root words 4

Journal of Educational Psychology2001, Voi. 93, No. 3, 498-520

Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-0663/01/S5.00 DOI: I0.1037//0022-0663.93.3.498

Estimating Root Word Vocabulary Growth in Normative and AdvantagedPopulations: Evidence for a Common Sequence of Vocabulary Acquisition

Andrew Biemiller and Naomi SlonimUniversity of Toronto

Root word vocabulary was studied in 2 normative samples (English-speaking, wide socioeconomic

range) and in an advantaged sample. The authors estimated that in 2nd grade, the mean normative

vocabulary was 5,200 root words, increasing to approximately 8,400 root words by 5th grade. During

grades 3-5, the lowest quartile added about 3 root words a day, whereas the highest quartile added

about 2.3 words a day. However, by 5th grade, children in the lowest quartile had only reached average

4th-grade level because they had such a small vocabulary in 2nd grade. There is evidence that words are

learned in roughly the same order. The implications of these findings suggest (a) that greater efforts

should be made to foster vocabulary acquisition in the primary years and (b) that a rough vocabulary

curriculum sequence can be identified for the elementary years.

Increasingly, educators are becoming aware of the importance

of vocabulary development as an aspect of successful educational

achievement. For example, Gough and Tunmer's (1986) "simple

view of reading" emphasizes the combined importance of identi-

fying words and understanding language for successful reading.

Catts, Fey, Zhang, and Tomblin (1999) reported that language as

well as phonological problems must be considered when working

with poor readers. Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) reported that

vocabulary assessed in first grade predicted over 30% of reading

comprehension variance in 11th grade. Conversely, recent studies

of early reading intervention such as Pinnell, Lyons, Deford, Bryk,

and Seltzer's (1994) and Gregory, Earl, and O'Donoghue's (1993)

reports on Reading Recovery, and Madden, Slavin, Karweit,

Dolan, and Wasik's (1993) report on the Success for All program

Andrew Biemiller and Naomi Slonim, Institute of Child Study, Univer-

sity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

This work could not have been undertaken without the financial support

of the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Social Sciences and Human-

ities Research Council of Canada, the encouragement of Jeanne Chall (who

first urged Andrew Biemiller to study vocabulary issues) and our colleague

Robbie Case, the support of Jeremy Anglin and Michael Graves, and

information and help from Joseph O'Rourke. We particularly appreciate

Janet Astington's comments on a draft of this article. Cheryl Zimmerman

spent many, many hours scanning the Living Word Vocabulary into Excel

and hand-correcting many scanning problems. Many graduate students

contributed to the development of the sentence context test format, notably

Hadley Koltun, Rose Nauta, and Amy Sirota. The final version of the test

was refined and administered by Saundra Biemiller, Cathy Boote, Lara

Chebaro, Lisa Harrower, Kelly Heffernan, Cecilia Kwon, Nancy Pilateris,

and Lynn Tan with assistance from numerous other students. Special

thanks must be given to the teachers and children from participating

schools in the Waterloo Catholic District School Board and the Laboratory

School of the Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto. Without their

patience and helpful support, this study could not have been completed.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew

Biemiller, University of Toronto, Institute of Child Study, 45 Walmer

Road, Toronto, Ontario M5R 2X2, Canada. Electronic mail may be sent to

[email protected].

suggest that although these primary programs were effective at

promoting word identification skills, they had no significant im-

pact on reading comprehension. Some years ago, Becker (1977)

made a similar observation about his own program, DISTAR. He

noted that as children progressed beyond second grade, the vocab-

ulary levels of school texts left some competent "readers" (decod-

ers) unable to successfully comprehend grade-level reading mate-

rial in third or fourth grade. Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990)

reported similar observations in a working-class sample in the later

elementary years.

Vocabulary development has been of interest since ancient

times. In relatively recent years, there has been considerable de-

bate about the size and rate of development of vocabulary, and

about how vocabulary is acquired (e.g., see Anglin, 1993; Beck &

McKeown, 1990; Curtis, 1987; McKeown & Curtis, 1987; Nagy,

Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Nagy & Herman, 1987; and White,

Graves, & Slater, 1990). Anglin's recent (1993) monograph pro-

vided a particularly careful estimate of vocabulary growth, making

clear distinctions between root words (which must be learned),

derived words (semantic variations of root words), inflections

(syntactic variations), and compounds. Derived, inflected, and

compound words may be understood if the root word is known and

the relevant semantic or syntactic modification is also known.

Thus if plan is understood (as a verb), plan (as a noun), planning,

planned, unplanned, and so on may also be understood. Anglin

reported growth in root word vocabulary from an average of

about 3,100 root words in Grade 1 to about 7,500 root words in

Grade 5.

Anglin reported evidence that children need to learn about twice

as many words as the number of root words, based on observations

of overt derivation of word meanings. We suspect that this exag-

gerates the number of words that must be learned (i.e., what Anglin

calls "psychologically basic" words) and that many derived or

inflected words may be understood directly without any observ-

able process of derivation. In support of this hypothesis, we note

that about two thirds of the derivatives of the root words used in

the studies reported herein are reported as "known" by Dale and

O'Rourke (1981) at the same or younger age level as the level at

498

VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 499

which the root was identified. (This analysis, conducted by Naomi

Slonim, will be the subject of a separate paper.) Consequently, we

have chosen in this research to focus on the growth of root word

vocabulary.

Many writers—including Chall (1983/1996), Curtis (1980),

Curtis and Longo (1999), and Gough and Tunmer (1986)—have

emphasized the parallel importance of basic reading mechanics

(decoding skills) and a growing vocabulary for increasing reading

or language comprehension. However, although there has been a

renewed emphasis in recent years on insuring the provision of

decoding skills (e.g., Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1998), there

has been no comparable educational emphasis on the development

of language and vocabulary (Adams, 1990; Becker, 1977; Bie-

miller, 1999b; Graves, Juel, & Graves, 1998). This is surprising

considering the evidence provided by Beck, Perfetti, and Mc-

Keown (1982); McKeown and Curtis (1987); and reviews by Beck

and McKeown (1990); Graves et al. (1998); and Stahl (1999) that

various approaches to enhancing vocabulary have strong effects on

increasing reading comprehension. Note that once students be-

come fluent readers—Chall's Stage 3 and above—researchers

should really be talking about language comprehension rather than

reading comprehension. Prior to this stage, comprehension of oral

language is usually at a higher level than comprehension of printed

language (Curtis, 1980; Sticht & James, 1984).

The role of schooling in vocabulary acquisition has been the

subject of much debate. Early (preliteracy) differences in vocab-

ulary growth are associated with social class (Duncan, Brooks-

Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Hart & Risley, 1995; McLloyd, 1998).

Nagy and Herman (1987) argued that much vocabulary acquisition

results from literacy and wide reading. However, obviously much

vocabulary acquisition occurs before children become literate and

before they are reading books that introduce unfamiliar vocabulary

(Becker, 1977). Cantalini (1987) and Morrison, Williams, and

Massetti (1998) both reported that vocabulary acquisition in kin-

dergarten and Grade 1 is little influenced by school experience,

based on the finding that young first graders have about the same

vocabulary (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) as old kindergarten

children. Cantalini reported the same result for second grade. On

the other hand, Huttenlocher, Levine, and Vevea (1998) reported

gains of about 10% of words of their test in vocabulary (and other

measures including syntax, concepts, and spatial operations) dur-

ing the 6-month period between October and April (high school

instruction) in contrast with an increase of 3% of test words during

the 6-month period between April and October (kindergarten and

Grade 1, cross-sectional data). The latter study uses a much larger

sample than Cantalini and Morrison et al.'s studies, but a much

more restricted vocabulary test. However, overall we think it

possible that children in kindergarten and Grade 1 are gaining

vocabulary increases, but children start and finish at different

vocabulary levels rather than acquiring a common grade level

vocabulary.

The absolute rate of vocabulary acquisition is a critical question.

As Beck and McKeown (1990) noted in their review of vocabulary

development, if the rate of vocabulary acquisition is smaller than

is commonly assumed, it is possible to think of instructional

approaches to increase vocabulary acquisition. For example, if the

average rate of word acquisition is around two to four root words

a day with the rest coming from morphological extensions, it is

possible to teach or include that many new words in classroom

instruction. On the other hand, if the rate of word acquisition is

around seven or eight a day, as Nagy et al. (1985) suggested, it is

hard to imagine a curriculum that could systematically introduce

that many words. Anglin's (1993) data suggest an average gain of

about three root words per day (based on 365 days), or six root

words per school day between Grades 1 and 5. The present study

includes new information on the rate of root word vocabulary

acquisition.

The degree to which words are learned in the same order is a

matter of practical and theoretical interest. If the order of word

learning is highly predictable, it is possible to construct curriculum

materials that ensure introduction to words in a developmentally

useful order. A well-defined sequence of word acquisition is also

of theoretical interest. The data in Dale and O'Rourke's (1981)

Living Word Vocabulary (LWV) imply that there is some ordering

of word learning. However, the data in LWV are basically orga-

nized around age groups rather than around levels of word knowl-

edge in individual children. In previous studies (Biemiller, 1998,

1999a), we found strong Pearson correlations between word means

in different grades, suggesting that the order of difficulty remained

much the same even as overall levels of word knowledge in-

creased. In the present studies, we examine directly the order in

which words are being learned in groups with different levels of

vocabulary knowledge.

To our knowledge, only one relatively comprehensive assess-

ment has been made of words known by children. This is Dale and

O'Rourke's (1981) LWV. In this study, which was carried out over

more than two decades, 44,000 individual word meanings were

tested to determine the grade level at which they were known by

67%-80% of children. In LWV, "known" meant a correct re-

sponse on a three-choice multiple choice test. Words were as-

signed to levels on the basis of the lowest grade at which a sample

of 200 or more children passed the words at the criterion 67%-

80%. Children and adolescents in Grades 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were

included as well as college students and adults. Words were sent

out to be tested with children at a particular grade in a number of

schools: "To avoid sectional bias, we sent 50 tests or less of a

single form to a single school district. We tested in all sizes of

school systems—both rural and urban" (Dale & O'Rourke, 1979,

p. 3). If the word fell within the 67%-80% range at that grade

level, it was assigned that level. If the word came in above 80%,

it was tried at a lower grade level, whereas if it came in below

67%, it was tried at a higher level, until the 67%-80% level was

found. However, testing did not go below fourth grade, as the tests

involved reading. Thus there are many words reported above 80%

correct at Level 4, or fourth-grade words. Similarly, many words

are reported below 67% correct at Level 12, meaning that they

were not retested with college students. However, approxi-

mately 30,000 word meanings were reported known by at least

67% of children or adolescents between Grades 4 and 12.

The LWV includes both root words and derived forms. (Gram-

matical inflections were usually only included for irregular forms.)

Part of the current research included a study of the incidence of

root forms in LWV at each level. A Level 2 was created by

including words known by more than 80% of children at Level 4.

One of the advantages of sampling vocabulary from the LWV

levels is that it is possible to estimate the numbers of words known

in a relatively clearly defined and educationally relevant popula-

tion of words. For example, knowing that a child understands 5%

500 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

of the words in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of

the English Language (1981), as Anglin could determine, gives

teachers relatively little practical guidance in choosing vocabulary

for instruction. Knowing that the same child understands half of

some 2500 Level 2 root words provides substantially more useful

information.

Purposes of This Study

The present study had several purposes. First, we wanted to

determine the numbers of words at each LWV level and to esti-

mate what proportion were root words. Second, we wanted to

examine the validity of LWV's levels in terms of current popula-

tions (i.e., can we use the LWV as a reasonable guide to words

likely to be known at particular levels—or worth learning?) As-

sociated with this is an extension of LWV to Level 2, or second

grade. Third, we wanted to revisit the question of vocabulary

growth rates—of how many root words must be learned per day.

Our fourth goal was to examine the range of individual differences

in vocabulary growth rates as well as group differences between

the normative and advantaged samples. Our final goal was to

determine the degree to which words are learned in a similar

sequence by children with different rates of vocabulary progress.

In this article we describe data on the development of root word

vocabulary from kindergarten to Grade 6. Data from some or all of

these grades are available from three samples: (a) a normative

sample of English-first-language (EFL) children with a wide so-

cioeconomic status (SES) range tested in June, 1999; (b) an ad-

vantaged sample of mostly EFL upper middle SES children in a

university laboratory school in June, 1999; and (c) a second

normative sample of EFL children drawn from the same schools

but given a different sample of words in November, 1999. The

second normative sample was included after some unexpected

results appeared in the first two samples.

General Method

Organizing and Sampling Root Words: Constructing the

Root Word Inventory

The first step in the study was to sort the word meanings in LWV by

levels and percentage correct for each meaning within the levels. This was

done by scanning the entire contents of LWV into an Excel file and sorting

word meanings into levels. A Level 2 was created by including all words

at Level 4 that were known by more than 80% of children tested. Words

known by less than 67% of 12th-grade children were omitted from

Level 12. Data on the six levels are given in Table 1. The words were then

ordered by difficulty within the level rather than alphabetically. Samples of

100 words were then drawn from each level by taking every xth word

where x = number of words in the level divided by 100.

Each 100-word sample was then categorized according to the five

categories provided by Anglin (1993): root words (monomorphemic

words; e.g., closet, flop), inflected words (grammatical variations; e.g.,

changed, baits), derived words (one root and one or more derivational

affix; e.g., mucky, stillness, talkativeness), literal compounds (words com-

posed of two or more words, one of which is a root word and the other root

or derived; e.g., payday, taxpayer), and idioms (compounds whose mean-

ing cannot be determined from knowledge of the component words, e.g.,

lady's slipper, which is an orchid; eleventh hour, which is a last minute

occurrence). We had 90% agreement in coding words as "root" or not.

Twenty root words were then randomly drawn from each list for use in a

test. About 15% of the words initially randomly selected were discarded as

archaic or unsuitable [e.g., churn, ass (donkey), paraffin (wax used in

canning), hep (knows answers)]. These were replaced with the next root

word from the random list at a similar level of percentage correct as given

in LWV. Short sentences were constructed and pretested for each word.

Two forms of our Root Word Inventory were constructed from the final list

of 20 root words per level. Form A consisted of the odd-numbered words

and their sentences (1, 3, etc.); Form B consisted of the even-numbered

words and their sentences. Thus each form had 10 words per level for a

total of 60 words. One word was deleted from Form A and two from Form

B when we discovered coding problems with these words. (Scorers found

children's responses to three words hard to score. Responses to these three

words have been removed from the calculations.) Both forms were given

to one of our test populations. The correlation of children's scores for the

two forms was .88 (Pearson). Test words, LWV meanings tested, and test

sentences are given in Appendix A. (In Appendix A, words from Forms A

and B, definitions, LWV levels, and test sentences are shown in order of

mean word difficulty.)

Estimating Root Word Vocabulary Size

We had originally thought that we could estimate root word vocabulary

size simply by applying the observed percentage correct at each level to the

estimated number of root words at that level as shown in Table 1. However,

after selecting the root words, we noted that in a number of cases more than

one entry was given for a root word. In some cases, the entries had similar

meanings. For example, the word fish is given as a Level 2 entry meaning

"a water animal" and also as a Level 2 entry meaning "to try to catch a

fish." It appears that most children who know one of these meanings will

also know the other. (The "water animal" was known by 97% of Level 4

children sampled, and "catch a fish" was known by 94%.) In our view,

these items refer to a single root word meaning. We reviewed all of our

sampled LWV root word meanings to see if there were other redundant

meanings at the same level. We determined that the 120 Form A and B

words covered knowledge of 138 separate word meanings—the 120 sam-

pled and 18 other redundant meanings from the same levels. The two

Table 1

Data on Levels in the Living Word Vocabulary

Variable

Total wordsEstimated percentage of root wordsEstimated number of root wordsEstimated number of independent

root words*

2

4,37458

2,537

2,207

4

5,25751

2,681

2,333

Level

6

6,75038

2,565

2,232

8

5,60056

3,136

2,728

10

4,35950

2,180

1,897

12

4,16245

1,854

1,613

Combinedlevels

30,50249

14,953

13,010

1 Independent or nonredundant meanings are estimated to be 87% of estimated number of root words.


meanings offish as given earlier is one example. Additional examples are

jurisdiction at Level 10, given as both "authority" and "legal power";

envelop at Level 8, referring to "surround" and "wrap up"; and buckle at

Level 2, given as "to fasten" and "fastener." There is no clear trend across

the levels, so we have used the overall redundancy figure. Thus if 120

sampled words address 138 LWV meanings, then the overall estimate

of 14,953 root words between Levels 2 and 12 should be reduced to 13,009

nonredundant root words (87% of the total). We applied the same reduction

to estimated root words at each level. This is shown in Table 1. The

reduced estimated number of independent root words at each level was

used to estimate total root word vocabulary known covered in LWV.

The LWV omits some root words tested in Anglin's (1993) study. Of 30

root words in Anglin's vocabulary, 10 were not found in LWV. However,

using data provided by Anglin, we ascertained that many of these omitted

root words were not known by children in Anglin's study. If we examine

the mean number of root words known in the test at each grade, we

find 5.44 in Grade 1, 8.11 in Grade 3, and 13.22 in Grade 5. (These figures

are slightly higher than those in Anglin, 1993, p. 64. In the Anglin

monograph, some scores had been adjusted for multiple choice responses.)

If only words that appear in the LWV are used, we find 5.06, 7.20,

and 10.78 root words, respectively. Thus using LWV words underestimates

total root words known by 8% in Grade 1, 13% in Grade 3, and 22% in

Grade 5. Projected underestimates in the other grades have been interpo-

lated to 5% in kindergarten, 11% in Grade 2, 17% in Grade 4, and 26% in

Grade 6.

Estimated vocabulary at each grade level was first to be determined by

multiplying the estimated number of nonredundant words by percentages

of test words known, and then further adjusting estimated numbers of

words by correcting for LWV underestimates for specific grades, as out-

lined in the preceding paragraph.

Estimating Vocabulary Growth Rates

Once we arrived at estimates of the total number of root words for each

child, we could generate estimated root word vocabulary at each grade

level sampled. This provided a cross-sectional look at the growth of

vocabulary. The estimated rate of vocabulary acquisition per year is simply

the difference between observed vocabulary in the higher grade and that in

the lower grade. Average gains per day were obtained by dividing annual

gains by 365. Similar approaches are taken over longer periods. We can

assume that vocabulary growth begins around age 1. The mean age of

children tested near the end of Grade 2, minus 1 (age at infancy), yields the

number of years of acquisition from infancy to the end of Grade 2 (6.6

acquisition years for children in the two normative samples, 6.9 in the

advantaged sample). The mean years for gaining vocabulary from the end

of Grade 2 to the end of Grade 5, based on mean ages, was 3.1 years for

the normative children (both studies) and 3.0 years for the advantaged

children.

We now turn to describing methodology and reporting basic results from

the three separate studies. We then combine results from the three studies

to address the main questions of this research.

Study 1: First Normative Sample

Children Studied

This study was intended to provide data on the root word

vocabulary of a representative sample of English-speaking chil-

dren from a range of economic levels. Three schools in a mid-sized

Ontario city were included. These drew on children from assisted

housing (about one third of the children in one school and one fifth

in another) and from working-class and middle-class families.

Within each school, we attempted to include eight children in

Grades kindergarten, 1,2, 4, and 5. (Third- and sixth-grade chil-

dren were not included because of a major province-wide testing

program being conducted at the same time with all third- and

sixth-grade children.) The sampling system involved identifying in

each school two boys and two girls in each grade whose birthdays

were closest to March 30th, and those whose birthdays were

closest to Sept. 30. Parents of these children were contacted for

permission to include the children in the study. When permission

was not given, we moved to the child of the same sex with the next

closest birthday to the target. The intent was to identify children

randomly, while ensuring a representation of younger and older

children in the study. In fact, we were able to obtain between 19

and 25 children per grade. Table 2 gives number of children by sex

and mean age by grade in the first normative sample.

Method

Testing reported herein was conducted in May and June of 1999. Testing

was done individually for children in kindergarten through Grade 2. The

investigator introduced herself and said

I'm going to ask you what some words mean. Later, I'll ask you to

read the same words and some others. Some of these words are

common and some aren't. If you want to stop at any time, you can.

I'm going to read you a sentence and then ask you what a word means

in that sentence. You can use words, pointing, or acting to explain the

meaning of that word.

We then gave three examples, including, " 'I bought a new car.' In this

sentence, what does car mean?" We continued with " 'Johnny fell and

broke his arm.' What does arm mean?" If the child had difficulty with these

examples, we would go over them and explain how to answer. (In the arm

example, pointing to one's arm would do.) A final example involved a hard

word: " "The material was translucent.' In this sentence, what does trans-

lucent mean?" This example was given so that we could explain that there

would be words children did not know, and that it was alright to say, "I

don't know." (No children actually knew translucent.) At all levels, nearly

all children could do the first two examples (with help) and were successful

with some items in the test. In kindergarten to Grade 2, the tester wrote

down student explanations for coding later. Because written testing was

used in Grades 4 and 5, no probing was done in oral tests with children in

kindergarten to Grade 3. We would reread a sentence if the child asked us

to, on the assumption that those taking the written test could reread as

needed. In oral testing, children were stopped if they made eight errors at

a level. (There were 10 words at each level, 60 words total.)

In the case of written testing (given to children in Grades 4 and 5), the

instructions were as follows:

Table 2

Normative Sample: Mean Age and Numbers of Cases

by Grade and Gender

Variable

Age (years)Gender

BoysGirls

Combined

K

6.0

111021

1

7.0

118

19

Grade

2

7.8

111425

4

10.1

131023

5

11.0

101020

Total

5652

108

Note. K = Kindergarten.


Read the whole sentence. What does the word in bold mean? Write a

sentence that explains what the word in bold means. It's OK to write

"I don't know" if you don't know what the word means. Some of

these words are used by students in high school, so we don't expect

you to know all of the words you see.

The examples were printed with sample answers (including "I don't know"

for translucent). Written testing was conducted in groups of 6 to 10

children at a time. If a child experienced difficulty reading the sentences,

we would read them to the child. (Very few children required this assis-

tance.) In a prior study (Biemiller, 1998), we had found that there was no

difference in levels of word knowledge in Grades 4 and 5 when assessed

in oral versus written (with reading assistance) formats.

Each response was scored 1, .5, or 0. A score of 1 meant that in the

scorer's judgement, the child knew the word well enough to be able to

follow a story in which the test sentence could appear. (That is, they would

not lose the meaning of the story because of this word.) A score of 0 meant

that in the scorer's judgement, the child did not know the word this well.

A score of .5 meant that the scorer was unsure of whether the child knew

the word well enough to understand a story containing the sentence.

Scoring guides for each word were developed and are available from the

authors. Two raters scored all children in one class. The total scores for

each child by each rater correlated at r = .98. For the final data presented

in this article, scoring was done by three trained raters. All questionable

cases were resolved together.

Results

The percentages of words were larger in the higher grades

(Table 3). The overall gain was significant, F(4, 98) = 58.29, p <

.001, as were differences between grades of 18% or more (Duncan,

.05). Note the relatively large gain between Grades 1 and 2. There

were no significant sex differences, F(l, 98) = 0.67, ns, and no

significant interaction with sex, F(4, 98) = 1.60, ns. The unusually

large increase in percentage of words learned between Grades 1

and 2 (from 17% to 35% of all words tested), combined with the

relatively low rate of vocabulary acquisition after Grade 2 (from

35% to 57% of all words tested, or about 7% a year) led us to

consider a replication. This was carried out in November, 1999.

The percentage of words was lower in the higher LWV levels

(Table 3). Overall, level differences were significant, F(5, 490) =

367.58, p < .001. The Duncan range is 6% (Duncan, .05). There

was little difference between Levels 4 and 6 and between Levels 8

and 10. There was a significant interaction between level and

grade, F(20, 490) = 6.55, p < .01. This reflects variation in

differences between levels at different grades and particularly the

fact that in Grades 4 and 5, Level 6 proved slightly easier than

Level 4.

Study 2: Advantaged Sample

Study 2 was intended to provide data on the root word vocab-

ulary knowledge of advantaged upper-middle-class children at-

tending a university laboratory school, in contrast to the normative

population of Study 1. Given the evidence of large differences in

vocabulary and vocabulary acquisition opportunities associated

with social class before school (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995), we

thought it useful to look at vocabulary growth in a highly advan-

taged sample. In addition, we were able to administer both forms

of our Root Word Inventory to children in Study 2, providing

information on reliability.

Children Studied

Children in Study 2 attended a private, laboratory school at the

University of Toronto. A tuition of $4,000 is charged at this

school, limiting the sample to children from relatively affluent

families. (There is no test criterion for admission. Children are

randomly selected from applicants, subject to diversity and sex

distribution constraints.) Between 20 and 22 children per grade

were available from junior kindergarten (4-year-old children) to

Grade 6. Table 4 shows the mean age and distribution of boys and

girls by grade.

Table 3

Normative Sample: Mean Percentage Correct by Grade and Level for Form A (Study 1)

Grade

Word level

Agelonths)

72.2

2.8

84.03.0

93.4

5.5

121.64.1

131.83.3

2

4621

5624

7815

8218

94871

4

1914

2316

4421

5024

652140

6

712

1616

3719

5222

701636

8

36

39

2817

4215

481625

10

00

3

9

22

16

3519

441221

12

00

00

35

1013

2114

7

M

12

7

17

10

3513

4514

571033

MSD

MSD

MSD

MSD

MSD

21

22

22

23

20

Weighted average (K—5)

Note. Grade 3 children were not tested. K = kindergarten.


Table 4Ages and Gender of the Advantaged Sample: Study 2

Variable

Age (years)Gender

Boys

GirlsAll

JK

4.9

101222

SK

6.1

10

1020

1

6.9

11

11

22

2

7.9

118

19

Grade

3

9.0

12

1022

4

9.9

12

1022

5

10.9

11

1021

6

11.8

10

10

20

Total

87

81168

Note. JK = junior kindergarten; SK = senior kindergarten.

Method

In this study, both forms of the Root Word Inventory were used in

Grades 1 to 6. Only Form A was used with junior (4-year-old) and senior

(5-year-old) kindergarten children. Procedures were the same as in Study 1.

Most testing was done in June, 1999. However, because of schedule

problems, Grade 2 children were tested on Form B in September (when

they were just beginning Grade 3) rather than June. Similarly, six Grade 3

children were tested in September rather than June. There was no evidence

that children tested in September had higher scores.

Results

The advantaged sample was tested on two forms of 60 words

each in Grades 1 to 6. The two forms yielded similar results: The

Pearson correlation between children's percentage-correct scores

on Form A and Form B was .88 (n — 126).

We again found that percentages of words known were higher in

higher grades (Table 5). For combined forms (Grades 1-6), the

overall gain was significant, F(5, 114) = 16.73, p < .001. Mean

differences of about 19% were different using the Duncan .05

criterion. Note again the very large gain between Grades 1 and 2.

There was no significant sex difference. The interaction between

grade and sex was significant, F(5, 114) = 2.56, p < .03. This

reflects the very low achievement of the Grade 4 boys.

Form A was somewhat easier than Form B, at 49% versus 45%

correct overall, F(l, 114) = 38.63, p < .001. There was no

significant interaction between grade and form, F(5, 114) = 1.79,

p = .12. There was a low-order interaction between form and sex,

F{\, 114) = 3.51, p = .06. This reflects the fact that girls did

slightly better on Form B compared with boys.

The mean percentage correct at each Dale and O'Rourke level

by each grade are shown in Table 6. Although scores were notice-

ably higher than the normative sample in the earlier grades, the

pattern was similar, with relatively little difference between Lev-

els 4 and 6 and between Levels 8 and 10. (Direct comparisons

between the samples are discussed later.) Using a repeated-

measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), differences between

levels were highly significant, F(5, 760) = 734.01, p < .001 for

Form A, and F(5, 570) = 517.84, p < .001 for Form B. For Form

A, the Duncan .05 range was 3% compared with 4% for Form B.

There was the same pattern of significant differences seen with

Form A except that Level 12 was not significantly lower than the

preceding levels. There were significant Grade X Level interac-

tions, F(35, 760) = 6.85, p < .01 for Form A, and F(25,

570) = 5.04, p < .01 for Form B. Inspection of Table 7 suggests

that in both groups, the size of the difference between Levels 2

and 4 was larger in the lower grades, whereas the size of the

difference between Levels 6 and 8 was larger in the later grades for

Form A and the earlier grades for Form B. Overall, there were

effectively four levels: 2, 4/6, 8/10, and 12.

Study 3: Second Normative Sample

Study 3 was conducted to see whether the anomalous large gains

observed in both the normative and advantaged samples in

Grade 2, followed by relatively slower gains in Grades 4 and 5,

could be replicated. At the same time, it was possible in Study 3 to

include third- and sixth-grade children from a normative sample.

There were two other changes. One was the use of oral testing at

all grade levels, to see whether the lower rates of gain after Grade 2

might have been due to use of written testing. The other was to

modify the conditions for stopping testing. In Studies 1 and 2, oral

testing was stopped if a child missed 8 out of 10 items in a level.

We thought this might have led to underestimating the perfor-

mance of kindergarten and Grade 1 children (although Grade 2

children were tested using the same rule). In Study 3, all children

were tested until they missed 10 consecutive items.

Children Studied

The children were drawn from the same three schools used for

Study 1. No Study 1 children were included in the Study 3 sample.

Table 5

Mean Percentage Correct by Gender and Form:

Advantaged Sample

GradeGender and

form JK SK 1Grades

1-6

All childrenForm AForm B

Boys, allForm AForm B

Girls, allForm AForm B

13 23

13 20

13

313130323232292929

4346

40434739434541

515348515447515249

475044

39423657

5954

555753535551575954

585956596256575757

474945474944

495047

Note. JK = junior kindergarten; SK = senior kindergarten.


Age(months)

58.73.6

72.73.5

82.83.0

2

4021

7019

7720

4

1914

3114

4617

Word

6

1214

2418

3418

level

8

47

1211

1913

10

27

38

612

12

00

00

37

M

139

239

3111

Table 6

Advantaged Sample: Percentage Correct by Mean and Level

for Forms A and B

Grade

JK (n = 22)Form A

MSD

SK (n = 20)Form A

MSD

1 (n = 22)Form A

MSD

FormBMSD

2 (n = 22)Form A

MSD

Form BMSD

3 (« = 22)Form A

MSD

Form BMSD

4 (n = 22)Form A

SD

Form BMSD

5 (n = 21)Form A

MSD

Form BMSD

6 (n = 20)Form A

MSD

Form BMSD

Average (Grades 1-6)Form AForm B

94.82.6

107.94.2

118.63.7

130.23.6

141.85.0

80 41 39 11 7 4 3016 20 17 11 14 9 11

94 58 52 34 27 11 469 19 23 17 15 12 13

85 57 52 23 15 7 4011 17 15 14 19 10 19

98 66 59 41 37 17 534 21 15 12 23 15 11

88 62 56 29 28 22 4811 16 9 16 23 19 11

88 67 59 42 36 11 5016 25 25 22 21 13 16

78 61 50 26 29 23 4414 20 17 17 20 22 15

94 73 71 41 45 17 574 17 15 16 17 15 10

87 72 52 38 43 24 5313 13 13 13 14 18 10

93 77 75 50 44 17 597 18 20 18 21 11 12

85 69 57 48 49 31 569 21 19 19 10 17 12

91 65 58 38 33 13 4984 60 51 29 28 19 45

Note. Grades JK and SK children were not given Form B. JK = juniorkindergarten; SK = senior kindergarten.

Sampling was again based on ages, in this case starting with

birthdates in January and June, and seeking 4 boys and 4 girls at

each grade level in each school. Table 7 gives the mean agenumbers of cases by sex for each grade in Study 3.

Words Tested

Form B of the Root Word Inventory was used. This form was

constructed at the same time as Form A, using every other word

generated in sampling. Two words were changed from the version

used in Study 2 because of ambiguities in scoring the original

items.

Method

Procedures were the same for all Study 3 children as those described for

kindergarten to Grade 2 in Study 1, except that testing was not stopped

until a child made 10 consecutive nonresponses. In other words, all

children were tested individually and orally. The test took approxi-

mately 30 min per child.

Results

As shown in Table 8, the percentage of correct responses were

similar to those in Study 1. Overall, grade differences were sig-

nificant, F(6, 142) = 43.53, p < .001. Sex differences were not

significant nor was the interaction between grade and sex. The

largest grade-to-grade gain was again seen between Grades 1 and 2

(from 21% to 37% correct). Overall, in comparing grades, differ-

ences of more than 15% were significant (Duncan, .05). Changes

in test procedure may have slightly increased observed vocabulary

levels in kindergarten (12% in Study 1 versus 17% in Study 3) and

Grade 1 (17% vs. 21%). However, these changes did not eliminate

the unusually large gains seen between Grades 1 and 2 (35% in

Study 1 vs. 37% in Study 3). There was also no evidence that oral

testing led to higher estimates of vocabulary. In fact, the level

reached by Grade 5 is slightly lower than that seen in Study 1,

consistent with the slightly lower levels seen on Form B in Study 2

and with the fact that these children were assessed in November

rather than June.

Results mostly similar to Study 1 were seen when comparing

levels. Overall, differences between levels were highly significant,

F(5, 710) = 829, p < .001, as was the interaction between levels

and grade, F(30, 710) = 6.52, p < .001. The Duncan range for

levels is 3%. Unlike Study 1, Level 6 did differ significantly from

Level 4. Otherwise, the pattern was similar, with Level 8 and

Level 10 being of similar difficulty.

Comparisons Involving All Three Studies

In this section, we are going to return to the main questions of

this research (as discussed in the introduction).

Table 7

Second Normative Sample: Mean Age and Numbers of Cases by

Grade and Gender

Variable

Age (years)Gender

BoysGirls

Grade, all

K

5.5

111122

1

6.5

81018

2

7.4

141125

Grade

3

8.5

131629

4

9.5

117

18

5

10.5

111324

6

11.6

119

20

Total

7977

156

Note. K = kindergarten.


Table 8

Second Normative Sample: Mean Percentage Correct by Grade

and Level (Study 3)

Grade

SKMSD

1

MSD

2MSD

3MSD

4MSD

5

MSD

6MSD

Weightedaverage

n

11

18

25

29

18

24

20

Age(months)

65.63.8

78.22.5

89.03.6

102.24.3

114.45.0

126.03.5

138.73.0

2

6218

6821

7617

8113

8111

8811

9010

81

4

1713

2814

5417

5317

6020

7312

7418

57

Word level

6

1412

1812

3815

4315

5216

5412

5715

44

8

37

35

1912

2112

2411

3317

4118

24

10

46

811

2415

2614

3015

3114

4016

27

12

35

13

1110

129

1710

158

1710

12

M

178

217

3710

3910

4410

498

5312

41

Note. SK = senior kindergarten.

How Valid Is the LWV?

We examined the validity of LWV in two ways. First, we related

observed word accuracy to LWV levels. We calculated the mean

scores for each word in our test by grade. These are given in

Appendixes B and C. We combined these for Grades 1, 2, 4, and 5

(for which we have data from all studies) and correlated these

word scores with LWV levels. For the normative samples, the

Pearson correlations were .73 for Form A and .68 for Form B. For

the advantaged sample, the correlations between combined

Grade 1, 2,4, and 5 word means and LWV levels was .79 for Form

A and .72 for Form B. Overall, LWV word meaning ratings

account for 46% to 62% of observed root word inventory score

variance.

Second, we looked at the validity of LWV in terms of absolute

levels of performance on particular levels in specified grades.

LWV words assigned a given level were reported to be "passed"

by children in that grade at an average of 73% on three-alternative

multiple choice items. We can compare mean root word inventory

scores for the normative sample at each level with the percentage

expected for children in that grade when the reported mean per-

centage is adjusted for guessing: Corrected percent correct =

observed percent correct — [percent error/(number of alterna-

tives — 1)]. This adjustment brings the expected level score down

to 60%. When giving definitions, Grade 4 normative sample

children from Study 1 actually were 50% correct on Level 4 words

on Form A, whereas those from Study 3 were 60% correct on

Level 4 words on Form B. There were no Grade 6 children for

Form A, but Grade 5 children were 70% correct on Level 6,

whereas Grade 6 children in Study 3 were 57% correct on Level 6.

Overall, these data are generally consistent with values expected

from LWV. However, inspection of Appendixes B and C makes it

clear that many individual words are known at substantially higher

or lower values than those predicted by LWV.

These data also support Level 2 as based on LWV words at

Level 4 that were known by more than 80% of children in the

LWV norming. Grade 2 children were 76%-78% correct on the

Level 2 words in the two normative studies. (We do not have data

on multiple choice meanings at Grade 2.) At Grade 4, these

Level 2 words would be expected around 87%. In fact, we ob-

served scores of 81% in both forms.

Whereas in general, words from the higher levels proved to be

more difficult, it is not reasonable to expect that children in a grade

will know all words up to that level. Furthermore, Levels 4 and 6

were very similar in difficulty, as were Levels 8 and 10. Thus

although LWV provides a better guide to identifying vocabulary

words for curriculum than any other source, we will see that a

more precise sequence may exist than that given in LWV.

Comparing Vocabulary Growth in the Three Studies

Percentages correct by grade for both forms for all populations

are shown in Figure 1. In all groups, there was an unusually large

gain between Grades 1 and 2. Between the end of Grade 2 and

Grade 6, we found relatively slower growth in root word vocab-

ulary, with the advantaged children starting at somewhat higher

levels.

The estimated root word vocabulary by grade is shown in Table

9 for both forms and both normative and advantaged children. In

addition, combined estimates based on Forms A and B are also

shown. Although the advantaged sample had a 20% larger root

word vocabulary at the end of Grade 2, the normative sample

appeared to have "caught up" by the end of Grade 5, the difference

then being only 3%.

At this point we consider gains from 1 year of age (when

vocabulary begins to be acquired) to the end of Grade 2, and gains

NORM.A

NORM.B

»OV_A

»DV_B

Figure 1. Percentage correct by form for normative and advantaged samples.

NORM_A = normative population, Form A vocabulary data (Study

1); NORM_B = normative population, Form B vocabulary data (Study 3);

ADV_A = advantaged population, Form A vocabulary data (Study

2); ADVB = advantaged population, Form B vocabulary data (Study 2).


Table 9

Estimated Vocabulary, by Sample and Form

Normative population Advantaged population

Grade Study 1, Form A Study 3, Form B M Study 2, Form A Study 2, Form B M

KM

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

1,699916

2,3711,341

5,0481,829

6,8892,185

9,0381,653

2,3491,134

2,967984

5,3011,511

5,7591,492

6,6991,506

7,7841,246

8,7371,903

2,924

2,669

5,175

6,794

8,411

3,1731,201

4,3141,576

6,5911,815

7,8051,695

7,5692,441

9,0241,513

9,7362,040

4,2751,477

5,7221,492

6,9881,677

6,7582,254

8,3451,621

9,2481,934

4,295

6,157

7,397

7,164

8,685

9,492

Note. Vocabulary is estimated by multiplying the percentage of words known for each form and gradeby 13,010 and then further adjusting the total obtained by 1.05 (kindergarten), 1.08 (Grade 1), 1.10 (Grade2), 1.13 (Grade 3), 1.17 (Grade 4), 1.22 (Grade 5), and 1.26 (Grade 6) to allow for words not included in theLiving Word Vocabulary but known by children at different grades, based on Anglin (1993). K = kindergarten.

during Grades 3-5. Gains per day for these two periods are shown

in Table 10. The overall conclusion is that children from the

normative sample appear to acquire root words at an average rate

of 2.2 root words per day from 1 year of age to the end of Grade 2

and a greater rate—2.9 words per day—during Grades 3-5.

The advantaged sample appears to have gained root words more

rapidly from infancy to Grade 2 (2.4 words per day). After

Grade 2, the advantaged sample actually appears to gain words

more slowly through Grade 5 (2.3 words per day).

Individual Differences: Vocabulary Growth by Quartiles

The quartile sample sizes in the three studies are relatively small

when taken grade by grade. However, we have constructed a table

summarizing averaged estimated vocabulary scores (combining

data from Forms A and B for the normative and advantaged

groups) for children in each vocabulary quartile in Grades 1 to 5

(Table 11). Daily gains in root word vocabulary from infancy to

the testing age in Grade 2 were estimated by dividing the vocab-

ulary in Grade 2 by (mean age - 1) and then dividing the average

Table 10

Growth in Estimated Root Word Vocabulary: Infancy to Grade 2 and Grade 3 to Grade 5

Variable

Total gainYears of gaina

Annual gainDaily gain in root words

Normative population

Age 1 (infancy) toGrade 2

5,1756.6

7842.2

Grade 3 toGrade 5

3,2363.1

1,0442.9

Advantaged population

Age 1 (infancy) toGrade 2

6,1576.9

8922.4

Grade 3 toGrade 5

2,5283.0

8432.3

Note- This data is based on data in Table 9. Vocabulary is estimated by multiplying the percentage of wordsknown for each form and grade by 13,010 and then further adjusting the total obtained by 1.05 (kindergar-ten), 1.08 (Grade 1), 1.10 (Grade 2), 1.13 (Grade 3), 1.17 (Grade 4), 1.22 (Grade 5), and 1.26 (Grade 6) to allowfor words not included in the Living Word Vocabulary but known by children at different grades, based onAnglin (1993).* Years of gain equals mean age in Grade 2 minus 1 for infancy to Grade 2, and mean age in Grade 5 minus meanage in Grade 2 for Grade 3 to Grade 5.


Table 11Estimated Vocabulary by Quartile Group and Grade for Normative and Advantaged Samples

Based on Combined Data From Forms A and B

Grade

1245

Infancy-Grade 2a:

gain/day

Grade 3-5":

gain/day

0 % - 2 5 %

Norm

1,122

3,000

4,293

6,614

1.3

3.0

Adv

2,425

4,491

4,045

6,888

1.8

2.1

26%-50%

Norm

2,219

4,838

6,071

8,006

2.0

2.9

Adv

3,700

5,366

6,664

7,924

2.1

2.4

51%-75%

Norm

3,106

5,787

7,476

8,777

2.4

2.5

Adv

4,716

6,304

7,912

9,094

2.4

2.8

76<i

Norm

4,030

7,129

9,083

10,065

3.2

2.3

fc-100%

Adv

6,367

8,132

9,980

10,749

3.2

2.4

Average

Norm

2,669

5,175

6,794

8,411

2.2

2.9

Adv

4,295

6,157

7,164

8,685

2.4

2.3

Note. Sample size is about 10 children per normative quartile group and 5 children per advantaged quartile group. Estimates based on data in Table 9.

Vocabulary is estimated by multiplying the percentage of words known for each form and grade by 13,010 and then further adjusting the total obtained

by 1.05 (Kindergarten), 1.08 (Grade 1), 1.10 (Grade 2), 1.13 (Grade 3), 1.17 (Grade 4), 1.22 (Grade 5), and 1.26 (Grade 6) to allow for words not included

in the Living Word Vocabulary but known by children at different grades, based on Anglin (1993). Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.a Years of gain equals mean age in Grade 2 minus 1 for infancy to Grade 2, and mean age in Grade 5 minus mean age in Grade 2 for Grade 3 to Grade 5.

Ages for specific quartiles were used.

annual gain by 365 days. Daily gains in root word vocabulary from

Grade 2 to Grade 5 were estimated by dividing the difference

between estimated vocabulary at the end of Grade 2 and vocabu-

lary at the end of Grade 5 by (mean age in Grade 5 — mean age

in Grade 2) and then dividing this value by 365 days. Some

surprising results can be seen in Table 11. The observed differ-

ences between the highest and lowest vocabulary quartiles in

Grade 5 were about the same size as in Grade 2. (This conclusion

is based on cross-sectional data and is thus somewhat suspect.)

Overall, the average magnitude of difference between the highest

and lowest quartiles was around 3,900 root words in Grade 2 and

was slightly smaller in Grade 5 (3,700 root words). (The difference

between the highest and lowest quartiles was greater in Grade 4

and differed more between the normative and advantaged samples:

4,800 for normative and 5,900 for advantaged.)

Sequence of Word Difficulty

The mean percentage correct for each word in Forms A and B

by children in each available grade for the normative and advan-

taged samples are given in Appendixes B and C. In both appen-

dixes, the words were ordered by average difficulty in Grades 1

to 5 (omitting Grade 3) because data were available for these

grades in all samples. Pearson correlations between word means in

different grades and populations are given in Appendixes D and E.

Correlations between average word means for the normative and

advantaged population were .96 for Form A and .91 for Form B.

In general, these correlations imply that children are learning

words in largely the same order. Data in support of this conclusion

are presented in the next section.

Within each 58- or 59-word form, each group of 6 words

represents a decile of 1,300 of the 13,000 estimated Level 2 to

Level 12 nonredundant root words in LWV, ranging from the

easiest to the hardest. (Only 5 words were used to estimate deciles

in the cases of the first decile for Form A and the first and last

deciles for Form B.) Achievement groups were based on overall

performance on the vocabulary test: 0%-10%, ll%-20%, and so

forth. Children from different grades could be included in the same

achievement group. Mean scores for each of these groups of words

were calculated for each ability group of children.

Evidence can be seen in Figure 2 that words are learned in a

roughly fixed order and that at any given level of overall word

knowledge there are two or three deciles of root words at the

25%-74% correct range. The groups of children knowing only

3%-10% and ll%-20% of all words in the test mainly knew

words from the first two or three sets of words (from the best

known decile, the second best known decile, etc.). The group with

knowledge of 45% of words overall knew over 75% percent of

words in the first four deciles of words. Those knowing 55% or

65% of the words knew over 75% of the first five or six deciles of

words, respectively. Overall, these descriptive data strongly sug-

lee 1*=̂

• \ \

\ >

\ \

- \ \

\

\

. \

\

\ ' - - \

\ \

^ \

\ \

\ »--

\ \

x \•V \

\ \

\ \ ;

\

N

\\

\\

\\

\

\ v

_

\

GRP65

6RP55

GRP45

GRP35

GRP25

GRP15

GRP»5

1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rord D e c i l e Group

Figure 2. Percentage of words known at each cumulative level of vocab-

ulary for vocabulary ability groups from 5% of total vocabulary to 65% of

total vocabulary. Children knew the following percentages of words tested:

GRP05 = 0%-9%; GRP15 = 10%-19%; GRP25 = 20%-29%; GRP35 =

30%-39%; GRP45 = 40%-49%; GRP55 = 50%-59%; GRP65 = 60%-


gest that children are acquiring vocabulary in a relatively predict-able order.

Discussion

There are four main findings of interest from our research.

First, the data showed a strong relationship between average

knowledge of words in our study and LWV levels, with over 52%

of average word score variance associated with LWV levels in the

normative sample and 62% of average score variance associated

with LWV levels in the advantaged sample. This provides sub-

stantial evidence of the validity of Dale and O'Rourke's (1981)

work for current populations.

Second, in the normative population, we estimate that on aver-

age, children had acquired about 5,200 root words by the end of

Grade 2, or about 2.2 words per day from 1 year of age. During

Grades 3 to 5, children in the normative sample gained an aver-

age 3,200 additional root words, or about 2.9 words per day. In the

advantaged population, more root words had been acquired by the

end of Grade 2—6,200 words, or 2.4 words per day. However,

after Grade 2 the advantaged children gained an additional 2,500,

or about 2.3 words per day by Grade 5.

Third, a comparison of quartile groups in different grades indi-

cates that large differences in root word vocabulary had occurred

by Grade 2, with the mean for the lowest quartile being 4,100 less

than the mean for the highest quartile in the normative sample

and 3,600 less in the advantaged sample. Most differences between

children with relatively low vocabulary compared with those with

relatively high vocabulary had occurred by the end of Grade 2.

After Grade 2, the rate of word acquisition varied from 2.1 to 3.0

root words per day, with lower quartile normative children gaining

the most between Grades 3 and 5.

Fourth, the study shows that individual words are known in

much the same order in all grades from kindergarten to Grade 5

(except that there are a number of words not known at all in

kindergarten and Grade 1). This implies that words are being

learned in a fairly fixed order. Examination of words known by

specific vocabulary achievement groups further supports the view

that words are learned in roughly the same order. Thus we can

predict roughly which words a child is likely to learn next on the

basis of the total number of words known by that child.

Several points are discussed in this section, including (a) limi-

tations to using LWV levels for sequencing vocabulary curricu-

lum, (b) the observed rapid increase in vocabulary in Grade 2, (c)

the declining difference between the normative and advantaged

populations, (d) the significance of individual differences before

and after Grade 2, and (e) the significance of a consistent sequence

of word acquisition. Educational implications are also discussed,

including (a) the implications of differences in the number of

words learned by Grade 2, (b) the implications of vocabulary size

and gains after Grade 2, and (c) the educational implications of the

sequence of word acquisition.

Limitations to Using LWV Levels for Sequencing

Vocabulary Curriculum

As can be seen in Appendix A, words ordered by difficulty asobserved in all of our studies do not correspond closely to Dale andO'Rourke's levels, especially in the middle range of word diffi-

culty (ranging from the third to eighth deciles in word difficulty).

The numbers of words from each of Dale and O'Rourke's levels in

each decile of observed word difficulty in our Studies 1 and 3 are

given in Table 12. Words from the middle deciles incorporate

words from Level 4 to Level 10. The fifth to sixth deciles of word

difficulty included predominantly words from Dale and

O'Rourke's Levels 4 and 6, whereas the eighth and ninth deciles

of difficulty predominantly included words from Levels 8 and 10.

Deciles 4 and 7 included words from many LWV levels. We

suggest two reasons why LWV levels have limited value for

identifying a curriculum vocabulary sequence. First, children were

ordered by grade rather than vocabulary achievement level. As can

be seen in Appendixes F and G, children in a given grade were in

at least three achievement groups. Thus, grade levels are weak

indicators of whether a word will be known. Second, use of three

alternative multiple choice items in LWV allowed fairly frequent

guessing of correct responses. Finally, in general, we believe that

our assessment of word meaning is more accurate than multiple

choice data. However, it is possible that in some cases our test

sentences may have been unreasonably easy or difficult.

For practical purposes, children in the third and fourth grades

might focus on root words from Level 4 and 6 words and encoun-

ter some from Level 8 and 10 words. In Grades 5 and 6, children

might focus on words from Levels 8 and 10, while continuing to

encounter some additional Level 4 and 6 words. This is based on

the percentages of words known at different levels in Studies 1

and 3. The problem is determining which words from given levels

should be used. Unfortunately, we can only suggest common sense

as one reviews words from different levels that occur in books

used with children in different grades. We suggest keeping track of

what words have been introduced (in text and with definitions as

needed). By Grade 6, have most of the Level 4 and 6 words been

introduced? Have perhaps 50% of the Level 8 and 10 words been

introduced? In total, this would involve introducing about 6,900

root words (based on Table 1). However, even children in the low

quartile knew 3,000 words by the end of Grade 2, including

roughly 1,000 words above Level 2. To bring the lowest quartile to

Table 12

Numbers of Words by Word Difficulty Deciles by Dale and

O'Rourke's Levels: Data From Combined Forms A and B

for the Normative Population

Decile

0%-10%ll%-20%21%-30%31%^K)%41%-50%51%-60%61%-70%71%-80%81%-90%91%-100%

All

2

8740100000

20

4

1351252100

20

Level

6

1213532210

20

8

0022220443

19

10

0005213441

20

12

0001015137

18

Total

10121212121212121211

117

Note. Three words were omitted because they were changed with differ-ent samples.


average levels, they would need to pick up another 1,500 words a

year. As seen in Table 11, cross-sectional data suggest that chil-

dren in the lowest normative quartile gained about 900 words a

year during Grades 3 to 6. What is needed is an increase of 600

root words a year over what we see now. This conclusion is based

on small samples and should only be seen as suggestive. However,

the present state of the art includes no estimates of actual numbers

of root words needed and no guidance on what words might be

included.

The Observed Rapid Increase in Vocabulary in Grade 2

In three samples, we have found a rapid increase in vocabulary

in Grade 2. Other researchers have not reported unusually large

gains in Grade 2. (An exception may be White et al. (1990), who

found large gains between Grades 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3.)

What might account for this finding? Three possible answers are

discussed.

Methodology. Our method requires children to give word

meanings orally for words presented in a sentence context. (This

method or variants of it have been used with adults; e.g., Hazen-

berg and Hulstijn, 1996). We are not aware of other instances

where this "sentence context" approach has been used with young

children. Could children simply become much more able to give

verbal descriptions of word meanings in Grade 2, as part of the

general cognitive changes known at this age? Note that somewhat

different words seem to be being mastered in Grade 2 by children

in the normative and advantaged samples. (See Appendixes B and

C.) We are currently undertaking a study comparing vocabulary

levels as assessed by Peabody picture vocabulary methodology

and levels as assessed by sentence context methods. We will be

contrasting children's ability to identify words using multiple

pictured alternatives with a sentence approach with the same

Peabody items.

Reading. Clearly one difference is that by the end of Grade 2,

most children are reading to some degree. We believe that it is

possible that when encountering an unfamiliar word while reading,

students may be able to pause and consider meanings in a way that

they cannot when hearing unfamiliar words in context. However,

if reading alone explained the gains in Grade 2, we would expect

continued relatively large gains in Grades 3 to 6. This is simply not

the case.

Cognitive-developmental change. Age 7 has long been rec-

ognized as a change point in human development (e.g., Case,

1985; Flavell, 1992; Piaget, 1971). Following Case's (1985, 1992)

cognitive-developmental theory, which emphasizes the role of

increasing working memory capacity, we believe it is possible that

around age 7, children become more capable of asking questions

about words they do not know. (We will elaborate on this point in

a forthcoming paper.) There is evidence (Beals, 1997) that in

conversations, children 5 and younger rarely ask about words they

don't understand. (Conversely, any parent knows that young chil-

dren often ask about objects and actions for which they don't have

word; e.g., "What's that?" or "What are you doing?") Using an

interview procedure with Grade 5 and 6 children, Biemiller

(1999a) found that children report that most words recently ac-

quired were learned either as a result of asking about them or of

adult-initiated instruction. We hypothesize that increased cognitive

capacity at age 7 may make inquiring about words easier. Briefly,

we suggest that increased working memory capacity may allow a

child to attend to problems with words without having to "forget

about" the story context. Increased capacity may also make learn-

ing words from adult instruction easier. This is a hypothesis that

can be investigated relatively easily.

The Declining Difference Between the Normative and

Advantaged Populations During the Elementary Years

By the end of Grade 2, the advantaged children had about 20%

more root words (see Table 11). (The difference was larger in

Grade 1 and kindergarten, but that is suspect for the reasons just

discussed.) The early large difference presumably reflects the

effects of an advantaged environment and possibly greater expe-

rience with defining or explaining words. As described in Hart and

Risley's (1995) book on the experiences of young American

children, advantaged children are exposed to many more words

than average or disadvantaged children. They participate in more

complex verbal discussions. It appears that these differences in

experience lead to marked differences in vocabulary development.

However, there also appears to be a "catch-up" process underway

during the elementary school years, with less advantaged and

lower quartile children adding root word vocabulary somewhat

more rapidly than their advantaged peers during the Grade 2 to

Grade 5 period. By Grade 5 there was no meaningful difference

between the normative and advantaged groups in estimated root

word vocabulary (3%).

It is possible that if more words known largely by college-

educated people were included (as was the case in Anglin's study

from 1993), greater differences between the samples would have

appeared. It is also possible that if morphologically complex words

were included, differences in favor of the advantaged sample—or

the highest quartiles in both populations—would have appeared.

However, at present it appears that in root word growth there is a

definite "catch-up" phenomenon, with normal children catching up

to advantaged children. The critical factor in this catch-up is the

apparent relatively lower rate of root word acquisition in the

middle elementary years by the advantaged population in our

study. It is possible that this finding is unique to the school studied

or that the additional words being acquired by these advantaged

children are simply not those tested here.

The Significance of Individual Differences Before and

After Grade 2

Although there appears to be a catch-up between advantaged

and normative populations as a whole, the difference between the

highest and lowest quartile groups remains much more constant

between Grades 2 and 5. If children of differing vocabulary size

can acquire similar numbers of words after Grade 2, it seems likely

that they could acquire new words at a similar rate earlier. How-

ever before Grade 2, as Becker (1977) observed, there is little

effort to introduce hundreds of new words in the primary grades.

The Significance of a Consistent Sequence of Word

Acquisition

There is a marked similarity in mean scores for words in the

different populations and grades when ability and word difficulty


are controlled. (See Figure 2 and Appendixes F and G.) What can

account for these stabilities?

Methodology. It is certainly possible that in some cases, the

sentences we used to create "context" for the words may have

made the item particularly easy or difficult.

Word frequency. Word frequency is usually involved to ac-

count for differences in word knowledge (e.g., see references in

White et al., 1990). Carroll, Davies, and Richmond (1971) pro-

vided substantial data on word frequencies in schoolbook English.

However, Carroll et al.'s frequencies account for relatively little

variance in word knowledge in this sample of words. The highest

Pearson correlation obtained, r = .26, was calculated between SFI

and the average scores for words in Grades 1, 2, 4, and 5. (SFI is

a logarithmic index of word frequency in Carroll et al.). This

accounts for 7% of the observed Root Word Inventory variance. In

contrast, the LWV levels account for 52% of root word variance.

Adding the frequency index to LWV accounts for no additional

Root Word Inventory variance. On the other hand, advantaged

population word means account for 83% of normative population

word means. Again, neither LWV levels nor the frequency index

adds any significant variance to this association.

Why does frequency have so little effect? Part of the answer lies

in the varying meanings of words. Some of the meanings that we

used based on random sampling from LWV were uncommon uses

of common words [e.g., beat (wings), bit (computer information),

or tree (rack for shoes, hats)]. These words have high frequencies

in print, but not in the meanings used. Frequencies of word

meanings rather than word forms might lead to better predictions

(but would be very hard to produce). It is also possible that some

words have different frequencies in oral use than in print. It is clear

that factors other than print frequency account for most variation in

word knowledge as identified by both LWV and our Root Word

Inventory.

Sequential pattern made clearer by cross-age ability grouping.

The existence of a strong sequence in word acquisition is not

surprising. However, it is important to note that when data are

grouped by achievement level rather than by grade (as LWV does)

or age (as Peabody and Wechsler do), sequential patterns become

clearer. Note in Appendixes F and G that in the present data,

specific "achievement levels" typically include children from three

or four grades.

Are there underlying developmental factors explaining the

order of word acquisition? Certainly some of the words rarely

known even by Grade 6 may involve complex meanings requir-

ing further cognitive advances. Possible examples might be

Reformation, locomotion, and oligarchy. However, there are

other words virtually unknown by sixth graders that may simply

not have been experienced. Examples might be valor, parch,

and destitute. These and others appear to be concepts that could

be understood at younger ages. Frankly, at this point, we

believe that there is a stronger observed sequence of word

learning than can be explained solely by cognitive constraints,

as can be seen in Appendix A. We wish we could provide a

better explanation for the clear sequence we see. We can be

clearer about what does not explain this sequence (e.g., print

word frequency, cognitive constraints) than about what does

explain this observed sequence of word acquisition.

The Educational Implications of These Findings

Each of these findings has considerable significance for educa-

tional practice.

Implications of word acquisition by Grade 2. At the end of

Grade 2, children in the lowest quartile had 2000 fewer root words

than the average. Feitelson and her colleagues (Feitelson, Gold-

stein, Iraqi, & Share, 1991; Feitelson, Kita, & Goldstein, 1986)

have demonstrated that it is possible to increase rates of vocabu-

lary and language acquisition significantly prior to Grade 2. By far

the simplest way to reduce vocabulary differences apparent in

Grade 2 or 3 would be to make some effort to foster vocabulary

growth in the preschool and early primary years.

Implications of word acquisition after Grade 2. It is important

to note that children in the normative sample appear to be catching

up to the advantaged sample between second and fifth grade.

However, the absolute difference in root word vocabulary between

the least and most advanced quartiles remains quite large in all

grades in both the normative and advantaged samples. The lowest

Grade 5 quartiles in both populations had a root word vocabulary

around the level of Grade 4 children near the median (see Table

11). Thus schooling appears to allow some catching up across

social classes but may not reduce differences between those who

started school with large vocabularies and those who did not.

Various studies have shown that it is possible to increase rates of

vocabulary acquisition in the middle-grade years (see Stahl, 1999,

for a summary). It remains to be seen whether low-quartile chil-

dren can come closer to average fifth- or sixth-grade achievement.

It may also be necessary to recognize, as Chall and Conard

(1991) suggested, that children who are lagging in vocabulary

development may need reading materials that are somewhat more

restricted in their vocabulary demands, especially for "indepen-

dent" (unassisted) reading. Either there must be variation in the

vocabulary demands of books read by different children, or the

range of ages in classes must vary somewhat more so that children

have more similar vocabulary achievement. To what extent a

somewhat looser definition of ages appropriate to grades would

help remains a subject of much debate. However, these data would

be consistent with allowing a wider variation of ages for particular

grades, as suggested in Biemiller (1993).

Implications of a sequence of word acquisition. Root words

appear to be learned in roughly the same order by most children.

(We also have preliminary evidence suggesting that the same is

true even for children whose first language is not English; Bie-

miller, 1999a). To some degree, this word order can be predicted

from LWV levels. This suggests that a plausible vocabulary cur-

riculum sequence can be established empirically. It becomes rea-

sonable to define bodies of vocabulary that should be largely

known by certain grades, or better, by points in a curriculum

(through which students may not progress at the same rate). This

may be especially important before children are reading—in kin-

dergarten and Grade 1. For example, it appears that by the end of

Grade 2, average children understand most Level 2 words, about

half of Level 4 words, and about a third of Level 6 words from the

LWV. It would be worth trying to bring most children to this level

of vocabulary achievement.

On a vocabulary test, we may infer that they are familiar with

most of the words up to an identifiable range of words, are likely

to be learning another identifiable range of words, and probably


need relatively little emphasis on words more difficult than that

second range of words. As they progress, we can identify ranges of

words that should then be introduced.

A Final Note

We began this article by observing that although vocabulary

development is crucial for school success, it has not received the

attention and interest that work on identifying printed words and

spelling have received. The findings presented herein support the

need to create a more systematic approach to facilitating vocabu-

lary development in the schools. If we are roughly correct, an

average rate of about 3 root words per day (6 if all words were to

be learned at school) is a potentially manageable task. Evidence

that all children are adding words at similar rates after Grade 2

suggests that with greater educational focus on vocabulary, chil-

dren could start adding words at a similar level from kindergarten

or earlier. Evidence that there is a well-defined sequence to what

words are learned makes the problem of planning a vocabulary

curriculum more realistic. A move to a more teacher-centered

approach to vocabulary development is a needed complement to

the move to increased focus on phonics skills in reading that has

occurred in the past decade.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about

print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allington, R. L., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1998). The politics of literacy

teaching: How "research" shaped educational policy. Educational Re-

searcher, 25(8), 4-12.

Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 55(10,

Serial No. 238).

Beals, D. (1997). Sources of support for learning words in conversation:

Evidence from mealtimes. Child Language, 24, 673-694.

Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1990). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In

R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),

Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 2, pp. 789-814). New York:

Longman.

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C , & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term

vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.

Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvan-

taged—What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational

Review, 47, 518-543.

Biemiller, A. (1993, December). Lake Wobegon revisited: On diversity

and education. Educational Researcher, 22, 7-12.

Biemiller, A. (1998, April). Oral vocabulary, word identification, and

reading comprehension in English second language and English first

language elementary school children. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, San Diego,

CA.

Biemiller, A. (1999a, April). Estimating vocabulary growth for ESL chil-

dren with and without listening comprehension instruction. Paper pre-

sented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research

Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Biemiller, A. (1999b). Language and reading success. Cambridge, MA:

Brookline Books.

Cantalini, M. (1987). The effects of age and gender on school readiness

and school success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute

for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richmond, B. (1971). The American Heritage

word frequency book. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York:

Academic Press.

Case, R. (1992). The mind's staircase: Exploring the conceptual under-

pinnings of children's thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language

basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal

investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331-361.

Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development. (2nd ed.). New York:

Harcourt Brace. (Original work published 1983)

Chall, J. S., & Conard, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students?

New York: Teachers College Press.

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis:

Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition

and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Devel-

opmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

Curtis, M. E. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 72, 656-669.

Curtis, M. E. (1987). Vocabulary testing and vocabulary instruction. In

M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary

acquisition (pp. 37-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Curtis, M. E., & Longo, A. M. (1999). When adolescents can't read:

Methods and materials that work. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1979). The living word vocabulary: The words

we know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary. Chicago:

World Book/Childcraft International.

Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (1994). Economic depriva-

tion and early childhood development. Child Development, 65, 296-

318.

Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., & Share, D. I. (1991). Effects of

listening to story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in a diglossic

situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 70-79.

Feitelson, D., Kita, B., and Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to

series stories on first graders' comprehension and use of language.

Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339-356.

Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future.

Developmental Psychology, 28, 998-1005.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading

disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.

Graves, M. F., Juel, C , & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the

21st century. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gregory, D., Earl, L., & O'Donoghue, B. (1993). A study of reading

recovery in Scarborough: 1990-1992 (Publication No. 92/93-15). Scar-

borough, Ontario, Canada: Scarborough Board of Education.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday

experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.

Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive

second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: An em-

pirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17, 145-163.

Huttenlocher, J., Levine, S., & Vevea, J. (1998). Environmental input and

cognitive growth: A study using time-period comparisons. Child Devel-

opment, 69, 1012-1029.

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, J. L., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A.

(1993). Success for all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program

for inner-city schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30,

123-148.

McKeown, M. G., & Curtis, M. E. (Eds.). (1987). The nature of vocabulary

acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McLloyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child develop-

ment. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.


Morrison, F. J-, Williams, M. A., & Massetti, G. M. (1998, April). The

contributions of 1Q and schooling to academic achievement Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study

of Reading, San Diego, CA.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabu-

lary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G.

McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition

(pp. 19-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words

from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.

Piaget, J. (1971). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's

manual of child psychology (3rd ed., pp. 703-732). New York:

Wiley.

Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M.

(1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of

high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 9-38.

Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline

Books.

Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In D. Pearson

(Ed.), Handbook of research on reading (Vol. 1, pp. 293-317). New

York: Longman.

Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language.

(1981). Springfield, MA: Merriam.

White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of reading

vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 281-290.


Appendix A

Root Words From Forms A and B Showing Words Ordered by Mean Difficulty, Meanings Selected,Living Word Vocabulary (LWV) Level, and Test Sentences

Word Meaning tested

LWVlevel Test sentence

First decile (0-1,300 words)Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 91%-79%

fishflood

throatmatch

cafe

Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 93%-87%spread

shotnear

voice

stabSecond decile (1,301-2,600 words)

Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 77%-67%stuff

subtractdone

hopeflown

fussForm B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 85%-74%

looplisten

drop

swingkept

mathThird decile (2,601-3,900 words)

Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 66%-59%sliver

anchorbuckleboulder

secureright

Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 72%-54%space

shadowfresh

peep

wadjustice

Fourth decile (3,901-5,200 words)Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 57%-55%

cobratallyreact

thud

drama

blabForm B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 5Wc-Al%

dodothrough

matting

haulgull

litter

A water animalUnusual flow of waterPassage from stomach to mouthThing to light fireEating place

To distribute (over a surface, asin buttering or painting)

InjectionCloseSound from mouthStick knife into

Worthless things

Take number from anotherFinished doingTo expect and wish for

Moved through the air"Cry and scream

A circled string

To try to hearFall

Strike at a ballKeeps, keepSchool subject

Tiny piece of wood

Big iron hookTo fastenLarge rock

Free from fearExactly

Room

Dark spot cast by lightNew, not spoiledLook shylyRolled up bitFair dealing

SnakeCountAct backb

Dull soundPlaysTell secret

Extinct birdFrom start to endA straw fabricDistance travelledBirdDisorder

22222

2

6224

6

222

44

2

22

426

8

422

64

4

22484

68

1086

10

104

12106

10

Johnny caught a fish.The flood caused a lot of damage to the town.He felt a lump in his throat.

Where is the box of matches?

She met him at the cafe.

Use a knife to spread the jam.

Go to the doctor to get your shot.The drugstore was near the hospital.Stephanie's voice could be heard from far away.He pretended to stab his friend.

Take that stuff outside.Subtract the smaller number from the bigger number.I've done all my work.I hope that it rains today.The ball had flown a great distance.The baby made a fuss.

He made two loops with his shoe laces.You should listen to your mother.The ball dropped from his hand.Jamie took his second swing at the ball.He kept his old hockey trophies.John got his math work done quickly.

He got a sliver in his foot.He threw the anchor.

Buckle your seatbelt.The boulder was too heavy to move.When there is war people do not feel secure.

I want just the right dress.

There is space for only three passengers.He was afraid of his own shadow.A fridge keeps food fresh.She peeped around the corner.She gave me a wad of tissue paper.The criminal was brought to justice.

The cobra lived in the house.The teacher kept a tally of days missed.When the cat saw the mouse, she didn't react.There was a thud in the next room.She enjoys watching drama productions.He made a promise not to blab.

The dodo is extinct.The test continued through the day.The floor matting was frayed.It was a long haul from Mexico to Canada.The gulls were eating the food.The room was littered with empty cups.

(Appendix continues)


Appendix A (continued)

Word Meaning testedLWVlevel Test sentence

Fifth decile (5,201-6,500 words)Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 51%-42%

stockpeeveshimmer

straight

mammoth

rootForm B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 41%-34%

Vaseline

parcel

possumdistant

transitman

Sixth decile (6,501-7,800 words)Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 42%-24%

know

thigh

becausebeat

astronomyvictim

Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 31%-23%knollperiod

envelopgarble

duplexlash

Seventh decile (7,801-9,100 words)Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 23%-16%

tree

polo

guardformer

dibsinduct

Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 21%-11%text

nationominous

narrow

writhecurious

Eighth decile (9,101-10,400 words)Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 13%-8%

aliasvice

robust

rotary

swoonjunction

Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 10%-5%lust

character

cartilage

matrondelinquent

whittle

Supply, provideAnnoyFaint gleamDirectHugeDig around

Petroleum jellyPackageAnimalLong ago

Public transportationHumankind

RecognizeUpper part of legFor the reason thatFlap wings

About starsInjured person

Small hillA time in historySurroundTo mix upTwo homes in oneFasten with rope

Rack for shoes, hatsGame played on horsebackA defenseFirst of twoNext claim toTo bring in

SchoolbookA countryThreateningLacking a broad view

Twist aboutOdd, strange

False nameEvil habitStrong and healthyWheel-like motionFaintJoining

Strong desireNature of

Tough tissue

Married womanBreaks lawsCut wood with knife

68

1046

10

664

682

464

4

46

1048

128

6

124

6101212

64

1210

1210

101088

126

108

8

106

4

The boy stocked the shelves in the grocery store.My brother peeves me.The moonlight shimmered on the lake.The dog went straight home.It was a mammoth building.She rooted around in her basement for the sleeping bag.

The jar of Vaseline is on the shelf.The parcel was delivered to the office.He saw a possum.

The year my mother was born seems distant to me.The children took transit to school.Man has always had trouble with the weather.

He knows that person.The thigh is Marty's favorite part of the chicken.She went home because she was sick.The robin beat its wings.You use telescopes in astronomy.She was the victim.

The boy ran up and over the knoll.

The period of the dinosaurs was very interesting.Fog enveloped the city.He garbled his words.He lives on one side of a duplex.Lash the suitcase to the roof of the car.

The guests hung their hats on the coat tree.They were watching polo.Keep your guard up.The former Prime Minister spoke to the people.I have dibs on the car when she gets home.I wonder if the Baseball Hall of Fame will induct

John Doe.

She had a text about history.He had lived in two nations.There were ominous shadows in the alley.Many people have a narrow understanding of the

pollution issue.The caterpillar writhed about.What a curious thing to say!

When asked for his name, he gave an alias.Gambling is a vice.Construction workers must be very robust.The phone had a rotary dial.The sight of blood caused her to swoon.The junction links the two highways.

Their lust for battle was strong.Difficult times in life may show the true character of a

person.She suffered from torn cartilage.The matron came to the social tea.The delinquent arrived at the courthouse.He whittled a stick.

VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT

Appendix A (continued)

515

Word Meaning tested

LWVlevel Test sentence

Ninth decile (10,401-11,700 words)Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 7%-3%

bitfranchise

sequence

inquisitive

vainpopular

Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 5%-2%jurisdiction

perpendicular

emptyrepublic

discordcow

Tenth decile (11,701-13,000 words)Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 3%-l%

etch

question

valor

parch

destitutecognac

Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: \%-O%locomotion

lance

abrasiveReformation

oligarchy

Item of computer dataChain of businessesConnect in seriesCuriousConceitedRepresenting the people

Authority

Upright position

Without meaningRepresentative governmentClash of soundsFemale of species

Engrave with acidProblemCourageDry upTerribly poorFrench brandy

Ability to moveCut openScratch materialProtestant eraRuled by a few

121088

1012

10

8

108

126

1212108

1212

88

121212

There are 8 bits in 1 byte.He bought a restaurant franchise.

The sequence of events was surprising.The inquisitive scientist made many observations.People do not like her because she is vain.He was elected by popular vote.

The police officer had no jurisdiction outside the citylimits.

Climb the perpendicular pole.The book had an empty plot.The Republic of Mexico chose not to join.The band's concert was full of discord.The whale cow met the others.

I am going to etch a metal plate in art class today.She presented a difficult question.The valor of the knight was praised far and near.I was parched after my walk.He was destitute.Leave the cognac on the table.

His locomotion was poor.He lanced the wound.That material is abrasive.

The Reformation was a long time ago.A few countries in the world are oligarchies.

Note. The meanings given were selected randomly. Many words also have other given meanings." Not a root word. Included in test by error.b A derived word but probably learned as a basic word.

(Appendixes continue)


Word

cognac

destituteparch

valor

question

etchpopular

vain

inquisitive

sequencefranchisebit

junction

swoon

rotaryrobust

vicealias

inductdibs

former

guard

polo

tree

victimastronomy

beat

becausethigh

knowroot

mammothstraight

shimmerpeevestock

blab

drama

thudreact

tally

cobraright

secureboulder

buckleanchor

sliverfussflownhopedone

subtractstuff

cafematchthroatfloodfish

Correct Percentage

T \X/WLWV

level

12

128

10121212

1088

10126

1288

101012121064

12644464

1064

1086

1068

108646224844222622222

SK

Norm

000000000000000000000010

105

1005

10050

03500300

1024121733291262534843

8224852726769

Adv

00000000100010010000001013

455

3520

53

20106

330

254015

1602028507870536560556053508380709275

of Form

l

Norm

0000000000000005050005600

1155

11190

215

110

26360

1111214224324245134845343742425879717687

Appendix B

A Words Ordered by Normative Average for

Adv

14140000

101411160

147

16829

16147

1618143032452554423128452831402441592645837659736986766991629064789086919395

Norm

000000002100806

128

1060

1289

248

15302424444026404848464054546252526060626270767078686472788286

1009690

2

Adv

180555005

1612

15

1955773

279

10181923233259255521413264594343556475777384757377898477758691

1008680

1009895

10098

Grade

3

Adv

32777303

261010101322

1193116192544131963445044696384416944379453448769947297

100697581

1008484849797

1001008497

100100100100

4

Norm

1105000991

14131118149

249

2020222429222627354857445357576372528367787283707070616757897861858387897689879389

Adv

141

1819052

1610371095

10281914122328393459184675416275285064865759577768916464956868806284618680899591809193939193

Grades

5

Norm

11518

10105

1023131511252520182838555050454560554350656075707880838092939080828565839078888573909295

10010010092

1009597

1,2,

Adv

265

23210

1014141939239

3714211912212537484873254882467373395764666846559182827162917389778480847391829595918995939593

4, and 5

6

Adv

311

16548

153124585016588

4639

52424433958702358

10077817773737346628562889692586692777769658177858888

10010092

100100969296

1, 2, 4,

Norm

1112233456777

11111212131619212222232327283239424243455151515555565657575959616265666768707075777986909091

5(M)

Adv

182

1311144

111525126

199

17139

112322262942203755484664324547655345496264775961887372777684757687819584829293939595

Note. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary; SK = senior kindergarten; Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.


Appendix C

Correct Percentage of Form B Words Ordered by Normative Average for Grades 1,2, A, and 5

Word

oligarchyreformation

abrasive

lancelocomotioncow

discordrepublic

emptyperpendicular

jurisdiction

whittledelinquent

matroncartilagecharacter

lust

curiouswrithe

narrowominousnationtext

lashduplexgarble

envelopperiodknollman

transitdistantpossum

parcelVaseline

littergullhaulmattingthrough

dodojusticewadpeep

freshshadowspacemath

keptswingdrop

listenloopstabnearvoiceshotspread

LWVlevel

121212g8

612810810461088

10

101210124

6681284102864661061012410484224

62

422

242262

SK

Norm

000020000000000

0

050

05209020071493792599014

14

1814

1816

286641

1652

2375

59895271756893

1

Norm

0000300010000306030000030661172363231117622346171722

11395064503664507081787881898383

Adv

0005502091571277091459121193

01411255323250555914779181216483473737382688441868468771001007577

2

Norm

0000113210816041013471311101484026263828362134244448505038485650667866606672768076787880869290949498

Adv

0

0053001150

01100265355113752484511162468061427142557939682137453945589092558482878410095957692

8710089

3

Norm

0000141044412

54992118219212421383535283149545438435559413754646443697971627886768697849086909310095

Adv

102200

524

9

391027185832

36621505016271855185355846525948507580479542424682526886867595869564100959893100959586

Grade

4

Norm

00011136612611714176

251217233634502842423159394545695053425067647264567281536770839589958689869495899495

Adv

132811472501411421372143253032435501430215041715366239827173529526502571395577776482869166959589938684

8461

5

Norm

400521193113172746234611151746250304425466359215754817567485581597163798375889071928696921009696981008310096

Adv

138391275201595

12

14313

824

64342929882050242910535776103895558676889179204350506579959386

9172100

6295939510093917683

6

Norm

0

36515151613133525205408026164350104045633555589040706060805565958045407078739090100688885839710010010090100859595

Adv

16

05516235202810021160211437040204690237325433555657523458548958085909340803680589280100958090974595909387100738363

1, 2, 4,

Norm

0

0001

222

345557881011121414172123272727293134353839394141424647495154575864

67727476778383858789919393

5 (M)

Adv

4

31731231273135214420

421618224310

3412

3111

30

345644758496564754980193733444956848469857791639492878693

918778

Note. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary; SK = senior kindergarten; Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.



Appendix D

Form A: Correlations Between Word Means in Different Grade Groups and With Dale and O'Rourke's Levels

Grade

KNormAdv

il

NormAdv

2NormAdv

4NormAdv

5NormAdv

Average

NormAdv

LWVlevel

- .69- .76

-.75- .80

-.71- .73

-.66-.77

-.66-.77

- .76- .80

K

Norm

—

.86

.92

.81

.77

.73

.62

.64

.57

.61

.82

.76

Adv

—

.88

.93

.87

.88

.75

.77

.72

.75

.88

.91

1

Norm

_

.86

.85

.79

.71

.71

.67

.70

.88

.83

Adv

.93

.94

.86

.87

.84

.86

.93

.97

2

Norm

.95

.93

.86

.90

.86

.97

.94

Grade

Adv

.93

.91

.90

.90

.94

.98

4

Norm

.91

.95

.90

.94

.92

Adv

.92

.96

.91

.95

5

Norm

.92

.92

.91

Adv

.90

.94

Average

Norm

.96

Note. Number of observations = 59. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary; Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample; K = Kindergarten.

Appendix E

Form B: Correlations Between Word Means in Different Grade Groups and With Dale and O'Rourke's Levels

Grade

1NormAdv

2NormAdv

NormAdv

A

4

NormAdv

3

NormAdv

6NormAdv

Average

NormAdv

LWVlevel

- .70- .75

- .63-.74

-.64-.62

- .63-.61

-.69-.57

-.67-.48

- .70- .68

1

Norm

.88

.87

.82

.85

.77

.80

.73

.78

.63

.72

.54

.88

.78

Adv

—

.85

.90

.85

.87

.80

.86

.84

.77

.77

.69

.88

.91

2

Norm

.86

.95

.86

.93

.82

.92

.72

.86

.67

.97

.85

Adv

—

.90

.92

.85

.89

.92

.81

.91

.73

.93

.94

3

Norm

.87

.94

.84

.92

.74

.88

.67

.98

.87

Adv

—

.83

.94

.90

.85

.89

.82

.90

.97

Grade

4

Norm

_

.80

.92

.68

.85

.64

.96

.82

Adv

—

.89

.87

.87

.85

.88

.96

5

Norm

.79

.93

.75

.96

.91

Adv

—

.80

.93

.77

.93

6

Norm Adv

—.76 —

.93 .71

.89 .89

Average

Norm Adv

—.91 —

Note, n — 58. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary; Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.


Appendix F

Normative Population: Performance of Vocabulary Achievement Groups on Words of Varying Difficulty

Word decileand grade

Decile10987654321

GradeK1245

Total

Decile10987654321

GradeK123456

Total

Averageof grades1,2, '

Norm

25

1120324756627187

037

15273846628091

i, 5

Adv

8141127494969768494

8101823286044718487

0%-10%

0

000

02

0

1117

49

116100

18

00

00

001

143236

42000006

ll%-20%

01

01

58

6244774

86310

18

01

214

6

9254973

10512000

18

21%-30%

Form A:

004

113

2322

536589

Vocabulary

31%-40%

Percentages

005

923

4558687691

Form A: iVs

26430

15

Form B:

11

14

122125517492

01751

14

Percentages

13

817

253646688393

Form B: Ns

1

1056110

30

11

118623

32

ability group

41%-50%

12

1321

386384708591

00864

18

/5

1420

425664779595

005

106

113

35

51%-60%

210

18

30557287919497

00358

16

18

20

42547980869796

0023478

24

61%-70%

521

36757783948994

100

000369

416

28588183879397

100

0010135

10

71%-80%

(none)

000000

(none)

00000000

Total

2119262319

108

22182529182419

155

Note. Grade 3 children were not given Form A: Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample; K = kindergarten. Percentages in italics arebetween 0 and 24. Percentages in bold are between 75 and 99. All other percentages are between 25 and 74.



Appendix G

Advantaged Population: Performance of Vocabulary Achievement Groups on Words of Varying Difficulty

\17__.J *1 ^ "1

Word decileand grade

Decile109876

54321

GradeJK

SK123456

Total

Decile10987654321

Grade1234

6Total

Averageof Grades1,2,-

Norm

25

112032

4756627187

037

15273846628091

4,5

Adv

814112749

4969768494

8101823286044718487

0%-10%

0

0

1

0

4

2/6

21

37

102100100

14

(none)

0000000

ll%-20%

0

0

0

1

10

9

5

23

4268

95210100

18

0

0

0

2

0

6

4

21

6148

3001004

21%-30%

Form A:

;0

1

0

17

10

26556189

Vocabulary

31%-4O%

Percentages

;

3

2

3

293251758295

Form A: Ns

18910001

20

Form B:

0

1

1

3

5

2923536886

25534402

25

Percentages

4

4

3

15

225232668783

Form B: Ns

920200

13

6122521

28

ability group

41%-50%

7910

28535076829197

00565340

23

4

16

12

29366256778784

419796

36

51%-60%

8

25

1945756590839597

000687

107

38

12

19

24

46517773859292

036245

20

61%-70%

21

382561797496919597

00024646

22

17

413759707979889499

012556

19

71%-80%

31614172947293949798

000010348

45505863887988

100100100

0000123

Total

2220221922222120

168

221919222120

123

Note. Junior and senior kindergarten (JK and SK, respectively) children were not given Form B. Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.Percentages in italics are between 0 and 24. Percentages in bold are between 75 and 99. Ail other percentages are between 25 and 74.

Received August 10, 2000

Revision received October 26, 2000

Accepted October 27, 2000

root words 4

Documents