Running head: BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

Blended Learning Vocabulary Instruction:

Best Practices for Middle Grades
Michelle L. Braley
University of New England

Author Note
Michelle L. Braley, Master of Science in Education in Literacy Program, EDU 600:
Teacher as Leader, University of New England. October 21, 2015.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Michelle L. Braley,
Antilles School, 7280 Frenchmans Bay 16-1, St. Thomas, VI 00802. Contact:
mbraley@une.edu

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

Abstract
The author set out to review existing literature on best practices in vocabulary instruction, as well
as the effectiveness of blended learning as it pertains to vocabulary instruction in the middle
grades. Despite the growing popularity of the term blended learning in the field of education
over the past several years, little research has been conducted specifically in ascertaining the
efficacy of blended learning in K-12 school settings. There is a rich body of research surrounding
vocabulary instruction, however, with much agreement amongst researchers as to effective
vocabulary instruction. The following work outlines the authors topic for independent research,
background for those topics, a brief justification for study, and synthesis of articles reviewed.
Keywords: blended learning, vocabulary instruction, best practices

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

Blended Learning Vocabulary Instruction: Best Practices for Middle Grades

Much research has been conducted in an effort to ascertain the most effective strategies in
teaching and learning vocabulary. Unfortunately, many teachers do not utilize the strategies
found by researchers to be effective (Ford-Connors & Paratore, 2015). In imagining ways to
make effective vocabulary instruction easier for teachers to implement, utilizing blended learning
seems like a potential solution. Blended learning, a relatively new idea in the field of education,
has been tested to a much lesser extent, and so the extent of its potential benefits is still
unknown. In particular, I would like to explore the extent to which blended learning techniques
have been effective in vocabulary instruction in the middle grades. Three questions motivated
my search for literature pertinent to this topic:
1) What are the best strategies for meaningful vocabulary instruction?
2) Have blended learning techniques proven effective with middle grades students?
3) Have online vocabulary programs proven effective in increasing student word
knowledge? If so, how?
While there is a large body of research on vocabulary learning and instruction, the
majority is completed on students in lower grades students. The work of Ford-Connors &
Paratore (2015), however, is thorough and far-reaching. In addition to being one of the most
recent studies, Ford-Connors and Paratores work covers research spanning from the 1970s to
present day. After reviewing literature regarding the vocabulary instruction of children in fifth
grade and above from the past several decades, Ford-Connors & Paratore (2015) found several
ideas central to the building and strengthening of vocabulary. These findings came from
Silverman et al. (2013): students benefitted when instruction included attention to explicit

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

definitions, word relations, and morphology and syntax, (2015, 53). They ended up with 4
categories: 1) wide reading, 2) instruction of strategies: context clues, morphology and
polysemy, and developing word consciousness, 3) direct instruction of individual words and 4)
direct instruction plus strategies (Ford-Connors & Paratore, 2015, 65). They also found that the
context in which teachers taught the preceding elements was important: how teachers manage
discussion matters. Ultimately, they divided the research into two subsets: sources of word
learning and contexts teachers create to support these sources of word learning (Ford-Connors
& Paratore, 2015, 65).
The authors found that evidence which supported the idea that wide reading helps
vocabulary growth, is probably only from students who already read a lot, who read texts with
complex vocabulary, and who are already competent readers (Ford-Connors & Paratore, 2015).
For students who did not already read widely, frequently, and across a broad spectrum, they were
much more dependent on their teachers to achieve vocabulary growth (Ford-Connors & Paratore,
2015). Teaching students how to examine words based on context clues was found to help
readers of all abilities, as was the teaching of morphological analysis, and polysemous words.
Developing word consciousness: incorporates students awareness of differences between oral
and written language, understandings about the effect that a words role in a sentence may have
on its meaning, and an appreciation of word choice (Ford-Connors & Paratore, 2015, 73), and
was found in multiple studies to have a positive effect on word learning and overall reading
comprehension.
Not only did the authors find that direct instruction of individual words led to a
statistically significant effect on reading comprehension, but approaches that combined

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

definitional and contextual information, as well as multiple repetitions of information and

multiple exposures to words had the most substantial overall effect on students word learning
(Ford-Connors & Paratore, 2015, 75). A somewhat debatable area in using direct instruction of
target words as a strategy in vocabulary learning is in choosing the words on which to focus.
Ford-Connors and Paratore cite several different methods for individual word selection, but also
note that overall, researchers agree that word choice should be conceptually rich and commonly
found in students learning environments, as well as build on students existing networks of
semantic and associative knowledge (2015, 76). So while not all researchers agree on exactly
which words ought to be studied, they would all choose words based on the students life and
learning experiences. Ford-Connors and Paratore (2015) found two studies which utilized direct
instruction of target words in combination with additional word-learning strategies. The
techniques in both studies proved effective in utilizing multifaceted instruction with explicit
teaching of target words and strategies to promote student independence in word recognition and
analysis, (Ford-Connors & Paratore, 2015, 76).
The final vocabulary instruction found to be effective for middle and high school students
is through structured classroom discussions with language-rich interactions led by teachers and
students through high-quality classroom talk (Ford-Connors & Paratore, 2015, 83).
Oft-cited Michael Graves, author of the book on vocabulary: The Vocabulary Book:
Learning and Instruction (2006), postulates that there are four components to an effective
vocabulary program: Frequent, varied, and extensive language experiences; individual word
instruction; word-learning strategy instruction; and word consciousness (2007, 14). He then
goes on to provide detailed examples of instruction for each of the components. His points

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

correspond with the main ideas found by Ford-Connors and Paratore (2015) in their review of
the literature (which included several of Graves studies). Although not mentioned as a specific
component of teaching vocabulary, Graves stresses in various ways throughout his research the
role of the teacher in providing context and discussion for each component; this is also in line
with the research done by Ford-Connors and Paratore (2015), who made the distinction about the
way that teachers manage discussion surrounding vocabulary learning. Graves even provides a
script for the teacher to use to facilitate discussion surrounding any given component of
vocabulary instruction.
Overall, the categories Graves (2007) provides for effective vocabulary instruction all
fall within the categories outlined by Ford-Connors and Paratore (2015). Graves includes the
wide-reading strategy mentioned by Ford-Connors and Paratore as one of the subsets of
frequent, varied, and extensive language experiences included in his vocabulary program
proposal (2007, 14). One thing Graves (2007) mentions in more detail than Ford-Connors and
Paratore (2015), is the recommended amount of class time spent per student per week on any
given vocabulary instruction strategy. He makes the distinction between the amount of time it
would take a student with typical vocabulary (one hour per week) and the time it would take
students with small vocabularies; in which case it could take closer to 30 minutes per day
(Graves, 2007). Allocating time spent is necessary to educators in planning their instruction;
amount of time spent on a given strategy could also make a significant difference in students
learning of words. That Graves mentions it so specifically sets his work apart from other
literature on the topic.

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

While a definition of blended learning exists, it is a broad term which encompasses more
than one aspect of combining traditional instruction and instruction utilizing technology in the
classroom. The North American Council for Online Learning finds the terms blended learning
and hybrid learning to be synonymous. They quote the Clayton Christensen Institutes 2013
report: Is K-12 Blended Learning Disruptive? An introduction of the theory of hybrids in their
expression of exactly what blended learning means: a formal education program in which a
student learns: at least in part through online learning, with some element of student control over
time, place, path, and/or pace; at least in part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location away
from home, while the modalities incorporated throughout a students learning experience are
connected to provide an integrated learning experience (Christensen, Horn & Staker, 2013,
10). Few studies pertain specifically to blended learning and its use in the instruction of
vocabulary. Fortunately, there are studies that use terms that fall under the broad definition of
blended learning which explore the efficacy of various uses of technology in building word
knowledge.
One such study by Fehr, Davison, Graves, Sales, Seipel, & Sekhran-Sharma (2012),
found that students who received computer-delivered vocabulary instruction significantly
outperformed students who did not receive instruction from the computer assisted language
learning (CALL) program. Besides a small sample size, another limitation to their study was
that students were pulled out of the classroom to participate in the computer-based learning
activities, and so therefore missed direct teacher instruction and guidance. The authors agree that
the CALL program could be more effective if integrated into a traditional classroom where
teachers can monitor their progress and complement the computer-based learning with other in

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

class word-learning activities (Fehr et al., 2012); doing so would also solidify it as a true
blended learning strategy. The specific program used in the study, First 4000 Words, was
developed in part by Michael Graves (author heavily cited in the field of vocabulary instruction),
and incorporated the majority of categories specified by Graves (2007) and Ford-Connors and
Paratore (2015) as being particularly effective in the instruction of vocabulary. Other limitations
to this study were that it was done only with students in grades 1-4, and during a summer school
program, which is not necessarily reflective of a typical classroom setting, and definitely not
reflective of middle grades, which is my primary research focus.
A study incorporating one-to-one laptop use in classrooms during a normal school year
and including a much larger population of students in fourth and fifth grade was conducted by
Rosen and Beck-Hill in 2012. In meeting the definition of blended learning, the authors set
out to intertwine digital content with one-on-one conversations between teachers and students
while students are learning through various computer-based programs. Although the initiative
occurred in both Math and English and Language Arts classrooms, the programs included
specific vocabulary instruction. After a year-long study, the authors found that both fourth and
fifth grade students in the experimental group (the students in classrooms with one-to-one
laptops) significantly outperformed the control students in reading scores and in math scores
(Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012, 233).
The vast majority of research pertaining to the use of technology integrated with
vocabulary instruction is focused on learning English as a foreign language. One such article
focused specifically on a program implemented in the middle grades, and sought to discover the
Effects of an Intelligent Web-Based English Instruction System on Students' Academic

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

Performance (Jia, Chen, Ding, Bai, Yang, Li, & Qi, 2013). Ultimately, the authors found a
statistically significant positive impact on students achievement utilizing the Computer
Simulation in Educational Communication (CSIEC) to learn vocabulary. Specifically, the
experiment included the integration of the computer-based program into English classes over the
course of a year. The biggest limitations to utilizing this research is that the students are learning
English as a foreign language, and so it could be argued that it is really more of a foreignlanguage learning program than a vocabulary instruction program.
The research conducted by Rosen & Beck-Hill seemed to encompass the majority of the
research questions posed by this paper, in particular, their study sheds light on just such
effective educational practices, based on blended, teacher-driven, student-centered educational
technology in one-to-one computing settings (2012, 237). With computer-based programs,
teachers have access to so much more material than they might otherwise. By giving students
access to this material via various technologies, teachers can spend less time creating material
and more time facilitating student learning in one-to-one like settings. The ability to differentiate
and allow students to learn at their own pace and level is also potentially much easier when
students have access to different levels of questions, different styles of learning (various games
and types of questions), as well as immediate feedback that the program is able to provide. In
addition to this, teachers can spend less time grading, and more time assessing the test results of
individual students to help in deciding which next steps are best for them.
More research in the area of blended learning and vocabulary instruction is necessary in
helping middle grades teachers to implement the many different categories and strategies that
make up best practices in vocabulary instruction.

BLENDED LEARNING VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

10

References
Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2013). Is K12 blended learning disruptive? An
Introduction to the theory of hybrids. The Christensen Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/hybrids/
Fehr, C. N., Davison, M. L., Graves, M. F., Sales, G. C., Seipel, B., & Sekhran-Sharma, S.
(2012). The Effects of Individualized, Online Vocabulary Instruction on Picture
Vocabulary Scores: An Efficacy Study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1),
87-102.
Ford-Connors, E., & Paratore, J. R. (2015). Vocabulary Instruction in Fifth Grade and Beyond:
Sources of Word Learning and Productive Contexts for Development. Review of
Educational Research, 85(1), 50-91.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Graves, M. F. (2007). Vocabulary Instruction in the Middle Grades. Voices From The Middle,
15(1), 13-19.
Jia, J., Chen, Y., Ding, Z., Bai, Y., Yang, B., Li, M., & Qi, J. (2013). Effects of an Intelligent
Web-Based English Instruction System on Students' Academic Performance. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 556-568.
North American Council for Online Learning. (2013). http://www.inacol.org
Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining Digital Content and a One-to-One Laptop
Environment in Teaching and Learning: Lessons from the Time to Know Program.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225-241.