussion serving as a source of 
clarification for students. Harris et al. (2010) cite that discussions of new words that 
include questioning and prompting lead to increased understanding. During the fifth week 
of the intervention it was noted that the researcher did not understand an example that a 
student was sharing, and so the student was asked to further clarify her example. Once 
the student had to explain her thoughts, it became clear that the student did understand 
the meaning of the word being discussed. During the second week of the intervention, it 
was noted “talking about the words out of the context of the book really demonstrates 

0

20

Pre Test Mean Post Test Mean

Experimental Group Mean Gains by 
Reading Level 

Above Grade Level Grade Level

Below Grade Level Far Below Grade Level

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

86 
 

whether or not they have a firm grasp on the meaning” and that “applying the word outside 
the book lends to a deeper understanding.” 
 
The last theme was related to students’ difficulties with producing non-examples of the 
targeted vocabulary words. This frustration was noted in six out of the six entries that 
were made on the third day of the intervention. Students would often offer up ideas that 
were unrelated instead of non-examples. For example, “soap” and “couch” were 
volunteered as non-examples of tenacious because they were all items that could be 
stopped. It was noted though, that the students could more easily identify non-examples 
of words if definitions were more concrete. 
 
 

Discussion and Conclusions 
 
This action research study investigated the research question: “What is the effect of 
Teacher-mediated vocabulary discussion during classroom read aloud activities on the 
vocabulary acquisition of second grade students?” In addition to the statistically significant 
gains the intervention group made in terms of vocabulary achievement, students exposed 
to the intervention were also able to retain the words from the first week of the six week 
intervention equally as well as the words that were targeted in the last week of the 
intervention. Moreover, there was very little difference in the mean gains of students 
across assessed reading levels. 
 
Beck and McKeown (2007) and Kindle (2014) established that read aloud activities are 
appropriate opportunities for teaching Tier Two vocabulary to primary school students 
because of the quality of the language that is used in trade books. Each picture book 
used in this action research study was found in the children’s section of a bookstore, 
chosen purposefully because the quality of language that was presented in these books 
afforded second graders the opportunity to learn words such as tenacious, gleaming, and 
dreadful. These words would be less likely to occur in the books these students are 
reading independently as researchers have concluded. 
 
Biemiller and Boote (2006), as well as Blacowicz and Fisher (2011) found that repeated 
exposures to the same texts help students gain a more in depth knowledge of new 
vocabulary. This action research utilized two readings of the same text to stimulate 
discussion of the words and how they were used in the text, and how those same words 
could be used in contexts outside of the texts. Students involved in this study 
demonstrated not only retention of these new vocabulary words, but also, through 
discussion, an ability to apply these new words to contexts outside of the reading. 
 
This action research study design utilized two consecutive readings of the same text as 
recommended by Biemiller and Boote (2006). Qualitative data demonstrated that 
students still experienced a high level of engagement on the second reading of the text, 
and quantitative data analysis supported the fact that this study had a positive impact on 
the vocabulary acquisition of the students included in the intervention. 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

87 
 

Kindle (2014), Beck and McKeown (2007), and Harris et al. (2010) demonstrated the 
effectiveness of direct teaching of vocabulary through teacher and student discussions 
borne out of targeted vocabulary encountered during read aloud activities. Furthermore, 
research supports that students need multiple exposures to new words in varying 
contexts (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2011; Kucan, 2012; Mixan, 2013) so that they may 
construct a deeper understanding of the words. This action research study built upon 
these findings. Both the experimental group and the comparison group were introduced 
to the words on day one of the read aloud. Students in the experimental group participated 
in three days of discussions centered on those targeted words in and out of the context 
of the book. Students in the comparison group, who were to acquire this new vocabulary 
incidentally, were not permitted to discuss the words with the teacher or each other during 
or after the read aloud activity. The data collected in this study demonstrates that student 
teacher discussions contribute to vocabulary growth. Students in the experimental group 
showed almost twice as much gain in vocabulary knowledge as the students in the 
comparison group, and the gains were consistent regardless of student ability level, and 
regardless of whether the words were targeted in the early or late weeks of the study. 
 
Limitations 
 
One limitation of teacher action research is generalizability. Findings are not 
generalizable and should be considered in light of individual teaching contexts. Further 
limitations include the small sample size, the six-week duration of the intervention, and 
the fact that the researcher was not the teacher of record for the class, and, therefore, 
had limited access to the research subjects outside of the intervention time. 
 
Implications for Educators 
 
The results of this action research study demonstrate that effective vocabulary study can 
be successfully integrated into the read aloud portion of the daily literacy block in the early 
elementary grades. This study illuminates the importance of thoughtful selection of tier-2 
words for study. These are the words that students are likely to encounter throughout 
their schooling years and are typically more sophisticated words for concepts that 
students already know. Targeting this tier of words for discussion will be beneficial to 
students as they learn to become better readers, writers and communicators. Additionally, 
making strategic book choices could maximize vocabulary learning. Most importantly, 
primary readers benefit from repeated exposure to words and discussions about words 
before, during, and after read alouds. Teachers should be supported in how to incorporate 
vocabulary discussions into their read alouds. Supported by current research, the 
intervention design utilized in this study is a relatively simple addition to the already 
present read aloud portion of the balanced literacy blocks most teachers facilitate and 
requires as little as 20 minutes a day for three days a week. With proper training and 
support, even novice teachers could successfully execute this method to optimize 
vocabulary knowledge. 
 
 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

88 
 

References 
 
Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral 

vocabulary  repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary 
School Journal, 107(3), 251-271. doi:10.1086/511706 

Biemiller, A. & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in 
primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44-62. 
doi:10.1037/0022- 0663.98.1.44 

Blachowicz, C.L.Z. & Fisher, P.J. (2011). Best practice in vocabulary instruction revisited. 
In  L.B. Gambrell & L.M. Morrow (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction 
[Kindle DX Version]. 

Brabham, E. G., Lynch-Brown, C. (2002). Effects of teachers’ reading-aloud styles on 
vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students in the early elementary 
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 465-473. doi:10.1037//0022-
0663.94.3.465 

Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. (2010). DIBELS next benchmark goals and composite 
score. Retrieved from 
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/DIBELSNextFormerBenchmarkGoals.pdf 

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2012). Improving Adolescent Literacy (3rd ed.).  Boston, MA: 
Pearson. 

Fredericks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential 
of the  concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-
109. 

Harris, J., Golinkoff, R.M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Lessons from the crib for the 
classroom:  How children really learn vocabulary. In S.B. Neumann & D.K. 
Dickinson (Eds.) Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 49-66). NY: Guilford 
Press. 

Kindle, K. (2009). Vocabulary development during read-alouds: Primary practices. The 
Reading Teacher, 63(3), 202-211. doi:  10.1598/RT.63.3.3 

Kucan, L. (2012). What is most important to know about vocabulary? The Reading 
Teacher, 65(6), 360-366. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01054 

Mixan, M. (2013). In-depth study of vocabulary development. Reading Improvement, 
50(3),  118-120.  

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2012). Focus schools list [Data File]. 
Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/program-monitoring/esea/focus/ 
 

 
  

http://www.gpejournal.org/
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/DIBELSNextFormerBenchmarkGoals.pdf
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/program-monitoring/esea/focus/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

89 
 

 
Appendix A 

 
Book Citation Target Vocabulary 
Andrede, G. & Parker-Reese, G. (1999). 
Giraffes can’t dance. New York, NY: 
Orchard Books. 

Elegant (adj.) 
Slim (adj.) 
Crept (verb) 

Applegate, K. (2014). Ivan: The 
remarkable true story of the shopping mall 
gorilla. Boston, MA: Clarion Books. 

Clever (adj.) 
Gleaming (adj.) 
Damp (adj.) 

Cronin, D. (2000). Click, clack, moo: Cows 
that can type. New York, NY: Simon and 
Schuster Books. 

Impatient (adj.) 
Furious (adj.) 
Demand (verb) 

Fredrickson, L. (2012). Watch your 
tongue, Cecily Beasley. New York, NY: 
Sterling Children’s Books. 

Content (adj.) 
Dreadful (adj.) 
Tenacious (adj.) 

Karas, G. B. (2014). As an oak tree grows. 
New York, NY: Penguin. 

Perched (verb) 
Wilted (verb) 
Conserved (verb) 

Mckee, D. (2013). Elmer and the whales. 
London: Anderson Press. 

Muttered (verb) 
Chuckled (verb) 
Drifted (verb) 

 
  

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

90 
 

 
Appendix B 

 
 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 77-91 
http://www.gpejournal.org/   ISSN 2163-758X 
 

91 
 

Appendix C 
Vocabulary Self-Assessment 
Word Definition Example Nonexample Rating 
  

 
 
 

  0 
1 
2 
3 

  
 
 
 
 

  0 
1 
2 
3 

  
 
 
 
 

  0 
1 
2 
3 

  
 
 
 
 

  0 
1 
2 
3 

  
 
 
 
 

  0 
1 
2 
3 

  
 
 
 
 

  0 
1 
2 
3 

  
 
 
 
 

  0 
1 
2 
3 

    0 
1 
2 
3 

    0 
1 
2 
3 

 

http://www.gpejournal.org/

