This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 09 November 2014, At: 16:34

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

THE EFFECT OF A
CATEGORIZATION STRATEGY
ON SECONDARY STUDENTS’
RETENTION OF LITERARY
VOCABULARY
a a
Thomas W. Bean , Norma B. Inabinette &
b
Renee Ryan
a
California State University , Fullerton
b
Perris Valley Junior High School , California
Published online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Thomas W. Bean , Norma B. Inabinette & Renee Ryan
(1983) THE EFFECT OF A CATEGORIZATION STRATEGY ON SECONDARY STUDENTS’
RETENTION OF LITERARY VOCABULARY, Reading Psychology, 4:3, 247-252, DOI:
10.1080/0270271830040305

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0270271830040305

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
 demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 16:34 09 November 2014
 THE EFFECT OF A CATEGORIZATION STRATEGY ON SECONDARY
STUDENTS' RETENTION OF LITERARY VOCABULARY

THOMAS W. BEAN and NORMA B. INABINETTE, California State

University, Fullerton

RENEE RYAN, Perris Valley Junior High School, California

Downloaded by [New York University] at 16:34 09 November 2014

Developing category labels that subsume subordinate concepts

ought to increase longterm retention and retrieval of infor-
mation. The present study introduced one group of high
school students to a categorization strategy for vocabulary
terms related to literary analysis. These students displayed
significantly better retention of literary terminology than a
control group. The results of this study suggest that cate-
gorization is a worthwhile addition to the traditional
Socratic approach to literary analysis.

Content area teachers encourage students to learn, retain, and use

the technical vocabulary of their various disciplines. For example,
in English classes students are expected to become familiar with words
like "irony, pathos, and cliche." Indeed, these terms comprise the
essential language of literary analysis. Students' success in high
school English rests in part on their ability to relate events in a
story to these analytical terms. As teachers, our problem is how
best to assess stduents in the acquisition and application of this
analytical language. Simply memorizing isolated dictionary and
glossary definitions won't produce a meaningful bridge to story
events, let alone thoughtful discussion and writing.
The use of categorization offers an approach that stimulates asso-
ciation and organization, two factors known to foster longterm re-
tention and retrieval of information (Gerhard, 1975; Norman, 1976).
Categorization is the key component of the List-Group-Label (LGL)
strategy developed by Hilda Taba (1967). In the present study, the
LGL strategy followed the reading of short stories according to the
four steps outlined by Readence and Searfoss (1980).
The List-Group-Label Lesson
An effective LGL lesson involves the following steps:
Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly 4:247-252, 1983 247
Copyright © 1983 by Hemisphere Publishing Corporation
 248 T. W. BEAN ET AL.

Topic Selection: Select a topic from the unit being

studied which has multiple sets of related terms. For
example, "characterization" would be such a topic in a
high school English class.
List Procedure: Have large or small groups of students
brainstorm any terms they can think of that relate to the
topic, in this case, "characterization." List their terms
on the board verbatim. The following list is based on
students reading of four short stories.
Characteri z a t i on

1awyer Charlie Fagen

Big Li am Mr. & Mrs. Burr ale orphans
Downloaded by [New York University] at 16:34 09 November 2014

Shaun Mutt army

banker Tom Nancy
snow old-timer John
Ellen man building a fire
3. Group and Label: Have students work in small groups to
reorganize the list into related groups of words subsumed
by a category label. In English, these category labels
are terms used in literary analysis. Once they are intro-
duced and defined students can then use these terms to
organize the verbatim list produced in Step 2 as in the
following example.
Antagonist Protagonist

banker Shaun
Big Li am lawyer
Snow Nancy
Fagen man building a f i r e
army
Minor Characters Dynamic Characters Flat Characters

Ellen Tom old-timer

Charlie John mutt
Mr. & Mrs. Bumble Leiningen Bartleby
orphans

4. Have students explain and justify their classifications.

Purpose
The present study was designed to explore the effect of LGL lessons
on students' retention and recall of terms related to literary
analysis.
Fifty eight students enrolled in two sections of an introductory
literature course instructed by the same teacher participated in the
study. They were in grades 10 through 12 in a middle class suburb
of North San Diego County.
 CATEGORIZATION STRATEGY AND STUDENTS' RETENTION 249

Twenty-nine students in one class followed a lesson structure con-

sisting of four steps:
1} reading an introductory essay discussing an element of
fiction (e.g. "plot";)
2) teacher explanation of this element;
3) reading an assigned story exemplifying this structure; and
4) completing a LGL lesson.
A control group of 29 students followed only the first three steps in
the lesson structure without adding the LGL step.
Materials
Downloaded by [New York University] at 16:34 09 November 2014

Introductory essays and short stories were selected from the textbook
anthology, Adventures in Appreciation: Classic Edition (Perrine,
Jameson, and Silveri, 1968). Supplementary literary selections from
the Heritage Edition (Daniel and Safier, 1980) were also used. The
stories were selected to represent a particular technical element of
fiction used in literary analysis.
A 50 item criterion-referenced pretest on general understanding of
literary terms was administered to both groups as a measure of prior
knowledge. Definitions were based on A Handbook to Literature
(Holman, 1976). For example:
allusion
a. casual reference to famous person or event
b. mutually conflicting feelings or ideas
c. expression giving more than one meaning
d. lament applying to parted lovers
This same test was administered to both groups as a posttest after
12 weeks of instruction. Its test-retest reliability was jr = .64.
In addition to the pretest-posttest, four criterion-referenced quizzes
were constructed consisting of 10 to 15 items each. These were admin-
istered at intervals throughout the term to measure experimental and
control group students' specific understanding of literary terminology
in four major areas: 1) plot; 2) characterization; 3) style; and,
4) setting and philosophy. Items followed the same structure as the
pretest but they focused on specific events in the assigned stories.
The following example from the plot quiz illustrates their con-
struction:
The following story does not have a resolution:
a. "The Lady or the Tiger"
b. "Contents of a Dead Man's Pockets"
c. "The Monkey's Paw"
d. "Bartleby the Scrivener"
 250 T. W. BEAN ET AL.

Results

A two-tailed t-test comparing LGL and control class scores on the

pretest of general literary terminology indicated there was no
significant difference in their prior knowledge.

TABLE 1. Pretest Means and Standard Deviations for List-Group-Label

and Control Classes

Class Mean Standard D e v i a t i o n

LGL 19.34 5.02

Downloaded by [New York University] at 16:34 09 November 2014

Control 17.27 5.36

This same t e s t was administered again t o both groups a f t e r 12 weeks

of i n s t r u c t i o n . On t h i s posttest measure, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t
difference i n t h e i r scores favoring the class receiving LGL i n s t r u c -
t i o n i n a d d i t i o n to the three s t e p , t r a d i t i o n a l approach, t_ (55) =
3.99 ( p < .001).

TABLE 2. Posttest Means and Standard Deviations f o r List-Group-Label

and Control Classes

Class Mean Standard Deviation

LGL 23.62 4.25

Control 18.17 5.88

Students in the control class added l i t t l e ( i . e . .90) to their pre-

test score on general literary terminology. In contrast, the LGL
class improved by 4.25 points. Their gains on specific story re-
lated terminology are more impressive.
 CATEGORIZATION STRATEGY AND STUDENTS' RETENTION 251

TABLE 3. Quiz Means and Standard Deviations for List-Group-Label

and Control Classes

Quiz Class Mean Standard Deviation

Plot LGL 8.06 1.27

Control 6.66 2.48

Characterization Control liso

LGL 9.25 2.33
Downloaded by [New York University] at 16:34 09 November 2014

Style Control 6.85 2.38

Setting & Philosophy Control 9.90 1.62

7.70 2.56

On the first 10 item quiz dealing with story specific features of

plot construction, the LGL class displayed significantly higher mean
scores that the control class, t (54) = 2.62 (p <.05). The effect
size of this difference computed" by the Omega squared formula
(Hays, 1981) was .09. This means that nine percent of the variance
in quiz scores was attributable to the LGL treatment. Although this
is a small effect size (Cohen, 1977), it is important to note that
this was the first quiz in a long-range study. It would have been
surprising if the magnitude of the LGL effect were much larger at
this early stage of the LGL treatment. Both teachers and students
generally go through an adjustment period whenever a new or unusual
teaching procedure is introduced.
The next 10 item quiz on characterization again revealed signifi-
cantly greater recall of literary terms on the part of the LGL
class, t_ (52) = 4.04 (p < .001).
This same trend favoring the LGL class held for the last two quizzes
on style, setting and philosophy. The t-test comparing the two
classes on the 14 item style quiz resulted in t_ (53) = 3.77 (p <.001).
The 15 item setting and philosophy quiz also displayed a highly
significant difference favoring the LGL class, t_ (55) = 3.80 (p < .001).
The average effect size on these last three quizzes was .20 indicating
that the LGL treatment accounted for 20 percent of the variance in
quiz scores. Thus, the LGL strategy contributed to students' reten-
tion and recall of story related terminology by adding an active,
student-centered element to a more traditional read and discuss lesson
structure.
 252 T. W. BEAN ET AL.

Conclusions and Implications

The consistently higher vocabulary retention scores achieved by the
LGL group in this study suggest the value of a post-reading
categorization strategy for enhancing students' grasp of technical
vocabulary. Indeed, most subject areas lend themselves to this
hierarchical organization (Gerhard, 1975). And some content areas,
particularly mathematics and science, naturally capitalize on
hierarchical categorical structures and strategies. This study
suggests that teachers can use a similar approach in the study of
English literature to improve upon the more traditional, Socratic
methods associated with literary analysis. Moreover, an approach
like LGL produces a vibrant classroom climate involving all students
in active, thoughtful use of universal literary terms that will
Downloaded by [New York University] at 16:34 09 November 2014

serve them well in future classes.

REFERENCES
Cohen, Jacob. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
New York, N. Y.: Academic Press, 1977.
Daniel, K. T. & Shafier, F. Adventures in Appreciation (Heritage
Edition). New York, N. Y.: Harcourt Brace, 1980.
Gerhard, Christian. Making Sense: Reading Comprehension Improved
Through Categorizing. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association, 1975.
Hays, William L. Statistics. New York, N. Y.: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1981.
Holman, C. H. A Handbook to Literature. Indianapolis, IN: Odyssey
Press, 19"7in
Norman, Donald A. Memory and Attention: An Introduction to Human
Information Processing. New York, N. Y.: John Wiley and Sons,
1976.
Readence, John E. & Searfoss, Lyndon W. "Teaching Strategies for
Vocabulary Development." English Journal, 1980, 69^, 43-46.
Taba, Hilda. Teacher's Handbook for Elementary Social Studies.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1967.
Perrine, L., Jameson, R., & Silveri, R. Adventures in Appreciation
(Classic Edition). New York, N. Y.: Harcourt Brace, 1968.

I have not wasted my life

trifling with literary fools
in taverns as Jonson did when
he should have been shaking
England with the thunder of
his spirit.
George Bernard Shaw
(1856 - 1950)