INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF TEACHERS’ VOCABULARY AND SCIENCE TALK 

DURING SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN EARLY-ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS 

 

 

By 

 

Blythe E. Anderson 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A DISSERTATION 

 

Submitted to 

Michigan State University 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements 

for the degree of 

 

Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education—Doctor of Philosophy 

 

2020 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF TEACHERS’ VOCABULARY AND SCIENCE TALK 

DURING SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN EARLY-ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS 

ABSTRACT 

 

 

By 

 

Blythe E. Anderson 

 

Oral language and vocabulary development in the early-elementary grades is important 

for students’ overall academic success. Oral language and vocabulary support science learning, 

and reciprocally, the background knowledge and vocabulary students gain when learning about 

the natural world supports their reading comprehension. Therefore, oral language and vocabulary 

development should be an essential focus of instruction for early-elementary students, and as 

such, current national standards for literacy and science instruction each emphasize oral language 

development. Given the importance of oral language and vocabulary development for both 

literacy and science learning, it is critical to understand how teachers support this development in 

early-elementary science instruction. Most observational studies of vocabulary instruction have 

taken place within the context of literacy instruction. As little is known about how teachers 

promote oral language and vocabulary development in science instruction in the early-

elementary grades, the present study investigated (1) how teachers use language to promote oral 

language and vocabulary development during science instruction in the early-elementary grades, 

(2) whether/how vocabulary talk relates to the language aspects of science talk, and (3) what 

features of science curriculum materials are related to enhanced vocabulary talk. 

To answer these questions, I conducted two instrumental case studies. In the first study, I 

examined the science instruction of a cohort of eight early-elementary teachers in order to 

understand how they used language to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development. In the second study, I examined the science instruction of Ms. Thompson, 

 

kindergarten teacher, in order to identify features of science curriculum materials that are related 

to enhanced vocabulary talk during science instruction. In total, 24 video recorded science 

lessons provided 894.27 minutes of observational data across three timepoints from the eight 

participating teachers. I used discourse analysis and other qualitative analysis techniques to 

examine the vocabulary talk moves (i.e., ways of using language to promote oral language and 

vocabulary development) the teachers made during science instruction. I also used quantitative 

techniques to make within- and between-teacher comparisons of vocabulary talk over the course 

of the study. 

The cohort of teachers used considerably more vocabulary talk moves for building 

students’ knowledge of word meanings than for scaffolding students’ word use, building 

students’ awareness of words and word learning, or interesting students in words and word 

learning. This study points to the need to consider the context in which vocabulary talk moves 

are made and the overall quality of this vocabulary talk in addition to examining which moves 

the teachers make. Curriculum materials that (a) identified target words and provided child-

friendly explanations/definitions, (b) used texts that highlight these target words and provided 

supports for extra-textual talk promoting vocabulary talk, and (c) offered discussion prompts that 

deepen students’ understandings of target word meanings were associated with enhanced 

vocabulary talk by Ms. Thompson. Likewise, the absence of these curricular features was 

associated with less vocabulary talk. 

This study contributes to the field’s understanding of the ways that science instruction 

supports literacy learning and literacy instruction supports science learning in the early-

elementary grades. The findings from this study have implications for curriculum development, 

teacher professional development, teacher preparation, and policy.  

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copyright by 
BLYTHE E ANDERSON 
2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

 

First, I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee. Dr. Tanya Wright 

(chair), thank you for your guidance over the past five years as my advisor, course instructor, and 

supervisor. You always push my thinking and I’m grateful for all of your feedback, support, and 

the opportunities you’ve provided with SOLID Start and the Vocabulary SIG. Thank you for 

helping me see the story in the data and connect it to the larger picture. Dr. Patricia Edwards, 

thank you for always reminding me to consider what teachers can learn from my work and put 

into action Monday morning. Your guidance throughout grad school, your advice for navigating 

the next steps as an early career scholar, and your willingness to connect me with other scholars 

are all greatly appreciated. Dr. Amelia Gotwals, thank you for your guidance with quantitative 

analysis and helping me think about vocabulary within science instruction. I appreciate all of 

your encouragement and support throughout my practicum, dissertation, and work with the 

SOLID Start project. Dr. Laura Tortorelli, thank you for pushing my thinking in class and when 

serving on my guidance and dissertation committees. I also appreciate all of your support with 

teaching TE 301 my first year, with being an academic mama, and with navigating the job 

market. Dr. Jennifer VanDerHeide, thank you for making discourse analysis less scary. Before 

taking your course, I was intrigued but a bit intimidated. Thank you for being so real and for 

thinking alongside me. 

 

I would like to thank the Michigan State University Department of Teacher Education as 

a whole, and all the faculty and staff who provided support, encouragement, opportunities, and 

mentorship. There are too many people to name everyone, but I would like to recognize a few in 

particular. Thank you to Dr. Carrie Symons for always making time for “Carrapy sessions” when 

  v 

I am stuck and need a thought partner or advice. Writing, teaching, and learning with you is a 

gift. Thank you to Dr. Shireen Al-Adeimi for helping me think through utterances and c-units for 

my analysis. Thank you also for modeling an amazing job talk and for your support with the job 

market. Thank you also to Terry Edwards, Amy Peebles, and Sue Sipkovsky for making sure I 

always had what I needed.  

To the entire SOLID Start team, thank you for your collaboration and support. Special 

thanks to Arianna Pikus for sharing your expertise with all things stats (and stats adjacent) and to 

Maddie Korte for quickly learning my complex transcription guidelines and for capturing all that 

talk. 

 

I would like to acknowledge the incredible academic women who have been on this 

journey with me. I am deeply grateful to have each of you in my life. Dr. Lindsay Wexler, you 

go above and beyond as a mentor, friend, and colleague. Your support with navigating grad 

school, academic mama-ing, the job search, and life in general has been invaluable. Thank you 

for being (at least) a step ahead and lighting the path! Dr. Kaitlin Glause, you have been there 

every step of this journey, sharing all the academic and mama milestones—what a gift! Thank 

you for the countless pep talks, writing weekends, latte runs, accountability texts, and 

presentation run-throughs. Turtle, turtle! (Thank you also to Drs. Debra and Brian Schutte for all 

of your support along the way as well. Having space to write this past year in particular was 

especially helpful!) Dr. Lisa Domke, thank you for all of the trickle-down advising, weekend 

writing days, and late-night Zooms. My favorite part of this study was double coding with you; 

you are an incredible thought partner and your questions made this work stronger. I’m so 

thankful you’re only a text away. Dr. Amy Guenther, you are a fantastic listener and friend. 

Thank you for all the chats, dinners, phone calls, and words of encouragement. Our guest room 

  vi 

may be farther away now, but “Dr. Amys” is always welcome! JoAnne West, thank you for your 

listening ears, your mama advice, and for just getting it. Co-teaching with you was such fun! Dr. 

Katie Schenkel, thank you for all the writing dates and for sharing meals and laughter. I’m 

grateful for your friendship. Dr. Melissa Gallagher, thank you for your mentorship from the very 

start. Researching and writing with you before/during grad school was an incredible learning 

experience and the perfect academic training wheels. Everyone needs a Melissa! Dr. Peggy 

Pruisner, thank you for advising me beyond college and helping me select Michigan State for 

this journey.  

 

Thank you to all of my friends who have supported me from afar and celebrated each 

milestone along the way. Special thanks to Clarissa Mathews, Justine Trueblood, Jordan Russell, 

Sara Berryman, and Allie Miguel for all the phone calls, texts, Snaps, Polos, and Zooms.  

 

Lastly, I would like to thank my family, who has believed in this dream along with me 

from the start. Your 100 notes of encouragement for the final days of grad school were extra 

special and so timely given the additional challenge of dissertating during a pandemic. To my 

parents, thank you for all of your support throughout this journey. I am especially thankful for all 

your support in the final weeks of writing and for taking care of us all during this time. We are 

deeply grateful. To Kyle, thank you for going on this crazy journey with me and for all of your 

love, encouragement, understanding, and patience along the way. I am grateful for your 

willingness to chase this dream with me, and I can’t wait to embark on the next phase of this 

adventure with you. And to Myra, who wrote many “dissertations” in the time it took me to write 

just one, thank you for reminding me to play. 

 

 
 

 vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi 
 
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii 
 
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 
Statement of the Issue ................................................................................................................. 1 
Overview of the Present Study ................................................................................................... 6 
Contribution of the Study............................................................................................................ 8 

 
CHAPTER 2—CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................... 10 
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 10 
Social Nature of Language Learning .................................................................................... 10 
Action Through Language .................................................................................................... 13 
Complex Nature of Word Learning ...................................................................................... 14 
Word Consciousness and Word Learning............................................................................. 15 
How Children Learn Words ...................................................................................................... 17 
Knowledge and Understanding ............................................................................................. 18 
Student Word Use ................................................................................................................. 25 
Metalinguistic and Metacognitive Awareness ...................................................................... 27 
Opportunities for Oral Language and Vocabulary Development in Science Instruction ......... 32 
The Present Study ..................................................................................................................... 35 
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 35 

 
CHAPTER 3—METHODS .......................................................................................................... 37 
Context of Larger Study............................................................................................................ 37 
Study 1: Vocabulary and Science Talk in Eight Early-Elementary Classrooms ...................... 38 
Design and Logic .................................................................................................................. 39 
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 39 
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................... 40 
Demographic Background and Teaching Experience Information Survey ...................... 40 
Weekly Instructional Log ................................................................................................. 41 
Video Recordings of Science Lessons .............................................................................. 41 
Analytic Strategies ................................................................................................................ 42 

Research Question 1: How Do Teachers Use Language to Promote Students’ Oral 
Language and Vocabulary Development During Science Instruction in Early-Elementary 
Classrooms? ...................................................................................................................... 42 
Research Question 2: Is Vocabulary Talk Related to the Language Aspects of Science 
Talk, and if so, How? ........................................................................................................ 52 
Study 2: Curricular Features and Vocabulary Talk in a Kindergarten Classroom ................... 56 
Design and Logic .................................................................................................................. 56 
Participant ............................................................................................................................. 58 
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................... 58 

 viii 

Analytic Strategies ................................................................................................................ 59 
Researcher Positionality............................................................................................................ 60 
Limitations to the Method ......................................................................................................... 61 
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 63 

 
CHAPTER 4—STUDY 1 FINDINGS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1-2 ..................................... 64 
The Teachers ............................................................................................................................. 65 
Ms. Henderson ...................................................................................................................... 65 
Ms. Thompson ...................................................................................................................... 66 
Ms. Nelson ............................................................................................................................ 66 
Ms. Baker .............................................................................................................................. 67 
Ms. Watson ........................................................................................................................... 67 
Ms. Griffin ............................................................................................................................ 68 
Ms. Howard........................................................................................................................... 68 
Ms. Hill ................................................................................................................................. 69 

Research Question 1: How Do Teachers Use Language to Promote Students’ Oral Language 
and Vocabulary Development During Science Instruction in Early-Elementary Classrooms? 70 
Knowledge & Understanding ............................................................................................... 72 
Affective Factors ................................................................................................................... 76 
Student Word Use ................................................................................................................. 79 
Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness ......................................................................... 82 
Within-Teacher Comparisons of Vocabulary Talk ............................................................... 84 
Between-Teacher Comparisons of Vocabulary Talk ............................................................ 86 

Research Question 2: Is Vocabulary Talk Related to the Language Aspects of Science Talk, 
and if so, How? ......................................................................................................................... 90 
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 98 

 
CHAPTER 5—STUDY 2 FINDINGS: RESEARCH QUESTION 3 .......................................... 99 
The Lessons ............................................................................................................................ 100 
SOLID Start: How Can We Prepare for Severe Weather Conditions? ............................... 100 
Teachers Pay Teachers: A Push Is a Force! ....................................................................... 102 
Mystery Science: Where Do Animals Live? ....................................................................... 103 
Targeted Vocabulary ............................................................................................................... 105 
Texts and Supports for Extra-Textual Talk ............................................................................ 121 
Discussion Prompts ................................................................................................................. 126 
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 129 

 
CHAPTER 6—DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. 131 
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 131 
Types of Vocabulary Talk .................................................................................................. 133 
Quality of Vocabulary Talk ................................................................................................ 139 
Curricular Supports for Vocabulary Talk ........................................................................... 141 
Implications............................................................................................................................. 145 
Curriculum Development.................................................................................................... 145 
Teacher Professional Development .................................................................................... 146 
Teacher Preparation ............................................................................................................ 147 

  ix 

Policy .................................................................................................................................. 148 
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 149 
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 151 
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 152 

 
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 154 
APPENDIX A—SOLID START PD RECRUITMENT INFORMATION ........................... 155 
APPENDIX B—DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE 
INFORMATION SURVEY.................................................................................................... 156 
APPENDIX C—WEEKLY INSTRUCTIONAL LOG .......................................................... 160 
APPENDIX D—TRANSCRIPTION GUIDE ........................................................................ 161 
APPENDIX E—VOCABULARY TALK CODEBOOK ....................................................... 164 

 
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 167 
 
 

 

  x 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

Table 1 Relationships of Vocabulary Talk Moves to Target Words ............................................ 50 
 
Table 2 SOLID Start Tool: Domain 3, Components 1-2 .............................................................. 54 
 
Table 3 Sample Weighted and Composite Scores for a 20-Minute Lesson with Two Activities  56 
 
Table 4 Frequency of Vocabulary Talk Moves ............................................................................ 71 
 
Table 5 Words Targeted for Instruction...................................................................................... 113 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

  xi 

 

 
 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

Figure 1 Domains of Science Talk................................................................................................ 53 
 
Figure 2 Within-Teacher Comparisons of Vocabulary Talk Types Across Lessons .................... 85 
 
Figure 3 Between-Teacher Comparison of Vocabulary Talk Types Across Lessons .................. 88 
 
Figure 4 Ms. Henderson’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk .................................................... 91 
 
Figure 5 Ms. Baker’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk ............................................................ 91 
 
Figure 6 Ms. Watson’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk ......................................................... 92 
 
Figure 7 Ms. Griffin’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk .......................................................... 92 
 
Figure 8 Ms. Hill’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk ............................................................... 93 
 
Figure 9 Ms. Nelson’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk .......................................................... 94 
 
Figure 10 Ms. Thompson’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk .................................................. 95 
 
Figure 11 Ms. Howard’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk ....................................................... 97 
 
Figure 12 Ms. Thompson’s Vocabulary Talk ............................................................................. 100 

 xii 

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION 

Statement of the Issue 

Oral language and vocabulary development in the early-elementary grades is important 

for students’ overall academic success. Vocabulary knowledge has long been established as 

having a significant impact on literacy learning, as understanding the meaning of words in text is 

central to comprehending the text (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Davis, 1944; Ouellette & Beers, 

2010). Knowing the meaning(s) of many words supports comprehension and as such, the size of 

students’ vocabularies is predictive of both concurrent (Ricketts et al., 2007) and later (Senechal 

et al., 2006) reading comprehension. This impact is not limited to literacy learning, as oral 

language and vocabulary support science learning as well (e.g., Mercer et al., 2004; Richmond & 

Striley, 1996; Wright & Gotwals, 2017). Reciprocally, the background knowledge and 

vocabulary students gain when learning about the natural world supports their reading 

comprehension (e.g., Guthrie, Anderson, Alao, & Rinehart, 1999; Wang & Herman, 2006). 

Therefore, oral language and vocabulary development should be an essential focus of instruction 

for early-elementary students—including within science instruction. 

As such, current national standards for literacy and science instruction each emphasize 

oral language development. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) call for students to 

engage in substantive talk, beginning in the early-elementary grades (National Governors 

Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). In order to 

meet Listening and Speaking English Language Arts standards, kindergarteners, for instance, are 

expected to participate in collaborative conversations; follow agreed-upon rules for discussions; 

continue a conversation through multiple exchanges; ask and answer questions to confirm 

understanding, seek help, get information, or clarify something not understood; provide 

  1 

descriptions; and express thoughts, feelings, and ideas clearly. Similarly, the Next Generation 

Science Standards (NGSS) call for students to engage in the kinds of talk that scientists do, 

beginning in kindergarten (NGSS Lead States, 2013). To meet these standards, kindergarteners 

need to be able to describe patterns, share observations, construct arguments supported by 

evidence, ask questions to obtain information, and communicate solutions (NGSS Lead States, 

2013; Wright & Gotwals, 2017). Thus, science instruction aligned to these ambitious standards 

would provide many opportunities for supporting early-elementary students’ language and 

literacy development (Wright & Domke, 2019).  

Although instruction supporting students’ oral language and vocabulary development is 

essential for early-elementary students’ academic success, studies show that very little time is 

devoted to vocabulary instruction (Nelson et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2003; Wright & Neuman, 

2014) or science instruction (Berliner, 2011; Blank, 2012) at the elementary level. Further, 

studies have found that the quality of the vocabulary instruction that does occur in schools is not 

reflective of effective vocabulary instruction (Carlisle et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2003; Watts, 1995; 

Wright & Neuman, 2014). Relatedly, Dickinson, Darrow, and Tinubu (2008) reported there 

being “substantial room for improvement” in supporting young children’s language and learning 

(p. 420). Similarly, Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, and Stroupe (2012) identified generating 

student talk and using it as a social resource for learning as an area for growth within science 

instruction.  

Given the importance of oral language and vocabulary development for academic 

success, it is critical to understand how teachers support this development during typical 

classroom instruction. Researchers have examined various aspects of teachers’ vocabulary 

instruction through observations in preschool, elementary, and middle-grades classrooms. Most 

  2 

of these observational studies have taken place within the context of literacy instruction 

(Blachowicz, 1987; Carlisle et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2015; Neugebauer et al., 2017; Silverman 

et al., 2014; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wanzek, 2014; Watts, 1995). Blachowicz (1987) 

focused on vocabulary instruction in six 20-40-minute reading groups in fourth-grade classrooms 

across 10-15 school days. Blachowicz found that 15-20% of instructional time was spent on 

vocabulary instruction; vocabulary instruction was often guided by the contextual sentences 

offered by the teachers’ manuals; and vocabulary instruction was undifferentiated, nonstrategic, 

and unaligned with the reading selection’s comprehension goals. Watts (1995) focused on how 

teachers taught vocabulary during reading lessons in 47 observations in upper-elementary 

classrooms in a large urban school district. Watts found that new words were taught most often 

as a prereading activity; teachers used definitional and contextual types of instruction most often; 

and many features of effective vocabulary instruction were rarely observed, including activating 

prior knowledge, providing multiple exposures to words, and teaching strategies for independent 

word learning. Silverman and Crandell (2010) focused on the correlation between teachers’ 

vocabulary instructional practices and prekindergarten and kindergarten students’ vocabulary, 

completing three 90-minute observations in each of 16 classrooms in an urban school district. 

They found that the effectiveness of acting out/illustrating the meaning of words, prompting 

students to analyze how words are related, guiding students use words productively in novel 

contexts, defining words, and prompting students to use vocabulary words during word study 

varied based on students’ initial vocabulary knowledge and whether the practices were used 

during read-aloud time or non-read-aloud time. Carlisle et al. (2013) focused on teachers’ 

support for students’ vocabulary learning during literacy instruction at four different timepoints 

in 44 third-grade classrooms in high-poverty schools. Carlisle found that teachers rarely engaged 

  3 

students in cognitively challenging work on word meanings, the extent to which teachers 

supported students’ vocabulary development was significantly related to reading comprehension 

gains across the school year, and the quality of support teachers provided for students’ 

vocabulary learning was related to teachers’ knowledge of reading and reading instruction. 

Wanzek (2014) focused on the amount and type of direct vocabulary instruction provided for 

second-grade students with reading difficulties during core reading instruction and supplemental 

reading interventions by 14 classroom and intervention teachers in three Title I schools. Wanzek 

found that 8% of core classroom reading instruction was devoted to direct vocabulary instruction 

(i.e., providing definitions and examples) and minimal direct vocabulary instruction occurred 

during supplemental reading interventions. Silverman et al. (2014) focused on the relationship 

between teachers’ reading/language arts instruction and third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students’ 

vocabulary and comprehension, observing 33 classrooms at three points during a school year. 

They found that instruction related to definitions, word relations, and morphosyntax was 

positively associated with change in vocabulary, while instruction related to application of words 

across contexts was negatively associated with change in vocabulary (likely due to poor quality 

of application of words across contexts). Nelson et al. (2015) focused on teachers’ vocabulary 

instruction during language arts lessons in K-3 classrooms in low-income schools, with 337 

observations across three years. They found that less than 5% of the language arts block was 

devoted to vocabulary instruction, with most of that time focused on teaching individual words 

rather than word-learning strategies. Neugebauer et al. (2017) focused on a specific aspect of 

vocabulary instruction—word consciousness talk (i.e., talk that reinforced students’ use of 

words, affirmed their recognition of words, and helped students make personal connections to 

words)—within the context of a vocabulary intervention (i.e., Elements of Reading Vocabulary; 

  4 

Beck & McKeown, 2004) in 27 kindergarten classrooms in urban schools. Neugebauer and 

colleagues found that teachers’ word conciousness talk was positively associated with student 

gains in general vocabulary at the end of kindergarten. Collectively, these studies offer insight 

into the nature of vocabulary instruction within literacy lessons—namely, that little time is 

devoted to vocabulary instruction and often this instruction lacks features of effective vocabulary 

instruction. 

Only a few observational studies have examined vocabulary instruction outside of 

literacy instruction (Dickinson et al., 2008; Scott et al., 2003; Wright & Neuman, 2014). Scott et 

al. (2003) focused on when, where, and how often effective vocabulary instruction occurred 

across the school day (including math, science, art, and social studies) within 308 hours of 

instruction in upper-elementary middle school classrooms in three diverse districts in Canada. 

Scott and colleagues found that 6% of school time was devoted to developing vocabulary 

knowledge, with only 1.4% of school time devoted to vocabulary development outside of 

langauge arts instruction (e.g., science, social studies, mathematics, art). Dickinson et al. (2008) 

focused on how four Head Start teachers used four evidence-based strategies (i.e., varied 

vocabulary, extended talk on a single topic, semantically-contingent responses, and cognitively-

rich topics of conversation) within the context of centers time (i.e., blocks and dramatic play) on 

three different occasions. They found that teachers asked thought-provoking questions and 

engaged students in extended topic discussions more often than they responded to children’s 

questions or initiatives, modeled sophisticated language, provided explanations, or engaged in 

conceptually-based instruction. Wright and Neuman (2014) focused on how teachers enacted 

oral vocabulary instruction across the full school day in 660 hours of observation across four 

school days in 55 kindergarten classrooms from a range of socio-economic status schools. They 

  5 

found that teachers gave single, brief word explanations in order to support students’ 

understanding of the immediate context (i.e., teachable moments); engaged in more vocabulary 

instruction during subject areas (e.g., science and social studies) but devoted little time to these 

areas overall; and explained words more often and were more likely to address sophisticated 

words when serving in economically advantaged schools than disadvantaged schools. 

In short, little is known about how teachers promote oral language and vocabulary 

development in science instruction in the early-elementary grades, with only one observational 

study (Wright & Neuman, 2014) including science instruction at the K-2 level. Therefore, given 

the importance of oral language and vocabulary development to students’ literacy and science 

learning and the emphasis placed on oral language development by national standards, there is a 

clear need to better understand how teachers at the early-elementary grades develop students’ 

oral language and vocabulary within science instruction. The purpose of the present 

observational study is to examine teachers’ vocabulary talk moves—that is, ways of using 

language to promote oral language and vocabulary development—during science instruction in 

early-elementary classrooms. Understanding the ways in which teachers do and do not use 

vocabulary talk moves during science instruction in the early-elementary grades is important 

because it allows us to examine the opportunities for students to develop oral language and 

vocabulary and simultaneously access science content, both of which can ultimately support 

reading comprehension (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Kintsch, 2013). 

Overview of the Present Study 

As little is known about how teachers promote oral language and vocabulary 

development in science instruction in the early-elementary grades, the purpose of the present 

study is to examine the vocabulary talk moves (i.e., ways of using language to promote oral 

  6 

language and vocabulary development) teachers make during science lessons. Data for this study 

were collected as part of the Science, Oral Language, and Literacy Development from the Start 

of School (SOLID Start) project (Dr. Tanya Wright & Dr. Amelia Gotwals, PIs), with funding 

from the National Science Foundation (NSF; grant number 1620580). I analyzed 894.27 minutes 

of observational data across 24 total science lessons in eight early-elementary classrooms (i.e., 

one young 5s, three kindergarten, two first grade, and two second grade) located in the same 

elementary school in a small district within a large Midwestern state. Participating teachers’ 

science lessons were recorded at three points during February through May of 2019. Discourse 

analysis and other qualitative analysis techniques were used to examine the vocabulary talk 

moves the teachers made during science instruction. Quantitative techniques were also used to 

make comparisons of vocabulary talk over the course of the study. 

I present descriptive findings investigating how teachers use vocabulary talk moves 

during science instruction. I examine the specific vocabulary talk moves teachers make and the 

frequency with which these moves are made during a lesson. I make within- and between-teacher 

comparisons of vocabulary talk over the course of the study and examine the relationship 

between vocabulary talk and the language aspects of science talk. I also report on curricular 

features related to enhanced vocabulary talk. The following research questions are addressed in 

this study: 

1.  How do teachers use language to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development during science instruction in early-elementary classrooms? 

2.  Is vocabulary talk related to the language aspects of science talk, and if so, how? 

3.  What features of science curriculum materials are related to a kindergarten teacher’s 

enhanced vocabulary talk? 

  7 

Contribution of the Study 

In order to support teachers with implementing effective oral language and vocabulary 

instruction that enables students to meet ambitious national standards and ultimately promotes 

their literacy and science learning, we must first understand the current state of oral language and 

vocabulary instruction within the context of science lessons in early-elementary classrooms. 

Observational studies of vocabulary instruction have primarily focused on the ways in which 

teachers support vocabulary development within the context of literacy instruction (e.g., 

Blachowicz, 1987; Carlisle et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2015; Neugebauer et al., 2017; Silverman 

et al., 2014; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wanzek, 2014; Watts, 1995). At this time, we have 

very limited knowledge about how teachers promote oral language and vocabulary development 

within science instruction in the early-elementary grades. Understanding what opportunities 

there are for building students’ vocabulary outside of literacy instruction is important given the 

sheer number of vocabulary words there are to learn (Anderson & Nagy, 1992; Nagy & 

Anderson, 1984), little time is devoted to vocabulary instruction within literacy instruction 

(Blachowicz, 1987; Nelson et al., 2015; Wanzek, 2014), and many words have discipline-

specific meanings (Bravo & Cervetti, 2008). This study contributes to the research base by 

examining how teachers use language to promote oral language and vocabulary development 

during science instruction in the early-elementary grades, whether/how vocabulary talk relates to 

the language aspects of science talk, and what features of science curriculum materials are 

related to enhanced vocabulary talk. In doing so, this study contributes to the field’s 

understanding of the ways in which science instruction supports literacy learning and literacy 

instruction supports science learning. By gaining a better understanding of the current state of 

oral language and vocabulary instruction within early-elementary science lessons, we can design 

  8 

professional development and curriculum materials to support teachers in implementing effective 

oral language and vocabulary instruction. 

  9 

CHAPTER 2—CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW 

This chapter focuses on the conceptual framing of the present study and the research 

relative to how children learn words and why opportunities for oral language and vocabulary 

development should be examined within the context of science instruction. First, I present the 

theoretical and empirical work that frames this study. Then, I highlight research-based 

instructional practices for supporting children’s oral language and vocabulary development in 

early childhood and throughout the elementary grades. Finally, I present research supporting the 

integration of language and literacy instruction with science instruction. 

Conceptual Framework 

This study is framed by theoretical and empirical work centered around language 

learning, particularly as it pertains to the ways children’s vocabularies develop through oral 

language in classroom settings. In this section, I discuss the theories and research relative to how 

language development occurs through interpersonal interactions (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978, 1986); 

language is used to carry out specific actions (Gee, 2014); language learning is an unconstrained 

skill (Neuman & Wright, 2013; Paris, 2005) and therefore requires multifaceted instruction (e.g., 

Baumann et al., 2007; Carlo et al., 2004; Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010; National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development, 2000); and language learning is supported by an individual’s 

awareness of and interest in words and word learning (Anderson & Nagy, 1992; Graves & 

Watts-Taffe, 2002, 2008). 

Social Nature of Language Learning 

The present study draws on the social interaction theory of language acquisition   

(Bohannon & Bonvillian, 2001), which posits that language develops through interpersonal 

interactions. Vygotsky (1978, 1986) particularly emphasized the role the adults in a child’s life 

 10 

play in supporting the child’s language acquisition. Likewise, Bruner (1978) suggested that 

parents provide a supportive communicative structure (i.e., scaffold) that facilitates language 

development. From the social interaction perspective, classroom teachers play a significant role 

in the language development of their students, as they expose students to language through both 

talk and texts. 

Empirically, many studies with young children have found a relationship between the talk 

of adults and the oral language and vocabulary development of children (e.g., Barnes et al., 2017; 

Barnes & Dickinson, 2017, 2018; E. P. Bowers & Vasilyeva, 2011; Dickinson et al., 1993; 

Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Dickinson & Tabors, 1991; Wasik & 

Hindman, 2014). For example, Dickinson and Tabors (1991) found that engaging young children 

in certain kinds of conversational language experiences, such as explanatory and narrative talk at 

mealtimes at home and interactive read-alouds at school, supported the development of their 

vocabulary and other literacy-related language skills. Relatedly, Dickinson, Cote, and Smith 

(1993) found that engaging young children in intellectually challenging discussions fostered 

language growth. Likewise, Dickinson and Smith (1994) found a strong association between 

teacher-child interactions involving predictions, talk about vocabulary, and analysis (i.e., child-

involved analytic talk) and vocabulary development. Further, Dickinson and Porche (2011) 

found that preschool teachers’ sophisticated use of language was predictive of students’ reading 

comprehension and word recognition in fourth grade. They also found that, in addition to early 

support in the home for literacy, preschool teachers’ utterances that (a) corrected the accuracy of 

what children said and (b) analyzed word meanings or reasons for characters’ actions or story 

events in read-aloud texts was predictive of students’ vocabulary in fourth grade. In a related 

study, E. P. Bowers & Vasilyeva (2011) found that the number of different words (i.e., word 

 11 

types) a preschool teacher used was positively related to vocabulary growth for monolingual 

children, while the number of total words a preschool teacher used was positively related to 

vocabulary growth for children learning English. In another study, Barnes et al. (2017) found 

that preschool children’s receptive vocabulary growth was positively associated with teachers’ 

comments related to science, social studies, mathematics, texts, or metacognition (i.e., 

conceptually-focused comments). They also found that children in classrooms where teachers 

were more responsive (i.e., teachers comment immediately after a child’s utterance to extend the 

topic of conversation with additional information or an answer to a question) experienced greater 

receptive vocabulary growth than children who experienced less interaction. Similarly, Barnes 

and Dickinson (2017) found that preschool children experienced greater receptive vocabulary 

growth when they were in classrooms in which teachers used more lexical elements (i.e., 

amount, sophistication, and diversity of vocabulary and shorter utterances). Relatedly, Barnes 

and Dickinson (2018) found that teachers’ use of mental state verbs (i.e., verbs expressing 

cognition through thoughts, memories, knowledge, feelings, or ideas) was positively associated 

with preschool children’s end-of-year receptive vocabulary scores. Further, they found a positive 

association between teacher talk that placed the child as the referent of the mental state verb in 

group content instruction and children’s end-of year receptive vocabulary scores. 

Together, these studies demonstrate the significant impact the language use of adults has 

on the language development of children. Because of the important role adult speech plays in 

children’s language learning, I examined the oral language interactions that happened between 

the teachers and their early-elementary students in the present study. This is important because 

little is known about oral language interactions regarding vocabulary learning within the context 

of science instruction in the early-elementary grades. 

 12 

Action Through Language 

The present study also draws on Gee's (2014) notion that language is used to carry out 

specific actions rather than just to give one another information. Therefore, in the context of an 

early-elementary classroom, teachers likely use language in many different ways to carry out 

actions with specific pedagogical purposes. This notion of action-through-language provides 

theoretical support for research on teachers’ use of talk moves—or specific ways of using 

language to achieve specific outcomes (e.g., Michaels & O’Connor, 2015). Researchers have 

examined teachers’ language use to understand the specific talk moves they make to carry out 

instructional actions through language (Beck et al., 1996; McKeown & Beck, 2004; Michaels & 

O’Connor, 2015; Michener et al., 2018; O’Connor & Michaels, 1993, 1996, 2019). For example, 

Beck et al. (1996) and McKeown and Beck (2004) examined fourth-grade teachers’ talk within 

the context of the Questioning the Author intervention and identified specific talk moves 

teachers made when asking questions (i.e., retrieving information from the text, constructing the 

message of the text, extending discussion, checking students’ knowledge of specific information) 

and responding to students’ comments (i.e., repeating the comment, paraphrasing the comment, 

refining the comment). They found that when teachers asked questions focused on constructing 

and extending meaning and gained skill in refining and using students’ comments in discussion, 

the amount of teacher talk decreased while the quality of talk increased. Similarly, Michener et 

al. (2018) investigated how rates of specific talk moves of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade teachers 

predicted students’ reading comprehension. Controlling for students’ decoding and fluency, 

semantic-syntactic knowledge, and initial reading comprehension, they found that teacher 

explanations and simple follow-up moves (i.e., low-level evaluations) significantly predicted 

students’ reading comprehension. In the present study, I examined the vocabulary talk moves 

 13 

teachers made—or specific ways of using language to promote oral language and vocabulary 

development. This is important because the talk moves identified in previous studies have not 

centered on vocabulary instruction within the context of early-elementary science instruction. 

The present study identifies teachers’ talk moves that are aligned with the literature on how 

children learn words. 

Complex Nature of Word Learning 

The present study is also framed by the understanding that the task of word learning is 

complex. In contrast to constrained skills such as learning the names of the 26 letters of the 

English alphabet, learning vocabulary is an unconstrained skill; that is, there are always more 

words to learn and individuals continue to learn new words throughout their lifetime (Neuman & 

Wright, 2013; Paris, 2005). Adding to the challenge of learning thousands of words, many words 

have multiple meanings (Anderson & Nagy, 1992; Graves, 2006; Nagy & Anderson, 1984). 

Relatedly, word learning is an incremental process, with depth and breadth of word knowledge 

developing over time through multiple exposures to words in a variety of contexts (Beck et al., 

1987; Blachowicz et al., 2013; Dale, 1965; Nagy & Scott, 2000). Further complicating word 

learning, context is not always helpful in determining the meaning of a word (Beck et al., 1983), 

and dictionary definitions can confuse rather than clarify a word’s meaning(s) (McKeown, 

1993). 

Given the complex nature of word learning, vocabulary researchers recommend 

instruction that is multifaceted, meaning that multiple approaches are used to address different 

aspects of word learning (e.g., Baumann et al., 2007; Carlo et al., 2004; Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010; 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Teaching students the 

meaning(s) of individual words is one effective approach (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Jenkins et 

 14 

al., 1989; McKeown, 1985); however, because there are far too many words to directly teach 

students each word’s meaning(s) (Nagy et al., 1985; Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Nagy & Herman, 

1985), vocabulary researchers also recommend supporting students in becoming independent 

word learners (Anderson & Nagy, 1992; Graves, 2006; Nagy, 2005). This is also important 

because, while incidental word learning (i.e., unintentionally learning words from texts while 

reading) does occur (Nagy et al., 1984, 1985), students learn only about 15% of the unknown 

words they encounter in a text (Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). Therefore, to substantially 

contribute to students’ vocabulary development, researchers also recommend teaching students 

specific strategies to use when they encounter unfamiliar words and developing their awareness 

of how words work and how they learn and think about words (Baumann et al., 2007; Graves, 

2006; Nagy, 2005; Wise, 2019). In the present study, I examined the range of instructional 

practices that might support oral language and vocabulary development. This study builds on 

previous work by examining these instructional practices within the context of early-elementary 

science instruction. 

Word Consciousness and Word Learning 

Finally, the present study draws on the theory of word consciousness, which posits that 

students’ knowledge and dispositions for learning, appreciating, and effectively using words 

generatively supports their vocabulary development (Scott & Nagy, 2004). Specifically, word 

consciousness refers to students’ awareness of and interest in words and word learning, as well 

as their ability to use what they know about words to learn new words (e.g., Anderson & Nagy, 

1992; Graves & Watts-Taffe, 2002, 2008). Vocabulary researchers have suggested that how 

students feel about words and word learning impacts how (if) they engage in word learning (e.g., 

Scott & Nagy, 2004). They posit that for students to engage in the work of figuring out the 

 15 

meaning(s) of an unfamiliar word, they need to view word learning as worthwhile and be curious 

enough about a word’s meaning to attempt to figure out its meaning (Anderson & Nagy, 1992; 

Scott & Nagy, 2004). Theoretically, students who are aware of words, have knowledge of words 

and word learning, have interest in words, and are motivated to learn new words are more likely 

to learn the new words they encounter than students with less awareness, knowledge, interest, or 

motivation.  

The literature on these affective factors has been primarily theoretical (e.g., Anderson & 

Nagy, 1991, 1992; Graves, 2000, 2006; Graves & Watts-Taffe, 2002, 2008; Nagy & Scott, 2000; 

Scott & Nagy, 2004). Several studies have included instruction addressing affective factors 

within a larger vocabulary program (e.g., Baumann et al., 2007; Cox et al., 2015; Coyne et al., 

2010; Manyak et al., 2014; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; Taboada & Rutherford, 2011). For 

example, Baumann et al. (2007) included word play and figurative language activities in their 

multifaceted intervention. However, as part of a larger vocabulary program, it is not possible to 

determine the impact these affective factors, in particular, had on students’ vocabulary 

development. One study has specifically examined the efficacy of instruction targeting affective 

factors on students’ word learning. Neugebauer et al. (2017) investigated the impact of teachers’ 

word consciousness talk—defined as talk that reinforces students’ use of words, affirms their 

recognition of word meanings, and helps them make personal connections to words—on 

kindergarten students’ general vocabulary knowledge. In this observational study, Neugebauer 

and colleagues examined teachers’ language use within the context of their designated 

vocabulary instruction time, which made use of the Elements of Reading Vocabulary program 

(Beck & McKeown, 2004). Neugebauer and colleagues found that teachers’ word consciousness 

talk was positively associated with gains in kindergarten students’ general vocabulary knowledge 

 16 

at the end of the school year. In the present study, I considered how the teachers’ talk addressed 

affective factors such as these. 

In summary, in the present study, I examined the oral language interactions between 

teachers and students in early-elementary classrooms to identify teachers’ vocabulary talk 

moves. When identifying these vocabulary talk moves, I considered the range of instructional 

practices that research has shown to support oral language and vocabulary development (i.e., 

building knowledge of word meanings, scaffolding students’ word use, and building awareness 

of words and word learning—detailed in the next section), along with practices that addressed 

affective factors based on the theory of word consciousness. 

How Children Learn Words 

The research on how children learn words aligns with three broad instructional 

approaches: building knowledge of word meanings, scaffolding students’ word use, and building 

awareness of words and word learning. In the following sections, I present an overview of the 

literature related to each approach. Specifically, I focus on studies at the preschool and 

elementary levels. It is important to note that a majority of studies that examine how children 

learn words have been conducted within the context of some sort of interactive read-aloud 

experience in which an adult (i.e., typically the teacher) reads a text aloud to children and 

engages children in that reading experience in a variety of ways (e.g., Barnes & Dickinson, 2018; 

Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; 

Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Dickinson & Tabors, 1991; Hadley et al., 2019; McKeown & Beck, 

2003; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 

2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014). In this context, children are exposed to language through the 

text itself and through extra-textual talk, or the talk that happens around the text (Biemiller & 

 17 

Boote, 2006; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Wright, 2018). 

Only a few of the studies examining how children learn words have been conducted outside of 

literacy instruction (e.g., Baumann et al., 2003; Freeman et al., 2019; Lubliner & Smetana, 

2005). 

Knowledge and Understanding 

The most researched approach to vocabulary instruction is building students’ knowledge 

of word meanings. This is unsurprising, as understanding word meanings—whether learning the 

meaning of an unfamiliar word or learning a new meaning for a familiar word—is at the core of 

vocabulary development. Studies have consistently shown that providing students with 

explanations or definitions of the meanings of target words (i.e., words that have been targeted 

for instruction) promotes students’ understanding of those words (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 

2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; 

McKeown & Beck, 2003; Nash & Snowling, 2006; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Silverman et al., 

2014; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 

2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014). For example, Biemiller and Boote (2006) found that providing 

kindergarten, first-, and second-grade students with explanations of target words during 

interactive read-alouds was more effective than not providing explanations, with a pretest-

posttest gain of 22% for instructed words vs. 12% for uninstructed words. Likewise, Coyne et al. 

(2007, 2009) found that kindergarten students scored significantly higher on vocabulary 

measures for target words for which they received simple definitions than with target words they 

encountered in text without explanation or discussion (i.e., incidental exposure). 

Studies have also consistently shown that introducing target words within rich contexts 

(e.g., interactive read-alouds) and discussing the meaning(s) of target words in various contexts 

 18 

supports students’ understanding of target word meaning(s) (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 

2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; 

McKeown & Beck, 2003; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; 

Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Silverman et al., 2014; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Stahl & 

Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014). For 

example, using a within-subjects comparison, Coyne et al. (2007) found that kindergarten 

students scored significantly higher on expressive and receptive measures of target word 

definitions and on a measure of understanding target words in a novel context when they 

engaged in activities that allowed them to interact with and discuss target words in a variety of 

meaningful contexts compared to when they received just incidental exposure to target words 

during interactive read-alouds. 

Multiple exposures to target words is another tenet of vocabulary instruction that 

promotes understanding of word meanings (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Biemiller & 

Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; McKeown & Beck, 

2003; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; 

Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 

2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014). For example, McKeown et al. (1983) and 

McKeown et al. (1985) compared the effectiveness of two different frequencies of instructional 

encounters with target words and found that more frequent encounters with target words led to 

better outcomes for fourth-grade students on measures of definition knowledge, fluency of 

access to word meanings (i.e., lexical access), understanding of word meaning in a specific 

context (i.e., context interpretation), and story comprehension. Similarly, Beck and McKeown 

(2007) found that vocabulary gains were twice as large for kindergarten and first-grade students 

 19 

with words receiving six days of instruction with 20 total encounters per target word compared 

to words receiving three of days of instruction with five total encounters per target word. 

Many studies have also shown that understanding of word meanings is developed by 

engaging students in active processing or deeper processing—that is, engaging students with 

words and their meanings beyond just associating a word with its meaning (e.g., Beck & 

McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; McKeown, 1985; McKeown et al., 1983; 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; 

Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001; 

Zipoli et al., 2011). For example, McKeown et al. (1985) found that students who explored 

various aspects of target word meanings—such as by identifying relationships between words, 

responding affectively and cognitively to words, and applying words to various contexts—

performed better on measures of context interpretation (i.e., understanding of word meaning in a 

specific context) and comprehension of text containing target words than students who were just 

encouraged to make a simple association between each target word and its definition or 

synonym. Similarly, Coyne et al. (2007, 2009) found that engaging kindergarten students in 

deeper processing activities such as recognizing examples of target words, answering questions 

about target words, producing sentences with target words, and answering questions containing 

more than one target word (i.e., extended instruction) produced significantly higher scores on 

vocabulary measures than instruction in which (a) a simple definition was provided for target 

words as they were encountered in text (i.e., embedded instruction) or (b) target words were 

encountered in text with no discussion or explanation (i.e., incidental exposure).  

 

Studies have also shown that providing students with an image depicting a target word 

(e.g., Coyne et al., 2009, 2010; Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008; Silverman, 2007a; Silverman et al., 

 20 

2014; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001), showing an object 

representing a target word (e.g., Silverman et al., 2014; Wasik et al., 2006; Wasik & Bond, 2001; 

Wasik & Hindman, 2014), and/or acting out or demonstrating a target word—or engaging 

students in doing so—(e.g., Silverman, 2007a; Silverman et al., 2014; Silverman & Crandell, 

2010) can be effective methods for building students’ understanding of word meanings. While 

many studies have included these components within multicomponent vocabulary instruction and 

examined the overall impact of these interventions (e.g., Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Wasik et al., 

2006, 2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014), Silverman and Crandell (2010) 

examined the relationship between specific vocabulary instruction practices and prekindergarten 

and kindergarten students’ vocabulary. They found that providing a visual support (e.g., picture) 

and/or kinesthetic cue (e.g., gesture) during interactive read-aloud time was positively associated 

with vocabulary growth on a standardized measure of general vocabulary knowledge for children 

with lower initial vocabulary knowledge but was negatively associated with vocabulary growth 

for children with higher initial vocabulary knowledge. This suggests that these practices may be 

beneficial for building vocabulary knowledge with some students.    

Multicomponent vocabulary instruction often includes highlighting examples or 

nonexamples that illustrate what target words mean (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al., 

2007, 2009, 2010; Silverman, 2007a; Silverman et al., 2014). For instance, Beck and McKeown 

(2007) provided first-grade students with multiple examples of target words in multiple contexts. 

Likewise, Coyne et al. (2007, 2009, 2010) provided kindergarten students with examples of how 

target words are used and engaged students in determining whether or not a picture was an 

example of a target word. Similarly, Silverman's (2007a) Multidimensional Vocabulary Program 

included providing kindergarten students with examples to show how target words are used in 

 21 

contexts outside of the initial text in which they were introduced. Although these studies of 

multicomponent vocabulary instruction did not examine the specific impact of highlighting 

examples of target words, instruction that included examples was found to be effective. 

 

Many studies have also suggested that drawing students’ attention to the spelling of target 

words by showing students the words in print (i.e., providing orthographic information) and/or 

drawing students’ attention to the sounds in target words (i.e., highlighting phonological 

information) promotes learning the meanings of those words (e.g., Chambrè et al., 2019; Ehri, 

2014; Ehri & Rosenthal, 2007; Jubenville et al., 2014; Juel & Deffes, 2004; Ricketts et al., 2009; 

Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Silverman & Crandell, 2010). For example, 

Rosenthal and Ehri (2008) found that showing second- and fifth-grade students target words in 

print enhanced their memory for pronunciations and meanings of those words compared to target 

words that were not shown. Further, they found that fifth-grade students with more orthographic 

knowledge benefitted more from seeing target words in print than students with less orthographic 

knowledge. In a related study, Silverman (2007b) found that kindergarten students who received 

vocabulary instruction that included attention to letters and sounds in target words had 

significantly higher scores on a receptive measure of target word knowledge six months later, 

when tested in first grade, compared to students whose vocabulary instruction did not attend to 

the orthographic and phonological aspects of target words. Likewise, Silverman and Crandell 

(2010) found a positive relationship between instruction in which prekindergarten and 

kindergarten teachers called attention to the sounds or spelling of vocabulary words during 

interactive read-alouds and students’ vocabulary growth. However, not all studies examining the 

impact of showing target word spellings on students’ understanding of these words have found 

this practice to be effective. Chambré et al. (2017) found that while first-grade students’ memory 

 22 

for pronunciation of target words was improved by seeing target words in print, their memory for 

target word meanings was not improved by this exposure to target word spellings. Chambré and 

colleagues speculated that this lack of connection between spelling and meaning may be caused 

by the lack of a grapho-semantic mapping system comparable to the grapho-phonemic system—

at least for the target words examined in their study. They hypothesized that students’ memory 

for target word meanings might be improved by seeing target words in print if those target words 

contained familiar letter patterns representing root words and affixes. Therefore, the benefit of 

showing students target words in print may depend, at least in part, on orthographic features of 

those words.  

To support students’ understanding of target word meanings, studies have incorporated 

systematic review of these words within their instructional sequence (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 

2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2010; McKeown, 1985; McKeown et al., 1983; 

Silverman, 2007a; Zipoli et al., 2011). Many of these studies have included target word review 

as one part of multicomponent vocabulary instruction and examined the overall impact of these 

interventions (e.g., McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; Silverman, 2007a); however, Zipoli et al. 

(2011) specifically examined the relationship between systematic word review and target word 

learning. Within an 18-week program of extended vocabulary instruction (i.e., instruction 

promoting deeper processing of target words through extension activities) with kindergarten 

students, they found that students performed twice as well on a measure of target word 

knowledge with words that were systematically reviewed than with words in the no review 

comparison condition.  

 

Finally, studies have shown that teaching target words in conceptually- or semantically-

related sets promotes students’ knowledge of word meanings (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2016; Hadley 

 23 

et al., 2019; Neuman et al., 2011; Neuman & Dwyer, 2011; Neuman & Kaefer, 2013, 2018; 

Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011; Zipoli et al., 2011). For example, Neuman et al. (2011) found that 

preschool children who were taught target words within taxonomic categories (i.e., grouping of 

objects based on shared properties) outperformed children in the comparison condition on 

measures of word knowledge, expressive language, conceptual knowledge, and categories and 

properties of concepts. Further, children receiving the intervention were able to use categories to 

determine the meaning of novel words. Similarly, Hadley et al. (2019) compared the effects of 

teaching words in taxonomic groups (e.g., vegetables: artichoke, cauliflower, eggplant) verses 

themes (e.g., vines, raw, soil) on preschool children’s growth in vocabulary depth. They found 

that preschool children showed greater growth in vocabulary depth for words taught in 

taxonomies than for words taught in themes and learned information about category 

membership, perceptual features, and object function more deeply for words in the taxonomy 

condition than for words in the theme condition. Likewise, Cervetti et al. (2016) found that 

fourth-grade students who read a set of conceptually-coherent informational texts (i.e., texts that 

cohered around a set of concepts related to a topic) showed greater knowledge of concepts in 

their texts, greater knowledge of target words in their texts, and greater recall of novel text 

compared to students who read a set of unrelated informational texts. In a related study, Zipoli et 

al. (2011) found that kindergarten students learned significantly more target words with 

semantically-related review (i.e., systematic review that draws attention to the semantic features 

of words and emphasizes associations between target words and familiar words and concepts) 

than with embedded review (i.e., systematic review that defines target words as they appear in 

various texts beyond the initial text in which they were introduced). Together, these studies 

 24 

demonstrate that students’ understanding of word meanings is supported when target words are 

presented in conceptually- or semantically-related sets. 

In summary, these studies focused on building students’ knowledge of word meanings 

found that students’ word learning was supported by instruction that provided definitional and 

contextual information, multiple exposures in a variety of rich contexts, opportunities for 

students to engage in deeper processing than just associating a word with its meaning, visual 

supports (e.g., image, demonstration), examples, attention to target word spelling and/or sounds, 

and systematic review. Presenting target words in conceptually- or semantically-related sets was 

also found to build students’ knowledge of word meanings. In the present study, I identified the 

ways in which teachers used language to build students’ knowledge of word meanings that 

aligned with this research base. 

Student Word Use 

 

 The research on scaffolding students’ word use overlaps widely with the research on 

building students’ knowledge of word meanings, as many studies have examined 

multicomponent vocabulary instruction that includes opportunities for students to engage in 

using the target words (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; 

McKeown, 1985; McKeown et al., 1983; McKeown & Beck, 2003; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; 

Wasik & Bond, 2001). A common practice in vocabulary instruction is to encourage students to 

repeat (pronounce) target words in order to create phonological representations of them (e.g., 

Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; Juel & Deffes, 2004; McKeown 

et al., 1983, 1985; McKeown & Beck, 2003; Rosenthal & Ehri, 2011; Silverman, 2007a; 

Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Zipoli et al., 2011). For example, as part of the Text Talk approach 

to vocabulary instruction (Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; McKeown & Beck, 2003), 

 25 

kindergarten and first-grade students are encouraged to say target words aloud as part of their 

introduction. While many of these studies included the practice of asking students to say target 

words aloud within multicomponent vocabulary instruction and investigated the overall impact 

of this instruction, Rosenthal and Ehri (2011) specifically examined the impact of pronouncing 

target words aloud on students’ word learning. They found that encouraging fifth-grade students 

to say aloud target words as they were encountered in contextually supportive passages during 

silent reading promoted vocabulary learning, with larger effect sizes for students who initially 

scored lower on a measure of word identification. 

Beyond pronouncing target words, many studies have engaged students in some form of 

deeper processing (as promoted by Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986) that required students to use the 

target words in speech or writing (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; 

McKeown, 1985; McKeown et al., 1983; Silverman, 2007b; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wasik 

et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Zipoli et al., 2011). For example, McKeown et al. (1985) 

engaged students in applying target words to various contexts. Similarly, Coyne et al. (2007) 

engaged students in producing sentences with target words. McKeown et al. (1983, 1985) 

engaged students in the Word Wizard activity, which promoted students’ use of target words by 

encouraging them to be aware of target words outside of vocabulary lessons and engage with 

them independently. 

In summary, these studies focused on scaffolding students’ word use found that students’ 

word learning was supported by encouraging them to say target words aloud and use target 

words in speech or writing. In the present study, I identified the ways in which teachers used 

language to scaffold students’ word use that aligned with this research base. 

 26 

Metalinguistic and Metacognitive Awareness  

 

Another approach to vocabulary instruction is to build students’ awareness of words and 

word learning by attending to their metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness. As Scott and 

Nagy (2004) explained, metalinguistic awareness refers to the ability to reflect on and 

manipulate language units. This includes morphological awareness, or the awareness of word 

parts and how the meanings of those parts contribute to the overall meaning of the word; 

syntactic awareness, or the ability to reflect on and manipulate word order at the sentence level; 

and metasemantic awareness, or the ability to reflect on word meanings. Metalinguistic 

awareness is a specific kind of metacognitive awareness (Nagy & Scott, 2000; Scott & Nagy, 

2004). Wade and Reynolds (1989) defined metacognition as “the ability to think about and 

control one’s own learning,” which they noted is dependent on an awareness of what to learn, 

how to learn it, and whether or to what degree it has been learned (p. 6). Similarly, Kuhn (2000) 

defined metacognition as “cognition that reflects on, monitors, or regulates first-order cognition” 

(p. 178). The studies reviewed here focus on metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness as 

relating to word learning.  

 

Many studies have found that teaching students to find and use context clues (i.e., 

contextual analysis) supports word learning (e.g., Baumann et al., 2002, 2003; Fukkink & de 

Glopper, 1998; Lubliner & Smetana, 2005; Nash & Snowling, 2006; Wise, 2019). For example, 

Fukkink and de Glopper (1998) investigated instruction aimed at supporting students with 

deliberately deriving word meanings from context while reading in their meta-analysis of 21 

studies. They found that context clue instruction, in which students learn to recognize and use 

specific types of context clues to determine the meanings of unfamiliar words, was more 

effective than cloze instruction, in which students use context to fill in words that have been 

 27 

removed from text; strategy instruction, in which students are taught to infer word meanings 

from context generally without reference to specific types of context clues; definition instruction, 

in which students develop conceptual understanding of what constitutes a definition; and 

practice-only instruction, in which students practice deriving word meanings from context 

without further instruction. Similarly, Nash and Snowling (2006) compared definition instruction 

(i.e., providing students with child-friendly definitions of target words) with context instruction 

(i.e., teaching students to look for clues within the given context to derive the meaning of target 

words) on the vocabulary knowledge of 7- and 8-year-old students with “poor existing 

vocabulary knowledge” (p. 335). They found that immediately following the intervention, 

students in both conditions showed equivalent improvement in vocabulary knowledge for target 

words; however, three months later, students in the context instruction condition showed 

significantly better expressive vocabulary, comprehended text containing target words 

significantly better, and could independently derive word meanings from written context. While 

Silverman et al. (2014) found a null effect for context clue instruction on vocabulary learning in 

their observational study, they posit that this may be due to the fact that context clue instruction 

was largely absent in their observations in third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms. 

Many studies have also found that teaching students to look for word-part clues (i.e., 

morphemic analysis) supports word learning (Baumann et al., 2002, 2003; P. N. Bowers & 

Kirby, 2010; Freeman et al., 2019; Lubliner & Smetana, 2005; Silverman et al., 2014). For 

example, Freeman et al. (2019) used a collective case study design to explore how three first-

grade students responded to a small-group intervention with explicit morphological instruction in 

Greek and Latin roots (e.g., micro, bio, geo, rupt), in which students engaged in finding the 

target roots in words within text, applying knowledge of root meaning to derive the meaning of 

 28 

the word, and creating new words or recalling words belonging to the same morphological word 

family. Freeman and colleagues found that this instruction increased students’ morphological 

awareness, as they were able to find roots in words and were developing the ability to analyze 

word features and look for clues to their meaning. Likewise, P. N. Bowers & Kirby (2010) found 

that, after controlling for initial vocabulary, fourth- and fifth-grade students who received 

instruction focused on morphological word structure were significantly better at identifying the 

base of complex words and explaining the meaning of target words and novel words with taught 

bases and affixes than students in the business-as-usual comparison condition. 

Studies have also examined the combination of contextual analysis and morphemic 

analysis (e.g., Baumann et al. 2002, 2003). Baumann et al. (2002) examined the effects of (a) 

morphemic analysis, (b) contextual analysis, and (c) morphemic and contextual analysis on fifth-

grade students’ ability to recall the meanings of instructed words, to infer the meanings of 

uninstructed (transfer) words using morphemic and/or contextual analysis, and to comprehend 

text containing transfer words. They found that morphemic and contextual analysis enabled 

students to infer the meanings of untaught (transfer) words immediately following instruction, 

although this effect faded with time. Further, Baumann and colleagues found that combined 

morphemic and contextual instruction was just as effective in supporting students with inferring 

word meanings as when morphemic analysis and contextual analysis instruction were provided 

separately. Building on this work, Baumann et al. (2003) compared the effects of teaching fifth-

grade students the meanings of textbook vocabulary words with teaching students to use 

morphemic and contextual clues to infer the meaning of unfamiliar words. They found that 

students who were taught the meanings of specific words from the textbook selection were more 

successful at learning the meanings of those words, while students who were taught to use 

 29 

morphemic and contextual analysis were more successful at inferring the meanings of 

uninstructed affixed words. These students were also more successful on a delayed test at 

inferring the meanings of words that had word part or context clues. This suggests that teaching 

students to use morphemic and contextual analysis is a generative way to support word learning, 

extending beyond specific target words. 

Another way to support students’ metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness is to 

engage them deriving word meanings from context and then explaining the reasoning behind a 

definition (Cain, 2007). Cain found that 7- and 8-year-old students who explained the reasoning 

behind their own definition or the definition given by the experimenter made greater gains in 

defintion accuracy than students who just derived word meanings from context without giving an 

explanation. Further, Cain found that students who explained their own reasoning had greater 

insight into how the meaning was derived than students who explained the experimenter’s 

reasoning. 

 

Teaching students to detect semantic ambiguity has also been found to support students’ 

metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness (Zipke et al., 2009). Zipke and colleagues found that 

third-grade students who received metalinguistic ambiguity instruction focused on analyzing 

multiple meaning words (e.g., watch) and sentences (e.g., The ball was found by the kitten) in 

isolation, in riddles, and in texts were better able to provide multiple definitions of ambiguous 

words and explain double meanings of ambiguous sentences than students who did not receive 

this instruction. 

 

Studies have also found that direct instruction of metalinguistic and metacognitive 

strategies is beneficial for word learning (e.g., Boulware-Gooden et al., 2007; Lubliner & 

Smetana, 2005). For example, Lubliner and Smetana (2005) investigated the effects of a 

 30 

multifaceted, metacognitive vocabulary intervention on fifth-grade students’ vocabulary 

achievement. The intervention focused on teaching self-monitoring and self-regulation, with the 

goal of helping students learn to monitor their understanding of words and internalize and 

implement word-learning strategies to support reading comprehension. Students were taught the 

metacognitive strategies of looking for context clues, substituting a familiar synonym for an 

unfamiliar word, using familiar roots and affixes to determine a word’s meaning, considering if 

the word sounds familiar and trying to remember its meaning, asking someone the meaning of a 

word, and marking where an unfamiliar word is encountered in order to follow up on its meaning 

at a later time. Students were also taught to monitor and rank their level of knowledge for a 

word, from unknown to partially known to fully known. Lubliner and Smetana found that 

students were better able to self-monitor their word knowledge and made significant gains in 

vocabulary acquisition with the intervention compared to business-as-usual instruction. Further, 

in a between-subjects comparison of students in a Title I school receiving the intervention and 

students in an “above-average-performing school” (p. 163) receiving business-as-usual 

vocabulary instruction, the significant difference in vocabulary acquisition between these groups 

prior to the intervention was no longer significant following the intervention. Likewise, 

Boulware-Gooden et al. (2007) examined the effectiveness of systematic direct instruction of 

metacognitive strategies on third-grade students’ vocabulary achievement, finding that students 

receiving this instruction improved significantly in vocabulary over students in the comparison 

condition, with a 40% difference in gains in vocabulary between the two groups. 

 

In summary, these studies focused on building students’ metalinguistic and metacognitive 

awareness found that students’ word learning was supported when students learned to use 

contextual and morphemic analysis, explain how word meanings were derived from context, 

 31 

detect semantic ambiguity, and self-monitor and self-regulate. In the present study, I identified 

the ways in which teachers used language to build students’ awareness of words and word 

learning that aligned with this research base. 

As the literature reviewed here has demonstrated, multifaceted instruction supports oral 

language and vocabulary development, with students benefiting from approaches that build their 

knowledge of word meanings, scaffold their word use, and build their awareness of words and 

word learning. In the present study, I considered how the teachers’ talk addressed each of these 

approaches. In the following section, I present research supporting the integration of this kind of 

language and literacy instruction with science instruction. 

Opportunities for Oral Language and Vocabulary Development in Science Instruction 

As noted in Chapter 1, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasize oral 

language development in the early-elementary grades (NGSS Lead States, 2013). In their content 

analysis of the NGSS framework document (National Research Council, 2007) and student 

learning expectations (NGSS Lead States, 2013), Wright and Domke (2019) found that oral 

language is emphasized as a way to support students’ sensemaking and for students to 

communicate their learning and ideas. Further, they found that the NGSS framework document 

encourages educators to provide students with opportunities to learn, use, and apply discipline-

specific vocabulary during science instruction. Therefore, NGSS-aligned science instruction 

would provide many opportunities for oral language and vocabulary development (NGSS Lead 

States, 2013; Wright & Domke, 2019).  

Indeed, science instruction has been established as a rich context for oral language and 

vocabulary development (e.g., Gotwals & Wright, 2017; Wright & Gotwals, 2017; Wright & 

Neuman, 2014). In their observational study of vocabulary instruction across the school day in 

 32 

kindergarten classrooms, Wright and Neuman (2014) found that although students received, on 

average, only 2.5 minutes of science instruction per day, science instruction provided rich 

opportunities for vocabulary instruction when taught. Specifically, teachers provided 

explanations of target words or helped students determine target word meanings more times 

during science instruction, social studies instruction, and interactive read-alouds than during 

reading and writing instruction, math instruction, or morning meeting. Wright and Gotwals 

(2017) found that vocabulary learning within science instruction was supported by curriculum 

materials designed to engage students in disciplinary oral language—or the ways that scientists 

talk. They created curriculum materials to support kindergarten students’ science talk and then 

conducted a quasi-experimental study to examine students’ oral language outcomes. Wright and 

Gotwals found that students in the intervention condition outperformed students in the business-

as-usual comparison condition on measures of receptive science vocabulary and use of 

vocabulary in a science context. 

Research has shown that integrating language and literacy instruction with science 

instruction is beneficial for both literacy and science learning (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2012; Connor 

et al., 2017; Gotwals & Wright, 2017, 2017; Guthrie et al., 1999; Romance & Vitale, 1992, 2001; 

Varelas et al., 2006; Varelas & Pappas, 2006; Vitale & Romance, 2012; Wang & Herman, 2006). 

For example, Guthrie et al. (1999, 2009) examined the effects of Concept-Oriented Reading 

Instruction (CORI), which integrated supports for reading motivation, oral reading fluency, and 

reading comprehension within science instruction focused on building students’ content 

knowledge of ecology. They found that fifth-grade students in the CORI intervention condition 

scored higher on posttest measures of word recognition speed, reading comprehension, and 

ecological knowledge than students in the comparison condition receiving traditional instruction. 

 33 

Further, they found that the CORI intervention was equally effective for low- and high-achieving 

readers (Guthrie et al., 2009). Similarly, Romance and Vitale (2001) found that students in 

grades 2-5 showed improved science understanding and reading achievement when traditional 

literacy instruction was replaced with science instruction that encompassed reading 

comprehension and language arts skills (i.e., In-Depth Expanded Applications of Science; 

IDEAS). Likewise, Wang and Herman, (2006) examined how integrated units in the Seeds of 

Science/Roots of Reading project (Seeds/Roots) impacted the interest, motivation, and learning 

of students in grades 2-4, finding that students in the Seeds/Roots intervention condition learned 

significantly more than students in the comparison condition on all science and literacy 

measures. In a related study, Cervetti et al. (2012) found that fourth-grade students who received 

integrated science-literacy instruction that engaged students in reading text, writing notes and 

reports, conducing firsthand investigations, and discussing key concepts and processes made 

significantly greater gains on measures of science understanding, science vocabulary, and 

science writing than students receiving science instruction that was not integrated with literacy 

instruction. Similarly, Connor et al. (2017) found that kindergarten through fourth-grade students 

receiving Content-Area Literacy Instruction (CALI) as an individualized instructional program 

showed improved science knowledge and oral and reading comprehension skills. 

In summary, science instruction offers a rich context for oral language and vocabulary 

development, and instruction that integrates science and literacy has been shown to effectively 

promote both science and literacy learning. In the present study, I examined the vocabulary talk 

moves teachers made within the context of science instruction because, despite the emphasis 

placed on oral language development by national standards and the research supporting the 

integration of language and literacy instruction with science instruction, little is known about 

 34 

how teachers promote oral language and vocabulary development in science instruction in the 

early-elementary grades. 

The Present Study 

The purpose of the present study is to examine the ways in which teachers use language to 

promote oral language and vocabulary development (i.e., vocabulary talk moves) during science 

instruction in early-elementary classrooms. Science instruction offers a rich context for oral 

language and vocabulary development and national standards emphasize supporting this 

development, yet little is known about how teachers promote oral language and vocabulary 

development within this context in the early-elementary grades. Therefore, I ask the following 

questions: 

1.  How do teachers use language to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development during science instruction in early-elementary classrooms? 

2.  Is vocabulary talk related to the language aspects of science talk, and if so, how? 

3.  What features of science curriculum materials are related to a kindergarten teacher’s 

enhanced vocabulary talk? 

Summary 

 

Oral language and vocabulary development are important for students’ overall academic 

success. Oral language and vocabulary support science learning, while the background 

knowledge and vocabulary students gain from science learning supports their reading 

comprehension. Current national standards emphasize the importance of oral language and 

vocabulary development, beginning in the early-elementary grades. Science instruction offers a 

rich context for oral language and vocabulary development; however, little is known about how 

teachers promote oral language and vocabulary development within science instruction in the 

 35 

early-elementary grades. I seek to address this gap in the literature with this dissertation study. 

We must first understand the ways in which teachers do and do not promote oral language and 

vocabulary development during science instruction in the early-elementary grades in order to 

best support teachers in implementing effective oral language and vocabulary instruction. This is 

important so that all students are prepared to meet these ambitious standards and, ultimately, 

develop the oral language and vocabulary needed to strengthen their reading comprehension and 

support their science learning. 

 

 

 36 

CHAPTER 3—METHODS 

Given the importance of oral language and vocabulary development to students’ literacy 

and science learning (e.g., Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Guthrie et al., 1999; Mercer et al., 2004; 

Richmond & Striley, 1996; Senechal et al., 2006; Wang & Herman, 2006; Wright & Gotwals, 

2017), I conducted two instrumental case studies (Barone, 2011; Stake, 2000) to examine 

teachers’ vocabulary talk during science instruction in the early-elementary grades. Together, 

these instrumental case studies comprise my dissertation study. In the first study, I examined the 

science instruction of a cohort of eight early-elementary teachers (i.e., teachers of early-

elementary students—rather than elementary teachers who are early in their career) in order to 

determine (1) how they used language to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development and (2) whether vocabulary talk is related to the language aspects of science talk, 

and if so, how. In the second study, I examined the science instruction of one kindergarten 

teacher in order to identify features of science curriculum materials related to enhanced 

vocabulary talk. In this chapter, I describe the methodology used in these studies. First, I provide 

information about the context of the larger study within which this dissertation was situated. 

Then, I explain the design and logic, case, data sources, and analytic strategies for each of the 

studies. Finally, I discuss limitations of the methodology. 

Context of Larger Study 

 

The present dissertation study is situated within a larger study of science talk in early-

elementary classrooms. The Science, Oral Language, and Literacy Development from the Start 

of School (SOLID Start) project (PIs: Dr. Tanya Wright & Dr. Amelia Gotwals), funded by the 

National Science Foundation (NSF; Award Number: 1620580), is focused on supporting K-2 

teachers with promoting science talk in their classrooms. This larger study is a 10-week usability 

 37 

trial of the SOLID Start professional development model with eight early-elementary teachers. 

With this model, teachers read texts and watch videos related to supporting equitable science 

participation and engagement, deepening science understanding, and developing language and 

literacy for science. They meet with other participating teachers and an instructional coach in 

professional learning communities (PLCs) to discuss these texts and videos and to plan an 

upcoming science lesson. Teachers learn about the SOLID Start Tool, a formative observational 

tool that can be used to provide feedback or facilitate self-reflection on talk that promotes 

sensemaking during science instruction. After teaching a science lesson, teachers use the SOLID 

Start Tool to reflect on opportunities for science talk and then meet virtually with an instructional 

coach to debrief the lesson and receive feedback through the lens of the Tool. The focus of this 

larger study was to gain insight into various aspects of the usability of the professional 

development model, such as if teachers could video record and upload their own lessons, interact 

with their instructional coach and other participants using the Zoom online meeting platform, and 

use the SOLID Start Tool. Because teachers recorded their science instruction as part of the 

study, this SOLID Start professional development usability trial provided the context for me to 

study vocabulary talk during science instruction.  

Study 1: Vocabulary and Science Talk in Eight Early-Elementary Classrooms 

 

This study addresses two research questions: (1) How do teachers use language to 

promote students’ oral language and vocabulary development during science instruction in early-

elementary classrooms? and (2) Is vocabulary talk related to the language aspects of science talk, 

and if so, how? In the sections that follow, I describe the design and logic, participants, data 

sources, and analytic strategies used to address these research questions. 

 38 

Design and Logic 

I used an instrumental case study design in order to investigate how teachers use 

language to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary development during science 

instruction at the early-elementary grades and whether/how vocabulary talk is related to the 

language aspects of science talk. Instrumental case studies allow researchers to look for insight 

into an issue (Barone, 2011; Stake, 2000). With this design, the case plays a supporting role by 

facilitating understanding of the issue of interest. The case, itself, although studied in depth, is of 

secondary interest to the primary issue. In this first study, the case is the science instruction of 

the cohort of eight early-elementary teachers who participated in this study from February-May 

2019. The issue of primary interest is how the teachers used language to promote oral language 

and vocabulary development during science instruction. Therefore, I studied the science 

instruction of the cohort in depth to better understand this issue of primary interest.  

Participants 

The case examined in this study is the science instruction of a cohort of eight early-

elementary teachers: one young 5s teacher, three kindergarten teachers, two first-grade teachers, 

and two second-grade teachers. All participants identified as White/European American females 

and taught in the same elementary school in a small district within a large Midwestern state. The 

teachers had between 0.5-19 years of teaching experience. All eight teachers had a bachelor’s 

degree, and three teachers had also completed master’s degrees. At the time of the study, 27.15% 

of students at the school were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Of the 188 students in the 

eight classrooms, 95.74% identified as White or European American, 1.6% identified a Black or 

African American, 1.6% identified as biracial or multiethnic, 0.53% identified as Hispanic or 

Latino/a, and 0.53% identified as Asian or Pacific Islander. No students were learning English as 

 39 

an additional language. In the following chapter, I introduce the individual teachers who together 

comprise the case I examined in order to better understand vocabulary talk during science 

instruction in the early-elementary grades. 

Teachers were invited to participate in the SOLID Start professional development 

usability trial with enrollment on a first come, first-served basis. They were invited to serve as 

research partners, by (a) participating in a 10-week online professional development focused on 

supporting talk around equitable science participation and engagement, deepening science 

understanding, and developing language and literacy for science; (b) uploading three videos of 

themselves teaching science lessons throughout the course and receiving feedback from a coach 

on these lessons [this was later adjusted to two videos based on teacher feedback]; and (c) 

providing feedback on the professional development experience through surveys, interviews, 

and/or focus groups. Participants received a $500 stipend and 15 State Continuing Education 

Clock Hours (SCECHs). (See Appendix A for complete recruitment information.) 

Data Sources 

This study draws on three data sources: a demographic background and teaching 

experience information survey, weekly instructional logs, and video recordings of participants 

teaching science lessons. Following, I describe these data sources and the rationale for their use. 

Demographic Background and Teaching Experience Information Survey 

Each participating teacher completed a survey at the very beginning of the study, 

providing information on the following: demographics (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity), 

professional experience (e.g., type(s) of teaching degree(s) earned, type of teaching certification, 

years of teaching experience), professional development (e.g., content areas/topics of recent 

professional development), setting description (e.g., demographics of students), and science and 

 40 

literacy instruction (e.g., curriculum materials, instructional minutes per week for language arts 

instruction and science instruction, confidence with specific instructional practices). (See 

Appendix B for full survey.) This survey gave me background information about the 

participating teachers, their students, and aspects of their instruction, which deepened my 

understanding of the case (i.e., the science instruction of the cohort of participating teachers) 

from which I examined the issue of interest (i.e. vocabulary talk during science instruction) 

(Barone, 2011; Stake, 2000). 

Weekly Instructional Log 

I collected information from participating teachers each week regarding the number of 

minutes of science instruction they taught each day, the activities within their science lessons 

(e.g., reading aloud of informational text, watching a video, planning and/or carrying out an 

investigation), and the science curriculum materials they used. (See Appendix C for full 

instructional log.) Using a Google Form, I collected this data beginning the week before the 

professional development started and continuing through Week 10. This log provided further 

information about the science instruction of the cohort of teachers comprising the case I studied 

to better understand vocabulary talk during science instruction. 

Video Recordings of Science Lessons 

As part of the SOLID Start professional development usability trial, each participating 

teacher’s science instruction was video recorded at three points in the professional development: 

before the professional development experience began (PrePD), during Week 5, and during 

Week 9. This is consistent with other observational studies that have found analyzing data from 

three timepoints to be adequate for capturing classroom instruction (e.g., Silverman et al., 2014; 

Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wasik & Bond, 2001). For these lessons (and throughout the study 

 41 

in general), teachers could use any science curriculum or materials they had available to them. A 

member of the SOLID Start research team recorded the PrePD lesson, and teachers then recorded 

and uploaded the Week 5 and Week 9 lessons themselves. These 24 lesson videos totaled 894.27 

minutes of observational data, with lessons ranging from 13:27 to 1:13:25. As my primary data 

source, the video recordings captured early-elementary science instruction, enabling me to 

examine the ways in which the participating teachers used language to promote oral language 

and vocabulary development (i.e., vocabulary talk) and how this might relate to science talk. 

Analytic Strategies 

 

I used both qualitative and quantitative analytic strategies to address my research 

questions. In the following sections, I detail the analysis methods for each research question. 

Research Question 1: How Do Teachers Use Language to Promote Students’ Oral Language 

and Vocabulary Development During Science Instruction in Early-Elementary Classrooms? 

Based on Gee's (2014) notion that language is used to carry out specific actions rather 

than just to give one another information, I used discourse analysis techniques to examine the 

ways in which teachers used language to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development. In the present study, I added to and refined a codebook for vocabulary talk that I 

initially developed in a pilot study examining one kindergarten teacher’s vocabulary talk during 

421.96 minutes of science instruction across 10 video recorded lesson observations. In the 

following sections, I first describe the how the codebook was initially developed in the pilot 

study and then describe my analysis in the present study. 

Pilot study. In the initial study, I used teacher turns (i.e., everything the teacher said until 

another person spoke) as my unit of analysis, and I used two levels of codes. The first-level 

codes were provisional codes (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2016) derived from the literature on 

 42 

how children learn words (as reviewed in Chapter 2). Based on vocabulary instruction research, 

the KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING code captured talk that builds knowledge of word 

meanings, the STUDENT WORD USE code captured talk that scaffolds students’ word use, and 

the METALINGUISTIC & METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS code captured talk that builds 

students’ awareness of words and word learning. Finally, based on the theory of word 

consciousness (e.g., Anderson & Nagy, 1992; Graves & Watts-Taffe, 2002, 2008), the 

AFFECTIVE FACTORS code captured talk that interested students in words and word learning. 

I refer to these first-level codes as types of vocabulary talk. 

 

The second-level codes identified the specific vocabulary talk moves the teacher made 

within each type of vocabulary talk (i.e., first-level codes). Using pattern coding (Miles et al., 

2014; Saldaña, 2016), I focused on one type of vocabulary talk at a time (e.g., building 

knowledge of word meanings, as captured by the first-level code KNOWLEDGE & 

UNDERSTANDING) but repeated this process for each type of vocabulary talk. First, I wrote 

descriptions of the teacher’s turns, summarizing what the teacher said and naming what she did 

through language. Through an iterative process, I read teacher turns, wrote descriptions, noticed 

patterns in descriptions, wrote new descriptions to capture these patterns, reread teacher turns, 

and refined descriptions. Through these descriptions, I identified the specific vocabulary talk 

moves the teacher made within each of the four types of vocabulary talk. For example, 

explaining or defining the meaning of a word was a vocabulary talk move the teacher made (i.e., 

second-level code EXPLAIN/DEFINE) within vocabulary talk that builds knowledge of word 

meanings (i.e., first-level code KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING). In total, during this 

initial study, I found 24 different vocabulary talk moves that the teacher made within the four 

types of vocabulary talk. The initial codebook I established during the pilot study provided the 

 43 

provisional codes (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2016) (first- and second-level codes) for the 

present student. 

Present study. In the present study, I used teacher utterances as my unit of analysis 

rather than teacher turns. I found in my pilot study that the kindergarten teacher’s turns were 

often quite long and involved a number of different vocabulary talk moves. In fact, I found that 

the teacher often used a vocabulary talk move more than once within a turn; however, because 

each second-level code could only be applied once to a turn, this repeated use of vocabulary talk 

moves within a turn was not captured. Silverman et al. (2014) also encountered this issue when 

selecting their unit of analysis for their observational study of vocabulary instruction in third-, 

fourth-, and fifth-grade reading/language arts lessons. They discovered that several different 

types of instruction often occurred within a turn and that “coding at the level of the turn appeared 

to mask the full extent to which teachers provided specific types of instruction” (p. 37). Instead, 

Silverman and colleauges moved to the level of utterance as the unit of anlaysis in order to 

“reveal a more comprehensive and cumulative picture of the teachers’ insructional focus” (p. 

37). Likewise, for the present study I moved to the level of utterance as my unit of analysis for a 

finer-grain examination of vocabulary talk. Selecting utterance as the unit of analysis is 

consistent with other observational studies that have examined teacher talk in relation to 

children’s vocabulary learning (e.g., Barnes et al., 2017; Barnes & Dickinson, 2017a, 2017b, 

2018; E. P. Bowers & Vasilyeva, 2011; Neugebauer et al., 2017; Silverman et al., 2014). I 

defined an utterance as a unit of speech with only one speaker (i.e., bound by conversational 

turns) and one main clause (subject-predicate) (MacWhinney, 2000; Neugebauer et al., 2017; 

Rex & Schiller, 2009). As a conversational unit (c-unit), an utterance could have dependent (i.e., 

subordinate or coordinate) clauses in addition to the main clause but could not have more than 

 44 

one main clause (MacWhinney, 2000). In addition to syntax, I also paid close attention to 

intonation contours, so that speech tacked on after terminal intonation (i.e., rising for a question 

or falling for a statement) was transcribed as a new utterance (Ratner & Brundage, 2018).  

I first viewed all 24 videos (three videos each for eight participants) and marked 

vocabulary talk episodes—or episodes of instruction that included at least one of the four types 

of vocabulary talk: building knowledge of word meanings, scaffolding students’ word use, 

increasing awareness of words and words learning, or interesting students in words and word 

learning. After identifying vocabulary talk episodes, I began the process of transcribing these 

episodes for analysis. Within each vocabulary talk episode, the teacher’s speech was transcribed 

at the level of utterance, but because student talk was captured to provide context for teacher 

utterances but would not be coded, student talk was transcribed less formally. Student speech 

was captured at the level of the turn when possible. When multiple students spoke at the same 

time, as much of what students were saying was transcribed as possible, but this talk was not 

always attributed to different speakers. For example, when responding to a teacher’s question 

about what colors clouds can be, multiple kindergarten students called out answers at the same 

time. These responses were recorded together: 

Child(ren): black, gray, gray, black, purple. 

As this example shows, student talk was identified collectively as child(ren); that is, individual 

children were not identified. Similarly, utterances in which teachers read text aloud were 

transcribed to provide context but were not coded, which is consistent with other studies that 

have examined teacher talk that includes reading text aloud to students (e.g., Barnes et al., 2017). 

Finally, because teacher utterances were sometimes accompanied by an action or visual cue, 

comments explaining relevant nonverbal context were included in the transcripts. For example, 

 45 

the comment teacher begins by moving her finger and hand haphazardly but then transitions to 

spinning it vigorously in a circle accompanied the utterance “instead of the wind moving every 

which way, it spins in a circle.” It was also noted when teachers drew students’ attention to 

specific words or word meanings by emphasizing them. (See Appendix D for full transcription 

guide.) 

An undergraduate research assistant who had been trained on the transcription 

conventions assisted me with transcribing the vocabulary talk episodes of the 24 videos. After 

the research assistant completed initial transcripts, I created final transcripts by reviewing the 

videos next to the initial transcripts and making adjustments as needed, such as by correcting 

mis-heard words, adding comments to describe relevant nonverbal cues, and noting emphasis. 

 

Following transcription, I completed two cycles of analysis to code the teachers’ 

vocabulary talk during science instruction. In the first cycle, I read the transcripts and applied the 

provisional codes (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2016) from my pilot study. As in the initial study, 

I used two levels of codes. The first level again identified the four types of vocabulary talk 

(defined in the same way): KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING, STUDENT WORD USE, 

METALINGUISTIC & METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS, or AFFECTIVE FACTORS. The 

second level again identified the specific vocabulary talk move the teacher made. For example, 

the utterance “it means dangerous” was coded at the first level with KNOWLEDGE & 

UNDERSTANDING as the general type of vocabulary talk and at the second level with 

EXPLAIN/DEFINE as the specific vocabulary talk move. For utterances addressing multiple 

types of vocabulary talk and/or multiple vocabulary talk moves, I applied each relevant code. 

This is consistent with Gee's (2014) assertion that speakers often simultaneously carry out 

multiple actions with any one utterance. (See Appendix E for full Vocabulary Talk Codebook.)  

 46 

 

In the second cycle of coding, I examined teacher utterances that addressed at least one 

type of vocabulary talk (i.e., first-level codes) but did not fit any of the specific vocabulary talk 

moves (i.e., second-level codes) identified in the pilot study. In other words, this cycle of coding 

focused on identifying additional vocabulary talk moves beyond those identified in the pilot 

study. After applying the appropriate first-level provisional codes to identify type of vocabulary 

talk, I once again used pattern coding (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2016) to describe the specific 

vocabulary talk moves the teachers made. Focusing on one of the four types of vocabulary talk at 

a time, I wrote descriptions of the teachers’ utterances, summarizing what the teachers said and 

naming what they did through language (Gee, 2014). For example, I applied the first-level code 

STUDENT WORD USE to the utterance “does anyone know the science word when you kind of 

blend into your environment?” and then wrote the description teacher asks students if anyone 

knows the word for what was being described. After writing descriptions such as this, I (re)read 

teacher utterances, identified patterns across utterances, and revised descriptions to capture these 

patterns until I was able to name the specific vocabulary talk move. Returning to the previous 

example, I named the vocabulary talk move (i.e., second-level code) ELICIT NEW WORD 

FROM STUDENTS and added the final description to the Vocabulary Talk Codebook: Teacher 

asks students for a word that has not been introduced/discussed. After adding these new 

vocabulary talk moves to the codebook, I reread all the teacher utterances and applied these new 

second-level codes as appropriate.  

 

During these two cycles of coding, I also established relationships between the second-

level codes (see Table 1). Because repeated exposures to words in multiple contexts supports 

children with learning words (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; 

Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; McKeown & Beck, 2003; National 

 47 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Silverman, 

2007a, 2007b; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik 

& Bond, 2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014), it was important to capture teachers’ use of words that 

had been targeted for instruction (i.e., USE TARGET WORD). However, in order to determine 

which words were target words, I had to first determine which vocabulary talk moves established 

a word as a target word. I defined a target word as a word related to science learning that the 

teacher seemingly targeted for instruction by bringing students’ awareness to the word and its 

meaning, such as by explaining or defining a word, acting out or demonstrating the meaning of a 

word, or eliciting students’ ideas about what a word meant (either a word being reviewed or a 

new word being introduced). I considered these vocabulary talk moves that are focused on 

bringing students’ awareness to a word and its meaning to be codes for Identifying Target Words. 

Because I was examining teacher talk within the context of science instruction, a majority of the 

words teachers explained/defined, for example, were related to science learning. However, there 

were a few exceptions when the teacher used one of the Identifying Target Words vocabulary 

talk moves for a word unrelated to science learning. In these rare cases, the utterance was still 

coded with the vocabulary talk move but was not considered to become a target word. For 

example, in one lesson, a kindergarten student talked about tornadoes being harmful enough to 

lift the Hancock Building in Chicago, and another student asked, “What’s a Hancock?” The 

teacher explained, “It’s a famous building, a really big, tall skyscraper.” This utterance was 

coded with the first-level code KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING and the second-level 

code EXPLAIN/DEFINE, as well as the first-level code AFFECTIVE FACTORS and the 

second-level code ANSWER A QUESTION; however, the term Hancock Building did not 

become a target word. In this case, the teacher was responding to a student’s question rather than 

 48 

targeting the word for instruction. The word was not related to science learning within this 

weather-focused lesson and was not used or discussed again at any other point in the lesson. 

It is important to note that my use of the term target word differs from many of the 

studies reviewed in Chapter 2 (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne 

et al., 2009; Silverman, 2007a). Many of those were intervention studies designed to teach 

students the meaning of specific words; to determine the intervention’s effectiveness, students 

were tested on those words before and after the intervention. In my observational study, I did not 

target words for instruction; rather, I was interested in capturing words the teachers seemingly  

targeted for instruction by bringing students’ awareness to the word and its meaning—whether 

this was with a planned set of science words or with words related to science learning that were 

explained more spontaneously. This is consistent with Wright and Neuman's (2014) 

observational study of vocabulary instruction across the school day in kindergarten classrooms, 

in which target words were identified from vocabulary episodes—or interactions in which the 

teacher (a) provided the meaning of a target word, including child-friendly definitions, 

synonyms, antonyms, category membership, examples; or (b) or helped students determine the 

meaning of a target word, such as by eliciting students’ explanations. 

After determining which vocabulary talk moves identified a word as a target word, I then 

determined which vocabulary talk moves were Affiliated with Target Words, meaning these 

second-level codes were only applied to teacher utterances relating to established targeted words. 

Examples of these vocabulary talk moves include using a target word, drawing attention to a 

target word by emphasizing it and/or its meaning, and helping students make personal 

connections to a target word. Finally, I noted which vocabulary talk moves were unaffiliated 

with target words, meaning they could be applied to teacher utterances that related target words 

 49 

but they could also be applied to teacher utterances unrelated to target words. Examples of these 

vocabulary talk moves include suggesting another way to say something, highlighting a word 

from another domain, and answering students’ questions about the meaning of a word. 

Table 1 

Relationships of Vocabulary Talk Moves to Target Words 

Category 

Vocabulary Talk Move 

Identifying Target Words 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Affiliated with Target Words 
 
 
 
 
Unaffiliated with Target Words 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Act Out/Demonstrate 
Ask if Heard of Word 
Ask to Repeat 
Differentiate Meaning 
Elicit New Word from Students 
Elicit Student Ideas: Act Out 
Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample 
Elicit Student Ideas: New Word 
Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word 
Elicit Student Ideas: Synonym 
Explain/Define 
Introduce Word 
Review Word 
Use with Hint 
Prompt Word 
Provide Example/Nonexample 
Provide Visual Support 
Emphasize 
Elicit Student Questions: Target Word 
Help Students Make Personal Connection 
Use Target Word 
Visually Display Word 
Acknowledge Student Ownership 
Answer a Question 
Appreciate Word/Word Choice 
Comment on Spelling 
Encourage to Use Later 
Highlight Favorite Words 
Highlight Words Across Domains 
Offer Alternative 
Praise 
Restate Differently 
Revoice 
Suggest Word/Phrase 

 50 

Once all of the specific vocabulary talk moves had been identified and the vocabulary 

talk episodes had been coded, I selected excerpts of transcripts that provided illustrative 

examples for specific vocabulary talk moves to share within Chapter 4. When highlighting 

vocabulary talk moves that often co-occurred, I selected excerpts of transcripts that showed this 

co-occurrence. When highlighting an individual vocabulary talk move, I looked for places in 

lesson transcripts where there was density for that particular code so that several different 

examples of the move could be shown within the span of several utterances. Finally, when more 

than one excerpt offered multiple examples of the vocabulary talk move(s) being highlighted, I 

chose an excerpt that had not yet been selected in order to provide a wide range of examples 

from across the cohort. 

I then took a more quantitative look, using descriptive statistics, to understand the 

frequency with which each broad type of vocabulary talk and each specific vocabulary talk move 

were used. I summed the number of applications of each of the first-level codes (i.e., type of 

vocabulary talk) and each of the second-level codes (i.e., specific vocabulary talk move). I then 

calculated the percentage of the whole for each first-level code and each second-level code. 

Finally, I made within- and between-teacher comparisons of vocabulary talk over the 

course of the study. For within-teacher comparisons, I calculated the percentage of vocabulary 

talk code applications that addressed each first-level code (i.e., type of vocabulary talk) within 

each lesson for each teacher. This allowed me to compare individual teachers’ use of each type 

of vocabulary talk across the three timepoints. I then created charts to show each teachers’ use of 

the four types of vocabulary talk within each of the three video recorded lessons. For between-

teacher comparisons, I calculated the rate each type of vocabulary talk occurred within each 

lesson (i.e., total count for each first-level code divided by lesson length in minutes). This was 

 51 

important because lesson lengths varied within and between teachers; therefore, to be able to 

compare the frequency of each type of vocabulary talk across lessons, rate per minute was used. 

Keep in mind that utterances often included more than one vocabulary talk move (i.e., second-

level codes). For example, the following utterance includes six different vocabulary talk moves: 

Ms. Thompson: and what do we do at school to prepare, or get ready, in case there's a 
tornado?  
teacher holds up the whiteboard with “prepare” written on it; teacher emphasizes 
“prepare” 
 

This utterance was coded with five different KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING vocabulary 

talk moves (i.e., USE TARGET WORD, EMPHASIZE, USE WITH HINT, VISUALLY 

DISPLAY WORD, and ELICIT STUDENT IDEAS: EXAMPLE/NONEXAMPLE) and one 

AFFECTIVE FACTORS move (i.e., HELP STUDENTS MAKE PERSONAL CONNECTION). 

Therefore, this utterance contributed five code applications to the total KNOWLEDGE & 

UNDERSTANDING count and one to the total AFFECTIVE FACTORS count. After 

calculating the total rate per minute for each of the four types of vocabulary talk for each lesson, 

I graphed each teacher’s vocabulary talk over the course of the study. 

Research Question 2: Is Vocabulary Talk Related to the Language Aspects of Science Talk, 

and if so, How? 

 

To examine the relationship between vocabulary talk and the language aspects of science 

talk, I compared the overall trend of each teacher’s vocabulary talk with the overall trend of each 

teacher’s science talk related to language learning. For vocabulary talk trends, I used the graphs I 

created for the between-teacher comparisons of vocabulary talk over the course of the study 

described for Research Question 1 in the previous section. Using rate per minute, these graphs 

show how frequently each teacher used each type of vocabulary talk for each of the three video 

recorded lessons.  

 52 

For the language aspects of science talk, the SOLID Start Tool (Wright et al., 2017) was 

used to code the science talk within each of the 24 video recorded science lessons. The purpose 

of this formative observation tool is to support K-2 educators in promoting sensemaking talk in 

their science instruction. Specifically, this science talk is academically productive (Michaels & 

O’Connor, 2012, 2015), rigorous, and responsive—providing opportunities for students to “think 

and talk like scientists” as they work to figure out a science phenomenon. The SOLID Start Tool 

has three domains (see Figure 1) with three components each. The focus of my analysis was on 

the final domain: talk that develops language and literacy for science. The three components of 

this domain are (1) providing contextualized, child-friendly supports for science oral language, 

(2) scaffolding student use of science oral language, and (3) explicitly supporting disciplinary 

literacy. I focused specifically on the first two components with this analysis, as they speak to the 

language aspects of science talk and best align with promoting students’ oral language and 

vocabulary development. 

Figure 1 

Domains of Science Talk 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting equitable science 

participation and 

engagement 

 

 

 53 

Note: Domains of science talk in the SOLID Start Tool 

Each component of the SOLID Start Tool is scored on a five-point scale, from Low (1) to 

High (5). The scores of 1, 3, or 5 are assigned when the evidence for the component matches the 

description for Low, Medium, or High, respectively. (See Table 2 for descriptions.) The score of 

2 is assigned when (a) the evidence matches some of both the Low and Medium descriptions or 

(b) most of the evidence matches the Low description but there is also (minimal) evidence 

matching the High description. Likewise, the score of 4 is assigned when (a) the evidence 

matches some of both the Medium and High descriptions or (b) most of the evidence matches the 

High description but there is also (minimal) evidence matching the Low description. Each 

activity within a science lesson is scored separately on each component of the SOLID Start Tool. 

Typical lesson activities include discussions of content, planning discussions for science 

investigations, discussions during investigations, text-based discussions, video-based 

discussions, and review/summary/share out discussions.  

Table 2 

SOLID Start Tool: Domain 3, Components 1-2 

 

5 (High) 

Component 1  Contextualized, Child-
Friendly Supports for 
Science Oral Language: 
Teacher introduces or reviews 
science oral language at times 
when this is appropriate to 
support students’ engagement 
and participation in science 
learning. New words or 
phrases are introduced in 
child-friendly ways (e.g., by 
showing images or by 
explaining the word using 
language that is already 
familiar to children) as 
children engage in science 
practices. 

3 (Medium) 

4 
  Decontextualized Supports 
for Science Oral Language: 
Teacher introduces or reviews 
science language, but it is out 
of context from children’s 
science learning (e.g., teacher 
previews all of the vocabulary 
for the unit or teacher puts all 
of the unit vocabulary on a 
word wall before the unit 
begins) or teacher introduces 
science language in ways that 
are too complex for young 
children. 

1 (Low) 

2 
  Science Oral 

Language 
Not Taught: 
Teacher may 
use scientific 
oral language 
but does not 
introduce or 
teach this 
language to 
students. 

 54 

Table 2 (cont’d) 
Component 2  Students Use Science Oral 

Language: Teacher scaffolds 
students’ use of discipline-
specific oral language that has 
been previously introduced 
with a focus on discussing 
students’ ideas and engaging 
in science practices. 

  Students Demonstrate 

  Science Oral 

Knowledge of Science Oral 
Language: Teacher scaffolds 
student talk about the 
meaning of science words but 
students do not have 
opportunities to use these 
words to discuss ideas or 
engage in science practices.  

Language 
Not Used: 
Teacher does 
not expect 
students to use 
science oral 
language. 

 
The SOLID Start Tool was used to score each of the lesson activities from each of the 

three video recorded lessons for each participant. All 24 lessons were double coded to ensure 

reliability. Coders met to compare scores and resolved differences in codes. Because the amount 

of time spent on each activity varied, scores were weighted. To weigh scores, the proportion of 

the total lesson time was calculated for each activity within a lesson. For example, with a 20-

minute lesson, the proportion for a 5-minute activity (Activity 1) would be 0.25 and for a 15-

minute activity (Activity 2) would be 0.75. The proportion for each activity was then multiplied 

by the score for each component within the activity. (See Table 3 for an example. Note that 

Activity 1 scores were multiplied by 0.25 and Activity 2 scores were multiplied by 0.75.)  

Because the number of activities within a lesson also varied, a composite score was 

calculated for each component so that lessons as a whole could be compared within and across 

teachers. To reach a composite score, the weighted scores for each activity were summed. In the 

Table 3 example, Activity 1 scored a 5 (High) for Component 2; however, because this was only 

25% of the lesson, the weighed score is much lower. The overall composite score of 2 for 

Component 2 reflects the fact that 75% of the lesson scored a 1 (Low). All scores—original 

activity scores, activity weighted scores, and composite scores—ranged from 1-5. 

 
 
 
 

 55 

Table 3 
 
Sample Weighted and Composite Scores for a 20-Minute Lesson with Two Activities 

 

Activity 1 

Score 

Activity 1 
Weighted 

Activity 2 

Score 

Activity 2 
Weighted 

Composite 

Score 

Component 1 
Component 2 

4 
5 

Score 

1 

1.25 

5 
1 

Score 
3.75 
0.75 

4.75 

2 

 
Finally, after calculating composite scores for each teacher’s lessons, I graphed each 

teacher’s science talk related to language learning (i.e., Components 1-2) over the course of the 

study. I then compared each teacher’s vocabulary talk graph with her science talk graph. Because 

vocabulary talk and science talk were measured on different scales, I looked at overall trends 

between the two graphs. 

Study 2: Curricular Features and Vocabulary Talk in a Kindergarten Classroom 

This study investigates features of science curriculum materials related to the enhanced 

vocabulary talk of one kindergarten teacher. In the sections that follow, I describe the design and 

logic, participant, data sources, and analytic strategies used to address this research question. 

Design and Logic 

Once again, I used an instrumental case study design (Barone, 2011; Stake, 2000) in 

order to look for insight into an issue of primary interest. In this study, my case was the science 

instruction of one kindergarten teacher, Ms. Thompson, from February-May 2019. Ms. 

Thompson participated in the larger SOLID Start professional development usability study and 

was part of the cohort of eight teachers who comprised the case I examined in Study 1. I selected 

Ms. Thompson’s science instruction for further analysis regarding curriculum materials for two 

reasons. First, I wanted to examine within-subject differences in vocabulary talk (i.e., variance in 

talk by a single teacher), and Ms. Thompson’s vocabulary talk varied noticeably across the three 

 56 

lessons (see Figure 12 in Chapter 4). Examining differences in one teacher’s talk across lessons 

rather than examining variance in talk from one teacher to another (i.e., between-subjects 

differences) allowed me to investigate factors impacting vocabulary talk that were outside of just 

individual differences in speaking patterns or ways of using language. Second, I wanted to 

compare a teacher’s talk from lessons drawing from different sets of curriculum materials, and 

Ms. Thompson taught from three different sets of materials across the three recorded lessons. 

Only one other teacher, Ms. Henderson, taught from three different sets of curricular materials. 

As a young 5s teacher, however, Ms. Henderson did not have grade-level curricular materials. 

Instead, she adapted lessons from a variety of sources (e.g., STEM into Nature professional 

development by the Academy of Natural Resources, Dancing with Dinosaurs program from the 

Natural History Museum at the University of Michigan, and Project WILD), along with 

designing her own lessons. Because I did not have access to all of these sources, I did not select 

Ms. Henderson’s science instruction for this analysis. Five of the eight teachers taught only from 

the Mystery Science/Mystery Doug materials for their three recorded lessons, and Ms. Nelson 

taught one lesson based on a SOLID Start unit and then taught two lessons from Mystery 

Science/Mystery Doug materials. Because Ms. Thompson taught from SOLID Start and Mystery 

Science/Mystery Doug materials— as well as a lesson from Teachers Pay Teachers, I selected 

Ms. Thompson’s science instruction for further analysis. Therefore, in this study, I examined Ms. 

Thompson’s science instruction (i.e., the case) in depth in order to better understand the issue of 

interest: features of the science curriculum materials related to enhanced vocabulary talk during 

science instruction. 

 57 

Participant 

Ms. Thompson has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education with science and English 

minors and has completed the coursework for a master’s degree in teaching natural science—

with the exception of the final project. Ms. Thompson’s state professional teaching certification 

is for elementary education (K-5 all subjects, K-8 all subjects self-contained classroom), science 

(6-8), and English (6-8). Ms. Thompson had 21 kindergarten students in her class, with 95.24% 

of students identifying as White or European American and 4.76% identifying as Black or 

African American. At the time of the study, Ms. Thompson had taught kindergarten students for 

8 of her 12 years of teaching experience. She taught an average of 49.91 minutes of science 

instruction per week during the course of this study, with weekly totals ranging from 9-90 

minutes. She reported 36 days with science instruction during the study, with an average of 3.27 

days with science instruction per week. Ms. Thompson reported using SOLID Start and Mystery 

Science curriculum materials, along with supplemental materials from Teachers Pay Teachers 

and apps such as Nico and Nor and Seesaw. 

Data Sources 

 

In addition to the demographic background and teaching experience information survey, 

the weekly instructional log, and the video recordings of science lesson described in Study 1, I 

also collected science curriculum materials for the three lessons Ms. Thompson taught. The first 

lesson was How Can We Prepare for Severe Weather? (Lesson 7) from the SOLID Start Weather 

Forecasting unit (Gotwals & Wright, 2017; Wright & Gotwals, 2017). While providing 

curriculum materials was not part of the SOLID Start professional development usability study, 

Ms. Thompson had participated in a pilot study of the SOLID Start kindergarten curriculum the 

previous school year and had access to these materials. Participants in the usability study could 

 58 

use any curriculum available to them, and Ms. Thompson chose to use this lesson from the 

SOLID Start curriculum for her PrePD lesson. The second lesson (i.e., Week 5) was from a 

Teachers Pay Teachers packet on force and motion. The third lesson (i.e., Week 9) was Where 

Do Animals Live? (Lesson 2) from the Mystery Science Plant and Animal Secrets unit (Schacht 

& Peltz, 2020). (See Chapter 5 for a description of each lesson as presented by the curriculum 

materials.) These three lessons from three different sets of curriculum materials helped me to 

examine curricular features related to enhanced vocabulary talk. 

Analytic Strategies 

I began this qualitative analysis by carefully reading through the coded transcripts of Ms. 

Thompson’s enacted lessons and identifying places with dense vocabulary talk, meaning that 

multiple vocabulary moves were made over a span of utterances. This was important because, in 

order to examine the relationship between Ms. Thompson’s enhanced vocabulary talk and 

science curriculum materials, I first needed to identify enhanced vocabulary talk. I considered 

density of vocabulary talk to be evidence of enhanced vocabulary talk, as Ms. Thompson 

engaged in sustained vocabulary talk (i.e., over the span of multiple utterances) using multiple 

vocabulary talk moves in these places. I also highlighted words that had been identified as target 

words in my Study 1 analysis (i.e., words related to science learning that Ms. Thompson 

seemingly targeted for instruction by bringing students’ awareness to the words and their 

meaning) and noted the teachers’ questions/prompts related to these target words. After this 

initial analysis of Ms. Thompson’s enacted lessons, I carefully read/viewed the written lessons as 

presented in the SOLID Start, Teachers Pay Teachers, and Mystery Science curriculum 

materials. For each of the areas of dense vocabulary talk I had identified in the enacted lessons, I 

examined the written lessons to see if there was anything in the curriculum materials seemingly 

 59 

related to this talk. I noted places in which specific vocabulary words were targeted for 

instruction (if any) and noted what supports were provided for introducing and/or reviewing 

these words (if any). I compared the list of vocabulary words targeted for instruction by the 

curriculum materials (if any) to the list of words targeted for instruction in Ms. Thompson’s 

enacted lessons. Throughout this analysis, as I found curricular features (e.g., targeted 

vocabulary words) that seemed to be related to enhanced vocabulary talk in one lesson, I looked 

for this relationship across the other two written/enacted lessons as well. 

Finally, I selected excerpts of transcripts to share within Chapter 5 to highlight curricular 

features related to enhanced vocabulary talk. I looked across all three lessons for illustrative 

examples of enhanced vocabulary talk related to each curricular feature I identified. For 

example, I selected an excerpt each from Ms. Thompson’s SOLID Start and Mystery Science 

lessons to show the relationship between text selection and vocabulary talk. In this case, the 

Teachers Pay Teachers lesson did not include text, so I did not select an example of Ms. 

Thompson’s vocabulary talk from this lesson for this feature. 

Researcher Positionality 

 

My analysis in this dissertation study has been influenced by my experiences as a 

classroom teacher and research assistant. As a former early-elementary classroom teacher, I drew 

from my own teaching experience—in addition to the literature on how children learn words—

when identifying vocabulary talk moves and analyzing features of science curriculum materials. 

For example, when identifying words that teachers targeted for instruction on their own, I 

considered the ways in which I drew students’ attention to new words and their meanings in my 

own teaching, such as by asking students to say to repeat the target word while introducing it and 

its meaning—which is also supported by the literature (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne et 

 60 

al., 2010; Rosenthal & Ehri, 2011; Silverman & Crandell, 2010). As a research assistant for the 

SOLID Start project for four years, I have collaborated with the team on curriculum 

development, SOLID Start Tool development, and the development and coordination of the 

professional development usability trial. Together, these experiences as a research assistant on 

the SOLID Start project shaped how I thought about the language aspects of science talk when 

considering how this relates to vocabulary talk and how I thought about curricular features when 

analyzing features related to enhanced vocabulary talk. 

Limitations to the Method 

 

There are several limitations to the methodology of this dissertation study. First, this 

study took place within the context of a larger study providing teachers with professional 

development on engaging students in science talk, so while vocabulary talk was not a focus of 

the professional development experience, this observational study did not take place within the 

context of business-as-usual science instruction. Given that very little time is devoted to science 

instruction at the elementary level (Berliner, 2011; Blank, 2012), it was important to find early-

elementary teachers who would be teaching science lessons on a regular basis. The teachers 

participating in the SOLID Start professional development committed to teaching and recording 

their science lessons at three points, which provided me with the context in which to examine 

vocabulary talk during science instruction. Further, while the language aspects of science talk 

were touched on during the part of the professional development focused on talk that supports 

language and literacy for science, vocabulary talk was not a focus of the overall professional 

development. 

 

The second limitation is that only eight teachers were included in this observational 

study. Many observational studies of vocabulary instruction include a larger number of teachers 

 61 

(e.g., Carlisle et al., 2013 [n=44]; Nelson et al., 2015 [n=107-119 over three years]; Neugebauer 

et al., 2017 [n=27]; Scott et al., 2003 [n=23]; Silverman & Crandell, 2010 [n=16]; Wanzek, 2014 

[n=14]; Wright & Neuman, 2014 [n=55]). However, Watts (1995) examined the instruction of 

six teachers and Dickinson et al. (2008) examined the instruction of four teachers. Therefore, 

there is a precedent for observational studies of vocabulary instruction examining a relatively 

small number of teachers. Further, like the taxonomy of methods for teaching vocabulary 

instruction developed by Watts (1995), the present study was focused on identifying specific 

vocabulary talk moves made by teachers, which was possible to do across the 24 lessons 

observed from the cohort of eight teachers studied.   

 

A third limitation is that the SOLID Start Tool was under development at the time of the 

analysis. While the tool has been through several iterations of revisions since these lessons were 

scored, Components 1-2 of Domain 3 (i.e., the language aspects of science talk) have not 

changed, and therefore these scores have not changed. Each activity within a lesson was double 

coded and scorers reconciled any disagreements after discussion.  

 

Finally, perhaps the greatest limitation of the present study is that no student outcome 

data was collected. While a number of observational studies of vocabulary instruction have not 

included student outcome data (Blachowicz, 1987; Dickinson et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2015; 

Scott et al., 2003; Wanzek, 2014; Watts, 1995; Wright & Neuman, 2014), the absence of this 

information makes it impossible to confirm that the vocabulary talk moves identified in the 

present study promote students’ oral language and vocabulary development. Therefore, unlike 

observational studies that found correlations between vocabulary instructional methods and 

students’ learning (e.g., Carlisle et al., 2013; Neugebauer et al., 2017; Silverman & Crandell, 

2010), the relationship between the vocabulary talk moves identified in the present study and 

 62 

students’ oral language and vocabulary development have not yet been examined. The 

vocabulary talk moves identified here are aligned with research suggesting they would promote 

oral language and vocabulary development, but future research is needed to determine if this is 

the case.  

Summary 

 

Two instrumental case studies comprise this dissertation study. In the first study, the case 

is the science instruction of a cohort of eight early-elementary teachers and the issue of primary 

interest is how they used language to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development. In the second study, the case is one kindergarten teacher and the issues of primary 

interest are the features of science curriculum materials related to enhanced vocabulary talk 

during science instruction. In total, 24 video recorded science lessons provided 894.27 minutes 

of observational data across three timepoints from the eight participating teachers. Discourse 

analysis and other qualitative analysis techniques were used to examine the vocabulary talk 

moves the teachers made during science instruction. Quantitative techniques were also used to 

make within- and between-teacher comparisons of vocabulary talk over the course of the study. 

Little is known about how teachers promote oral language and vocabulary development 

in science instruction in the early-elementary grades; therefore, the goal of this dissertation study 

is to examine the ways in which teachers use language to promote oral language and vocabulary 

development during science instruction. It is important to understand what opportunities students 

have to develop oral language and also access science content, as both support literacy and 

science learning.

 63 

CHAPTER 4—STUDY 1 FINDINGS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1-2 

The primary goal of this study was to describe how teachers promote oral language and 

vocabulary development during science instruction in the early-elementary grades. I report 

findings based on 894.27 minutes of observational data across 24 total lessons, ranging from 

13:27 to 1:13:25, in eight early-elementary classrooms. I investigated the following research 

questions: 

1.  How do teachers use language to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development during science instruction in early-elementary classrooms? 

2.  Is vocabulary talk related to the language aspects of science talk, and if so, how? 

In this section, I present findings investigating the vocabulary talk and science talk that occurred 

during early-elementary science lessons. I begin by introducing the cohort of eight teachers who 

together comprise the case I examined. Then I present the specific vocabulary talk moves the 

teachers made within each of the four types of vocabulary talk: Knowledge & Understanding, 

Affective Factors, Student Word Use, and Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness. Next I 

present within- and between-teacher comparisons of vocabulary talk over the course of the study. 

Finally, I describe the relationship between vocabulary talk and the language aspects of science 

talk.  

When lesson transcripts are shared throughout this chapter and the next, the vocabulary 

talk moves are printed in bold text in the brackets following teacher utterances, and comments 

providing additional context are printed in italics below the utterance to which they refer. Also 

note that (parts of) some transcripts are shared multiple times within Chapter 4 and/or 5, 

highlighting different aspects of vocabulary talk. For ease of reading, these transcripts are 

provided within the text again so that navigating back to previous findings is not required. 

 64 

The Teachers 

 

With an instrumental case study (Barone, 2011; Stake, 2000), it important to study the 

case in depth in order to understand the issue of primary interest. In this section, I present a 

description of each of the eight teachers who together comprise the case I examined in order to 

better understand vocabulary talk during science instruction in the early-elementary grades. 

These descriptions include self-reported information about education, teacher certification, 

teaching experience, student demographics, amount and frequency of science instruction, and 

science curriculum materials used. 

Ms. Henderson 

 

Ms. Henderson has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education with early childhood, 

English, and history minors and a master’s degree in K-12 literacy. Her state professional 

teaching certification is for elementary education (K-5 all subjects, K-8 all subjects self-

contained classroom), English (6-8), history (6-8), reading specialist (K-12), and early childhood 

education (PK-K). At the time of the study, Ms. Henderson had 24 young 5s students in her class 

(i.e., children who will be in kindergarten the following school year), with 95.83% of students 

identifying as White or European American and 4.17% identifying as biracial or multiethnic. Ms. 

Henderson had 17 years of teaching experience, with 11 of those years as a young 5s teacher. 

During the course of the study, she taught an average of 102.18 minutes of science instruction 

per week, with weekly totals ranging from 30-150 minutes. She reported 31 days with science 

instruction during the study, with an average of 2.82 days with science instruction per week. As a 

young 5s teacher without grade-level curriculum, Ms. Henderson drew from a variety of science 

curriculum materials. She reported using Growing Up Wild, Project Wild, Project Learning Tree, 

STEM into Nature (Academy of Natural Resources professional development for educators), and 

 65 

her own science curriculum materials. She noted that one of her recorded lessons was mostly 

original but drew on an activity from the Dancing with Dinosaurs program at the University of 

Michigan’s Natural History Museum. 

Ms. Thompson 

 

Ms. Thompson has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education with science and English 

minors. She has also completed the coursework for a master’s degree in teaching natural science, 

with the exception of the final project. Ms. Thompson’s state professional teaching certification 

is for elementary education (K-5 all subjects, K-8 all subjects self-contained classroom), science 

(6-8), and English (6-8). At the time of the study, Ms. Thompson had 21 kindergarten students in 

her class, with 95.24% of students identifying as White or European American and 4.76% 

identifying as Black or African American. Ms. Thompson had 12 years of teaching experience, 

with 8 of those years as a kindergarten teacher. During the course of the study, she taught an 

average of 49.91 minutes of science instruction per week, with weekly totals ranging from 9-90 

minutes. She reported 36 days with science instruction during the study, with an average of 3.27 

days with science instruction per week. Ms. Thompson reported using curriculum materials form 

SOLID Start, Mystery Science, and Teachers Pay Teachers, as well as apps such as Seesaw and 

Nico and Nor. 

Ms. Nelson 

Ms. Nelson has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education and child development and a 

master’s degree in early literacy. Her state professional teaching certification is for elementary 

education (K-5 all subjects, K-8 all subjects self-contained classroom) and early childhood 

education (PK-K). At the time of the study, Ms. Nelson had 22 kindergarten students in her class, 

with 90.91% of students identifying as White or European American, 4.55% identifying as 

 66 

Hispanic or Latino/a, and 4.55% identifying as biracial or multiethnic. Ms. Nelson had 19 years 

of teaching experience, with 13 of those years as a kindergarten teacher. During the course of the 

study, Ms. Nelson taught an average of 70 minutes of science instruction per week, with weekly 

totals ranging from 20-130 minutes. She reported 52 days with science instruction during the 

study, with an average of 4 days with science instruction per week. Ms. Nelson reported using 

SOLID Start and Mystery Science/Mystery Doug curriculum materials. 

Ms. Baker 

Ms. Baker has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education. Her state standard teaching 

certification is for elementary education (K-5 all subjects, K-8 all subjects self-contained 

classroom), science (6-7), and social studies (6-8). At the time of the study, Ms. Baker had 22 

kindergarten students in her class, with 95.45% of students identifying as White or European 

American and 4.55% identifying as biracial or multiethnic. Ms. Baker had 5 years of teaching 

experience, with 2 of those years as a kindergarten teacher. During the course of the study, Ms. 

Baker taught an average of 81.54 minutes of science instruction per week, with weekly totals 

ranging from 40-140 minutes. She reported 36 days with science instruction during the study, 

with an average of 2.77 days with science instruction per week. Ms. Baker reported using 

Mystery Science/Mystery Doug and Wonderopolis curriculum materials. 

Ms. Watson 

Ms. Watson has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education. Her state standard teaching 

certification is for elementary education (K-5 all subjects, K-8 all subjects self-contained 

classroom). At the time of the study, Ms. Watson had 27 first-grade students in her class, with 

96.3% of students identifying as White or European American and 3.7% identifying as Black or 

African American. Ms. Watson was in her first year of teaching. During the course of the study, 

 67 

Ms. Watson taught an average of 52.5 minutes of science instruction per week, with weekly 

totals ranging from 30-60 minutes. She reported 21 days with science instruction during the 

study, with an average of 1.75 days with science instruction per week. Ms. Watson reported 

using Mystery Science curriculum materials. 

Ms. Griffin 

Ms. Griffin has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education with language arts and math 

minors. Her state standard teaching certification is for elementary education (K-5 all subjects, K-

8 all subjects self-contained classroom). At the time of the study, Ms. Griffin had 27 first-grade 

students in her class, with 92.59% of students identifying as White or European American, 3.7% 

identifying as Black or African American, and 3.7% identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander. Ms. 

Griffin had 2 years of teaching experience and was in her first year as a first-grade teacher. 

During the course of the study, Ms. Griffin taught an average of 32.27 minutes of science 

instruction per week, with weekly totals ranging from 0-90 minutes. She reported 12 days with 

science instruction during the study, with an average of 1.09 days with science instruction per 

week. Ms. Griffin reported using Mystery Science and her own curriculum materials. 

Ms. Howard 

Ms. Howard has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education and a master’s degree in 

curriculum and instruction. Her state professional teaching certification is for elementary 

education (K-5 all subjects, K-8 all subjects self-contained classroom) and English (6-8). At the 

time of the study, Ms. Howard had 22 second-grade students in her class, with 100% of students 

identifying as White or European American. Ms. Howard had 6 years of teaching experience and 

was in her first year as a second-grade teacher. During the course of the study, Ms. Howard 

taught an average of 69.09 minutes of science instruction per week, with weekly totals ranging 

 68 

from 0-185 minutes. She reported 23 days with science instruction during the study, with an 

average of 2.09 days with science instruction per week. Ms. Howard reported using Mystery 

Science curriculum materials, along with informational texts from the Reading Street literacy 

curriculum.  

Ms. Hill 

Ms. Hill has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education. Her state standard teaching 

certification is for elementary education (K-5 all subjects, K-8 all subjects self-contained 

classroom) and early childhood (PK-general and special education). At the time of the study, Ms. 

Hill had 23 second-grade students in her class, with 100% of students identifying as White or 

European American. Ms. Hill had 7 years of teaching experience and was in her first year as a 

second-grade teacher. During the course of the study, Ms. Hill taught an average of 40.42 

minutes of science instruction per week, with weekly totals ranging from 0-90 minutes. She 

reported 12 days with science instruction during the study, with an average of one day with 

science instruction per week. Ms. Hill reported using Mystery Science curriculum materials. 

In summary, this cohort of eight teachers participating in the larger SOLID Start 

professional development usability trial comprised the case I examined in depth in order to better 

understand how teachers use language to promote oral language and vocabulary development 

during science instruction in the early-elementary grades. In the sections that follow, I share my 

findings for each research question. 

 69 

Research Question 1: How Do Teachers Use Language to Promote Students’ Oral 

Language and Vocabulary Development During Science Instruction in Early-Elementary 

Classrooms? 

To investigate the ways in which teachers use language to promote students’ oral 

language and vocabulary development during science instruction in early-elementary classrooms, 

I identified the vocabulary talk moves the teachers made that align with the research and theory 

relative to how children learn words. I found that, collectively, the cohort of teachers used 34 

different vocabulary talk moves, as presented in Table 4. This table shows the number of 

vocabulary talk code applications across the entire data set; that is, Table 4 shows the total 

number of times each second-level code (i.e., vocabulary talk move) was applied across all eight 

teachers and all 24 total video recordings. Note that Table 4 is organized with four sections—one 

for each of the four types of vocabulary talk (i.e., Knowledge & Understanding, Affective 

Factors, Student Word Use, and Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness). These four types 

of vocabulary talk appear in descending frequency of occurrence within the data set. Within each 

section, specific vocabulary talk moves appear in descending frequency of occurrence within that 

type of vocabulary talk. To be included in the codebook and analysis, a vocabulary talk move 

had to be used at least one time across the data set; therefore, provisional codes from the pilot 

study were removed if they were not applied in the present study. In the following paragraphs, I 

present examples of specific vocabulary talk moves the teachers used to build knowledge of 

word meanings, interest students in words and word learning, scaffold students’ word use, and 

increase awareness of words and word learning. For descriptions and examples of all 34 

vocabulary talk moves, see the full Vocabulary Talk Codebook in Appendix E. 

 

 70 

Table 4 

Frequency of Vocabulary Talk Moves 

Vocabulary Talk Move 

Number of Code 

Percentage of 

Applications 
(N = 3516)  

Code 

Applications 

Knowledge & Understanding 

3049 

86.72% 

Use Target Word 
Emphasize 
Explain/Define 
Provide Example/Nonexample 
Review Word 
Use with Hint 
Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word 
Visually Display Word 
Introduce Word 
Act Out/Demonstrate 
Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample 
Provide Visual Support 
Elicit Student Ideas: New Word 
Comment on Spelling 
Elicit Student Ideas: Act Out 
Elicit Student Questions: Target Word 
Elicit Student Ideas: Synonym 
Restate Differently 
Differentiate Meaning 
Highlight Words Across Domains 
Offer Alternative 

1534 
354 
207 
167 
124 
111 
108 
95 
89 
59 
56 
47 
36 
18 
16 
14 
8 
3 
1 
1 
1 

Affective Factors 

276 

7.85% 

Help Students Make Personal Connection 
Praise 
Answer a Question 
Acknowledge Student Ownership 
Appreciate Word/Word Choice 
Highlight Favorite Word 

Student Word Use 

184 

Prompt Word 
Suggest Word/Phrase 
Revoice 
Ask to Repeat 
Elicit New Word from Students 
Encourage to Use Later 

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness 

7 

Ask if Heard of Word 
 

218 
29 
15 
9 
4 
1 

113 
24 
21 
10 
9 
7 

7 
 

5.23% 

0.20% 

 71 

43.63% 
10.07% 
5.89% 
4.75% 
3.53% 
3.16% 
3.07% 
2.70% 
2.53% 
1.68% 
1.59% 
1.34% 
1.02% 
0.51% 
0.46% 
0.40% 
0.23% 
0.09% 
0.03% 
0.03% 
0.03% 

6.20% 
0.82% 
0.43% 
0.26% 
0.11% 
0.03% 

3.21% 
0.68% 
0.60% 
0.28% 
0.26% 
0.20% 

0.20% 
 

Knowledge & Understanding 

As Table 4 shows, the cohort of teachers used Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary 

talk moves most frequently, accounting for 86.72% of total vocabulary talk code applications. 

Within this type of vocabulary talk, the teachers used 21 different vocabulary talk moves aligned 

with the research on building students’ knowledge of word meanings. The most frequently-

occurring Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk move was using a target word—or a 

word that had been targeted for instruction by bringing students’ awareness to it and its meaning. 

Accounting for 43.63% of total vocabulary talk code applications, using a target word was also 

the most frequently-occurring vocabulary talk move overall—across all four types of vocabulary 

talk. The second most frequently-occurring Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk move 

was emphasizing a target word and/or its meaning. Accounting for 10.07% of total vocabulary 

talk code applications, emphasizing a target word and/or its meaning was also the second most 

frequently-occurring vocabulary talk move overall. As using a target word and emphasizing a 

target word are related vocabulary talk moves, they often were used by teachers together in the 

same utterance. The following example was selected to show how teachers often emphasized 

target words as they used them. In this example, Ms. Nelson uses and emphasizes the target word 

extreme multiple times while reviewing it with her kindergarten students: 

Ms. Nelson: it was ex-tr-eme. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes and draws out “extreme,” pausing after each syllable as if 
each were a clue to the word 

Child(ren): extreme! 
Ms. Nelson: extreme. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes “extreme” 

Ms. Nelson: extreme weather. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes “extreme” 

Ms. Nelson: extreme weather. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Visually Display Word] 

teacher writes “extreme weather” on the SMARTBoard and emphasizes 
“extreme” 

Ms. Nelson: we read that book about extreme weather. [Use Target Word] 

 72 

Ms. Nelson: so, so we said so there is different kinds of extreme weather. [Use Target 

Word, Emphasize] 
teacher emphasizes “extreme” 

Ms. Nelson: what kinds of extreme weather did we talk about? [Use Target Word, Elicit 

Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample] 

 

In this brief exchange, Ms. Nelson provided repeated exposures to the word extreme, saying it 

seven times. She drew attention to it too by saying it with emphasis five of those times. While 

the word extreme was being reviewed at this point in the lesson, Ms. Nelson continued to use the 

term, as relevant, throughout the lesson. Teachers often used target words repeatedly in a series 

of utterances while introducing or reviewing them, followed by additional exposures throughout 

the lesson, as target words related to the discussion. 

As shown in Table 4, after using target words and emphasizing target words and/or their 

meaning, the next most frequently occurring Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk 

moves were explaining or defining a word (5.89% of total vocabulary talk code applications) and 

providing an example or nonexample of a word (4.75% of total vocabulary talk code 

applications). Teacher utterances were coded for each of these types of vocabulary talk when the 

teacher provided the explanation/definition or example/nonexample or when the teacher 

confirmed the accuracy of an explanation/definition or example/nonexample, such as when 

provided by a student. Code applications for explaining/defining and providing an 

example/nonexample often appeared together, as teachers frequently followed up an explanation 

of a word’s meaning with examples. The following example was selected to show this co-

occurrence. In this example, Ms. Henderson explains the meaning of needs and wants and 

provides examples to the young 5s students in her class within a discussion about habitats 

providing food, water, shelter, and space for inhabitants: 

Ms. Henderson: those are our needs. [Introduce Word, Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes “needs” 

 73 

Ms. Henderson: so the needs are things that we have to have. [Use Target Word, 

Emphasize, Explain/Define, Visually Display Word,] 
teacher emphasizes “have to” and places a paper with “needs” written on it in 
one of the hula hoops 

Ms. Henderson: okay? 
Ms. Henderson: in order to survive. [Explain/Define] 
Ms. Henderson: so for example, in our house, do we need to have a way to get water? 
[Use Target Word, Emphasize, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “need” 

Child(ren): yes. 
Ms. Henderson: yes. [Provide Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 

Ms. Henderson: do we need to have a bed? [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Help 

Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “need” 

Child(ren): yes. 
Child(ren): to hibernate. 
Ms. Henderson: well, to sleep. [Help Students Make Personal Connection, Revoice] 
Ms. Henderson: but if we have a house, which is our shelter, do we have to have a bed? 

teacher emphasizes “have to have” [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Provide 
Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): yes. 
Ms. Henderson: no. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Ms. Henderson: so a, a bed is a want. [Introduce Word, Use Target Word, Provide 

Example/Nonexample, Visually Display Word] 
teacher holds up paper with the word “want” on it as she says the word “want” 

Ms. Henderson: a want is something we don't need to survive. [Use Target Word, 

Emphasize, Explain/Define] 
teacher emphasizes “don’t need” 

Ms. Henderson: we don't have to have a bed to survive. [Emphasize, Provide 
Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “have to” 
 

In this example, Ms. Henderson paused the discussion about habitats in order to explain the 

meaning of needs. She then engaged students in deeper processing by asking them to determine 

if water and beds are examples of needs, and she confirmed the accuracy of their responses. 

(Note that this is slightly different from the Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk move 

of eliciting examples/nonexamples from students because, in this instance, students did not 

generate the examples/nonexamples on their own.) The discussion regarding whether a bed is a 

need led to the introduction of the word want, which Ms. Henderson explicitly explained and 

 74 

clarified that a bed is an example of a want rather than a need. Within this discussion, Ms. 

Henderson also indicated that a house is an example of the previously-established target word 

shelter. 

The remaining 17 Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk moves together 

accounted for 22.38% of total vocabulary talk code applications. For example, teachers used a 

word in context along with a hint, such as when Ms. Henderson, young 5s teacher, hinted, “So, 

you will have to design some sort of crossing for your animal to get across the road or for, or 

under the road.” Teachers also reviewed the meaning of a word that had already been introduced 

by eliciting students’ ideas, as when Ms. Thompson, kindergarten teacher, asked, “What do we 

know about stratus clouds?” Teachers sometimes acted out or demonstrated the meaning of a 

word while saying the word. For instance, Ms. Thompson demonstrated pulling something 

toward herself while explaining, “If someone's pulling something, they're moving it closer to 

themselves.” As a final example, teachers provided a visual support to illustrate the meaning of a 

word at times, as when Ms. Hill, second-grade teacher, pointed to a photograph of the target 

word canyon and explained, “We get this gap in between and we still have landforms that are 

really high on either side.” (See Appendix E for examples of the full set of Knowledge & 

Understanding vocabulary talk moves.) 

In summary, these Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk moves were aimed at 

providing students with multiple exposures to target words in a variety of contexts and multiple 

ways for students to access word meanings, such as by eliciting and/or providing 

explanations/definitions and examples/nonexamples for target words, acting out the meaning of 

target words, and showing students an image depicting the target word. Therefore, the teachers 

used language during science instruction in many ways that are aligned with the research on 

 75 

building students’ knowledge of word meanings. This is important because much of the research 

examining vocabulary instruction has been within the context of literacy instruction. This finding 

shows this cohort of early-elementary teachers used many research-based vocabulary practices 

outside of literacy instruction. While student outcome data was not collected as part of this study, 

the alignment with research on how children learn words suggests that the cohort of teachers 

may have promoted students’ oral language and vocabulary development with these Knowledge 

& Understanding vocabulary talk moves. 

Affective Factors 

As Table 4 shows, the cohort of teachers used Affective Factors vocabulary talk moves 

with the second greatest frequency, accounting for 7.85% of total vocabulary talk code 

applications. Within this type of vocabulary talk, the teachers used six different vocabulary talk 

moves aligned with the theory and research on interesting students in words and word learning. 

The most frequently-occurring Affective Factors vocabulary talk move was helping students 

make personal connections, such as by asking students questions about experiences they have 

had related to a target word, reminding students of a common experience they had that connects 

to a target word (e.g., connecting recent local weather to the target words severe and extreme), 

and asking students to think hypothetically about a target word in the context of their own 

experiences (e.g., “So, let’s pretend our classroom was our habitat” or “What would you need [to 

wear] for that weather?”). Accounting for 6.20% of total vocabulary talk code applications, 

connecting to students’ personal experiences was the third most frequently-occurring vocabulary 

talk move overall, across all four types of vocabulary talk. The following illustrative example 

shows Ms. Henderson helping her young 5s students connect the target words arrangement, 

water, food, shelter, space, and habitat to the familiar context of their own classroom: 

 76 

Ms. Henderson: so arrangement is how things are, how things are put next to each other. 

[Use Target Word, Explain/Define] 

Ms. Henderson: in our classroom we have an arrangement. [Use Target Word, 

Emphasize, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher points around the room; teacher emphasizes “arrangement” 

Ms. Henderson: okay? 
Ms. Henderson: our water supply is right there. [Use Target Word, Help Students 

Make Personal Connection] 
teacher points off camera 

Ms. Henderson: do we have to go down the hall to the office to get water? [Use Target 

Word, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): no. 
Ms. Henderson: no. [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
Ms. Henderson: our food supply is in our cubby. [Use Target Word, Help Students 

Make Personal Connection] 
teacher points in a different direction, off camera 

Ms. Henderson: do we have to go all the way outside to get a snack? [Help Students 

Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): no. 
Ms. Henderson: no. [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
Ms. Henderson: our shelter is where we're at, right? [Use Target Word, Emphasize, 

Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher makes a circle around the room with her pointer finger; teacher 
emphasizes the word “shelter” 

Ms. Henderson: our space is kind of small. [Use Target Word, Help Students Make 

Personal Connection] 

Ms. Henderson: but for just being at school we have enough space. [Use Target Word, 

Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Henderson: and, another part of our arrangement is our bathroom, right? [Use Target 

Word, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher again points in a different direction to something off camera 

Ms. Henderson: it's close enough where we don't have to run to the other building to use 

the restroom. [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Henderson: so all four of these things, food, water, shelter, and space, have to be in 

an arrangement for the animals. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Visually 
Display Word, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher points to the words “food,” “water,” “shelter,” “space,” and 
“arrangement” as she says them; teacher emphasizes “arrangement” 
 

In this example, Ms. Henderson paused a discussion about the features of animal habitats (i.e., 

food, water, shelter, space—all in an arrangement) in order to help students make personal 

connections to each of these features. While food and water are already familiar to five-year-

olds, the target words arrangement, space, and habitat are more abstract and therefore more 

 77 

challenging, especially for young children. By framing the classroom as a habitat and 

encouraging students to think of their food and water supplies, the adequacy of their space, their 

shelter, and how everything they need is arranged so that they do not need to leave the classroom, 

Ms. Henderson helped students connect to—and likely better understand—these target words. 

Students may have been more motivated to understand and use these words upon making these 

connections. 

The remaining five Affective Factors vocabulary talk moves accounted for only 1.65% of 

vocabulary talk moves, combined. At times, teachers used the move of praising student word 

use. For example, Ms. Thompson, kindergarten teacher, responded to the student comment “My 

prediction is at yellow” by saying, “Oh, I love hearing the word prediction.” Similarly, Ms. Hill, 

second-grade teacher, praised a student’s word use by saying, “Oh, I liked her description word. 

Thick.” Teachers also used the move of acknowledging students’ “ownership” of words by 

attributing words to the students who used them when sharing their ideas. For example, Ms. 

Thompson noted, “Myra said there’s a force happening here,” and Ms. Griffin, first-grade 

teacher, pointed out, “But I also heard Ellis say curved.” Another move teachers made was to 

answer students’ questions about what words mean or what a word for something is. For 

example, a kindergarten student asked what a flood was, and Ms. Thompson explained, “A flood 

is when too much rain falls and there’s kind of nowhere for it to go.” A second-grade student 

asked what to call the yellow material (cornmeal) in the investigation, and Ms. Hill responded, 

“You can call it a landform.” Teachers sometimes showed appreciation for a word or word 

choice encountered within a lesson from a source other than students. For example, in response 

to Weather Conditions as the title of a read-aloud text, Ms. Nelson, kindergarten teacher, 

exclaimed, “Oooh, that’s a fancy word” before inviting students to say weather conditions aloud 

 78 

and explaining the meaning of the term. Finally, the move of highlighting a favorite word was 

used one time. Ms. Nelson said of precipitation, “That is one of my favorite words.”  

In summary, these Affective Factors vocabulary talk moves were aimed at motivating 

students to use/learn new words, encouraging students’ curiosity about word meanings, and 

modeling appreciation and enjoyment for words and word usage. Therefore, the teachers did use 

some language during science instruction in ways that are aligned with theory and (limited) 

research on interesting students in words and word learning. This is notable because of the four 

types of vocabulary talk, Affective Factors has the least empirical support; yet, this cohort of 

teachers used these vocabulary talk moves more frequently than Student Word Use and 

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness vocabulary talk moves—both of which are well 

supported in the research literature. It is also important to note that Affective Factors vocabulary 

talk moves accounted for only 7.85% of total vocabulary talk code applications, suggesting that 

these teachers promoted oral language and vocabulary development in this way at times, but it 

was not a focus of their vocabulary instruction during science lessons. 

Student Word Use 

As Table 4 shows, the cohort of teachers used Student Word Use vocabulary talk moves 

third most frequently, accounting for 5.23% of total vocabulary talk code applications. Within 

this type of vocabulary talk, the teachers used six vocabulary talk moves aligned with the 

research on scaffolding students’ word use. The most frequently-occurring Student Word Use 

vocabulary talk move was prompting students to use a target word that had been previously 

introduced. This vocabulary talk move accounted for 3.21% of total vocabulary talk code 

applications. The following example was selected to show how teachers prompted students to 

use target words. In this example, Ms. Henderson prompts the young 5s students in her class to 

 79 

use the target word herbivore when describing a plant-eating prehistoric creature from a read-

aloud text: 

Ms. Henderson: was this an herbivore? [Review Word, Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes the word “herbivore” 

Ms. Henderson: or a carnivore? [Use Target Word] 
Ms. Henderson: and how can you tell? 
Ms. Henderson: how can you tell? 
Ms. Henderson: Hannah? 
CHI: carnivore. 
Ms. Henderson: it's a carnivore? [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

 teacher emphasizes the word “carnivore” 

Ms. Henderson: what makes you think it was a carnivore? [Use Target Word, 

Emphasize] 
teacher emphasizes the word “carnivore” 

Child(ren): because it ate plants. 
Ms. Henderson: so if it ate plants what was it called? [Prompt Word] 
Child(ren): um, herbivore. 
Ms. Henderson: herbivore. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes the word “herbivore” 

Ms. Henderson: alright, show me a thumbs up if you agree with Hannah that it's an 

herbivore (be)cause it ate plants. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 
teacher holds up a thumbs up and most students copy her; teacher emphasizes the 
word “herbivore” 

Ms. Henderson: okay, I see a couple thumbs down. 
Ms. Henderson: Tripp, tell me why you disagree. 
Child(ren): xxx. 
Ms. Henderson: okay so it ate plants with its teeth. 
Ms. Henderson: and a lot of carnivores have teeth. [Use Target Word] 
Ms. Henderson: do herbivores have teeth? [Use Target Word] 
Child(ren): yes. 
Ms. Henderson: okay. 
Ms. Henderson: so if it has teeth and it's eating a plant, what would it be? [Prompt 

Word] 
teacher emphasizes the word “plant” 

Child(ren): a herbivore. 
Child(ren): a herbivore. 
Ms. Henderson: an herbivore. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes the word “herbivore” 
 

In this example, the target words herbivore and carnivore had previously been introduced, but it 

is evident that there is still some confusion among the young 5s students about which term to use 

for plant eaters and which to use with meat eaters. While helping students work through this 

 80 

confusion, Ms. Henderson prompted students to use the target word herbivore twice. In other 

examples of this vocabulary talk move, Ms. Nelson, kindergarten teacher, prompted students to 

use the target word cumulonimbus with the utterance “What type of cloud produces 

thunderstorms?” and elicited the target word temperature with a series of prompts, including 

“When the meteorologist checks the weather, they talk about precipitation, the clouds, the wind, 

and the what, Avery?”  

The remaining five Student Word Use vocabulary talk moves together accounted for only 

2.02% of total vocabulary talk code applications. In one move, teachers suggested another way 

to say something, such as when Ms. Thompson responded to a kindergarten student’s idea that 

fall weather conditions usually include “light wind” by suggesting, “Maybe we could say the 

word breezy?” In a similar move, teachers elevated students’ word use by revoicing what a 

student said in a more academic or conventional way. In one example, a young 5s student 

explained that the character Bear from the read-aloud text would not be able to live where the 

character Polar Bear lived “(Be)cause it [Bear] has less wool than him [Polar Bear]” and Ms. 

Henderson responded by saying, “He has less fur than Polar Bear?” Teachers also used the 

moved of asking students to repeat (say aloud) a target word, such as when Ms. Henderson 

introduced the word sauropod and asked, “Can you say that word?” At times, teachers elicited a 

word from students that had not been previously introduced, such as when Ms. Nelson explained 

to her kindergarten students that the squirrel in the video “kind of blends in a little bit” and then 

asked, “What do we call that? Does anyone know the science word when you kind of blend into 

your environment?” At this point, camouflage became a target word. Finally, teachers 

occasionally encouraged students to use target words at a later time—outside of the immediate 

context in which they were introduced or reviewed. For example, Ms. Hill, second-grade teacher, 

 81 

wrote the word insulating, explaining, “I’m going to put it here because chances are, you are 

going to use this in your writing later.” Shortly thereafter, she said, “So you will be using this 

word [insulating] later. That I can promise you.” 

In sum, the Student Word Use vocabulary talk moves promoted students’ use of target 

words and provided scaffolds to support their oral language in general. Therefore, the teachers 

did use some language during science instruction in ways that are aligned with the research on 

scaffolding students’ word use. However, as these Student Word Use vocabulary talk moves 

accounted for only 5.23% of total vocabulary talk moves, promoting oral language and 

vocabulary development in this way was not a focus of teachers’ instruction. 

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness 

As shown in Table 4, the cohort of teachers used Metalinguistic & Metacognitive 

Awareness vocabulary talk moves least frequently, accounting for only 0.20% of total 

vocabulary talk code applications. Within this type of talk, the teachers used only one vocabulary 

talk move aligned with the research on increasing students’ awareness of words and word 

learning: asking students if they have ever heard of a word. This vocabulary talk move was used 

very infrequently, appearing only seven times across the 24 recorded lessons. The following 

example was selected to show how teachers used this move when introducing a new target word. 

In this example, Ms. Thompson finds out if her kindergarten students are familiar with the new 

target word severe: 

Ms. Thompson: this word says severe. [Introduce Word, Use Target Word, 

Emphasize, Visually Display Word] 
teacher emphasizes the word “severe” 

Child(ren): severe? 
Ms. Thompson: thumbs up if you've ever heard that word before? [Ask if Heard of 

Word] 
students give thumbs up 

 82 

Ms. Thompson: uh, in the past three, four days, we've had some severe weather 

conditions. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Provide Example/Nonexample, 
Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes the word “severe” 

Ms. Thompson: do you agree? 
Ms. Thompson: have you heard anybody say that on the news? [Ask if Heard of Word] 
Ms. Thompson: or your parents use that word? [Ask if Heard of Word] 
Ms. Thompson: severe? [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes the word “severe” 

Child(ren): no. 
Ms. Thompson: oh boy / 
Child(ren): xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: let me tell you what it means. 
Ms. Thompson: and then you tell me if you've, if you've heard that in the last couple 

days. [Ask if Heard of Word] 

 

In this example, Ms. Thompson asked if students had heard the word severe and then gave a little 

context of where they might have heard the word before. In another lesson, Ms. Thompson 

introduced the term friction and, before explaining what it means, asked, “Who has heard of that 

word before?” 

This Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness vocabulary talk move aims to gauge 

students’ awareness of target words as they are introduced. As reviewed in Chapter 2, the 

research on building students’ metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness recommends 

instruction that teaches students to use contextual and morphemic analysis (e.g., Baumann et al., 

2002, 2002, 2003, 2003; P. N. Bowers & Kirby, 2010; Freeman et al., 2019; Fukkink & de 

Glopper, 1998; Lubliner & Smetana, 2005; Nash & Snowling, 2006; Silverman et al., 2014; 

Wise, 2019), explain how word meanings are derived from context (Cain, 2007), detect semantic 

ambiguity (Zipke et al., 2009), and self-monitor and self-regulate (e.g., Boulware-Gooden et al., 

2007; Lubliner & Smetana, 2005). The present study, however, shows that such metalinguistic 

and metacognitive awareness instruction was largely absent in these early-elementary science 

lessons. 

 83 

In summary, the cohort of teachers used vocabulary talk moves from each of the four 

types of vocabulary talk. A majority of these vocabulary talk moves addressed building students’ 

knowledge of word meanings, while fewer moves addressed interesting students in words and 

word learning, scaffolding students’ word use, and building awareness of words and word 

learning. 

Within-Teacher Comparisons of Vocabulary Talk 

 

In addition to identifying the specific talk moves the cohort of teachers made, I made 

within-teacher comparisons in order to understand whether there were any patterns in the types 

of vocabulary talk moves individual teachers used. In other words, I was interested to see if any 

patterns emerged when looking from timepoint to timepoint within an individual teacher’s data. 

Figure 2 shows the percentage of each type of vocabulary talk each teacher used at each of the 

three timepoints (i.e., 1: PrePD, 2: Week 5, 3: Week 9). With few exceptions, teachers used a 

greater percentage of Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk moves during each of their 

lessons than any other type of vocabulary talk. The exceptions are with two teachers who used 

little to no vocabulary talk in at least one of their lessons. Ms. Watson, first-grade teacher, made 

only one vocabulary talk move during her second lesson; therefore, as Figure 2 

Figure 2 shows, 100% of the vocabulary talk in this lesson addressed Student Word Use. She did 

not make any vocabulary talk moves during her third lesson. Similarly, Ms. Hill, second-grade 

teacher, did not make any vocabulary talk moves in her second lesson. Therefore, overall, when 

teachers used multiple vocabulary talk moves, a majority of these moves were aimed at building 

students’ knowledge of word meanings. This is consistent with the previous finding that as a 

cohort, the teachers used a greater percentage of Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk 

moves across the three lessons than any other type of vocabulary talk (as shown in Table 4). 

 84 

Further, this is reflective of the research literature on how children learn words, with most 

research focusing on building students’ knowledge of word meanings. 

Figure 2 

Within-Teacher Comparisons of Vocabulary Talk Types Across Lessons 

Ms. Henderson

(Young 5s)

Ms. Thompson 
(Kindergarten)

Ms. Nelson

(Kindergarten)

Ms. Baker 

(Kindergarten)

100%

100%

100%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1

2

3

1

2

3

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

 

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

 

 85 

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1

2

3

1

2

3

 

 

Figure 2 (cont’d) 

Ms. Griffin
(Grade 1)

Ms. Watson
(Grade 1)

Ms. Hill
(Grade 2)

Ms. Howard

(Grade 2)

100%

100%

100%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

 

 

 
Between-Teacher Comparisons of Vocabulary Talk 

 

After making within-teacher comparisons, I made between-teacher comparisons in order 

to understand whether there were any trends for the cohort as a whole with vocabulary talk. In 

 86 

other words, I was interested to see if any patterns emerged when looking from teacher to teacher 

across the entire dataset. Figure 3 shows the vocabulary talk moves per minute for each teacher 

at each of the three timepoints (i.e., 1: PrePD, 2: Week 5, 3: Week 9). As Figure 3 shows, all 

eight teachers engaged in more Knowledge & Understanding talk than any of the other types of 

vocabulary talk, and overall, none of the teachers engaged in much of the other types of talk. 

Although the teachers consistently engaged in the most Knowledge & Understanding talk, there 

is no pattern to the variation in this talk from lesson to lesson. That is, some teachers showed 

increases in Knowledge & Understanding talk from the PrePD lesson to the Week 5 lesson while 

others showed decreases—and some teachers showed increases from the Week 5 lesson to the 

Week 9 lesson while others showed decreases. Likewise, there is no consistent pattern to the 

variation in Student Word Use talk, Metacognitive & Metalinguistic talk, or Affective Factors 

talk from lesson to lesson. Therefore, there may be lesson-specific factors that impact how 

teachers engage in vocabulary talk. Research Question 3 in Chapter 5 takes a closer look at the 

science instruction of Ms. Thompson, kindergarten teacher, in order to explore features of 

science curriculum materials that may have contributed to the variance in vocabulary talk from 

lesson to lesson. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 87 

Figure 3 

Between-Teacher Comparison of Vocabulary Talk Types Across Lessons 

Ms. Henderson 

(Young 5s)

Ms. Thompson 
(Kindergarten)

Ms. Nelson 
(Kindergarten)

Ms. Baker 

(Kindergarten)

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

 
 
 
 

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

 

 

 88 

Figure 3 (cont’d) 

Ms. Griffin 
(Grade 1)

Ms. Watson
(Grade 1)

Ms. Howard 

(Grade 2) 

Ms. Hill
(Grade 2)

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

 

 

 

Note: Rates show number of vocabulary talk moves per minute for each teacher. 

In summary, the cohort of teachers engaged in considerably more Knowledge & 

Understanding vocabulary talk than Student Word Use talk, Metacognitive & Metalinguistic talk, 

or Affective Factors talk. This dominance of Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk is 

 89 

apparent in both within- and between-teacher comparisons. This finding reflects the research 

base, as most research on how children learn words has focused on building students’ knowledge 

of word meanings.  

Research Question 2: Is Vocabulary Talk Related to the Language Aspects of Science Talk, 

and if so, How? 

 

Given the potential intersection between vocabulary talk—talk that promotes oral 

language and vocabulary development—and the language aspects of science talk, which focus on 

teachers supporting students in (a) developing an understanding of science oral language within 

the context of science learning and (b) using science oral language to share their ideas and 

engage in science and engineering practices (Wright et al., 2017), I looked for a relationship 

between these two types of talk. Vocabulary talk and the language aspects of science talk were 

measured on different scales; therefore, I looked at overall trends between each teacher’s 

vocabulary talk graph and science talk graph. (I will be shortening language aspects of science 

talk to merely science talk for the remainder of this chapter to support ease of reading; however, 

I am specifically referring to Components 1-2 of Domain 3 the SOLID Start Tool and not the full 

science talk construct.) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 90 

Figure 4 

Ms. Henderson’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk 

Vocabulary Talk

Science Talk

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

Component 1

Component 2

Figure 5  

Ms. Baker’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk 

Vocabulary Talk

Science Talk

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

5

4

3

2

1

 91 

1

2

3

Component 1

Component 2

 

 

Figure 6 

Ms. Watson’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk 

Vocabulary Talk

Science Talk

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

Component 1

Component 2

Figure 7 

Ms. Griffin’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk 

Vocabulary Talk

Science Talk

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

5

4

3

2

1

 92 

1

2

3

Component 1

Component 2

 

 

Figure 8 

Ms. Hill’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk 

Vocabulary Talk

Science Talk

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

Component 1

Component 2

 

I found that the overall shape of the vocabulary talk graph was similar to the overall 

shape of the science talk graph for five of the teachers: Ms. Henderson (see Figure 4), Ms. Baker 

(see Figure 5), Ms. Watson (see Figure 6), Ms. Griffin (see Figure 7), and Ms. Hill (see Figure 

8). In particular, the trend for Knowledge & Understanding within vocabulary talk and the trend 

for Component 1 within science talk reflect one another in these graphs. This relationship makes 

sense, as the Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk moves focus on building students’ 

knowledge of word meanings and Component 1 of science talk focuses on how teachers support 

students in developing an understanding of science oral language within the context of science 

learning. The overall focus, therefore, is on developing understanding of word meanings. The 

relationship between the trend for Student Word Use within vocabulary talk and the trend for 

Component 2 within science talk is less clear. Theoretically, these are also related, as Student 

Word Use vocabulary talk moves focus on teacher talk that scaffolds students’ word use and 

 93 

Component 2 of science talk focuses on teachers’ scaffolding of students’ use of discipline-

specific oral language within the context of discussing ideas and engaging in science and 

engineering practices. The overall focus here is on scaffolding students’ use of words. However, 

because there were very few code applications for Student Word Use vocabulary talk moves, it is 

difficult to see if there is a relationship between this type of vocabulary talk and Component 2 of 

science talk. Therefore, Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk appears to be related to the 

language aspects of science talk focused on building knowledge of science oral language (i.e., 

Component 1), but the relationship between Student Word Use vocabulary talk and the language 

aspects of science talk focused on scaffolding students’ word use (i.e., Component 2) requires 

further study. 

Figure 9 

Ms. Nelson’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk 

Vocabulary Talk

Science Talk

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

 

 

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

5

4

3

2

1

 94 

1

2

3

Component 1

Component 2

 

Figure 10 

Ms. Thompson’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk 

Vocabulary Talk

Science Talk

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

Component 1

Component 2

 

The overall shape of the vocabulary talk graph was not similar to the overall shape of the 

science talk graph for Ms. Nelson (see Figure 9) and Ms. Thompson (see Figure 10), and this 

disconnect highlights the difference between noting that vocabulary talk is happening (as 

depicted in the vocabulary talk graphs) and noting the quality of the vocabulary instruction (as 

depicted in the science talk graphs). For example, Ms. Nelson’s PrePD lesson (timepoint 1 on 

graph) was on the 100th day of school, and she encouraged her kindergarten students to come up 

with 100 science words they had learned so far in the SOLID Start Weather Forecasting unit as a 

way of getting back into the unit after missing more than a week of school due to severe winter 

weather. During the lesson, she elicited students’ ideas about what weather words they had 

learned and what they meant. She also elicited examples of these words (e.g., types of 

precipitation) from students and offered confirmation or clarification. Ms. Nelson recorded all of 

these words on the board, grouping related words together (e.g., hail, snow, sleet, rain listed 

 95 

under precipitation). She provided multiple exposures to these words throughout the lesson and 

drew attention to them with emphasis. She also helped students make personal connections to 

many of these target words and prompted students to use them. Therefore, Ms. Nelson engaged 

in a great deal of vocabulary talk in general and a great deal of Knowledge & Understanding talk 

in particular, as evidenced by her rate of 12.81 Knowledge & Understanding moves per minute. 

However, much of this vocabulary talk did not happen within the context of science learning, 

which is reflected in the Component 1 composite score of 2.77. Similarly, although students were 

listing many science words, they were not using these words to discuss their ideas or engage in 

science and engineering practices, which is reflected in the Component 2 composite score of 

2.77. Thus, the quantity of vocabulary talk within the lesson did not align with the quality of the 

vocabulary instruction. 

This disconnect is also apparent in Ms. Thompson’s second lesson (see Figure 9). In this 

lesson, Ms. Thompson engaged in Knowledge & Understanding talk less frequently than in her 

other two lessons; however, Component 1 scored nearly as high as with her first lesson. Further 

analysis shows that when she did introduce and review the meaning of science oral language, she 

did so in a child-friendly way within the context of science learning. In other words, the quantity 

of her vocabulary talk was relatively low, but the quality of this instruction was high. Likewise, 

Ms. Thompson engaged in little Student Word Use talk in her second lesson, but the lesson 

scored relatively high for Component 2 compared to her other two lessons. Further analysis 

shows that when her kindergarten students used science oral language, it was to share their ideas 

and engage in science practices (i.e., within an investigation). Therefore, the quantity of talk 

scaffolding students’ word use was low, but the quality of vocabulary instruction engaging 

 96 

students in using science oral language was relatively high. Once again, the quality of vocabulary 

instruction was not captured by the counts of vocabulary talk use. 

This finding points to the need to consider both the ways in which teachers use 

vocabulary talk moves to promote oral language and vocabulary development and the overall 

quality of this vocabulary talk. This is important because, for these vocabulary talk moves to be 

effective in promoting students’ oral language and vocabulary development, the quality of the 

vocabulary talk likely matters. Therefore, studies examining the relationship between teachers’ 

vocabulary talk and students’ oral language and vocabulary development need to take into 

consideration both what vocabulary talk moves were made and what the quality of that 

vocabulary talk was. 

Figure 11 

Ms. Howard’s Vocabulary Talk and Science Talk 

Vocabulary Talk

Science Talk

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

5

4

3

2

1

1

2

3

Component 1

Component 2

 

Finally, the overall shape of the vocabulary talk graph was not very similar to the overall 

shape of the science talk graph for Ms. Howard (see Figure 11), but in this case, this does not 

 97 

reflect a disconnect between quantity and quality of talk. Rather, Ms. Howard engaged in very 

little vocabulary talk (low quantity) at all three timepoints, and her science talk scores were 

under 3.0 for all three time points (low quality). In other words, the quantity of vocabulary talk 

and quality of vocabulary instruction were consistently low across all three timepoints. 

Therefore, while comparing the overall shapes of the vocabulary talk and science talk graphs 

provides some insight into how vocabulary talk relates to the language aspects of science talk, 

future research examining this relationship may be enhanced with a more precise approach. 

Summary of Findings 

The cohort of teachers used vocabulary talk moves across the four types of vocabulary 

talk, with a majority of vocabulary talk moves (i.e., 21 different moves) and vocabulary talk code 

applications (i.e., 86.72%) aimed to build students’ knowledge and understanding of word 

meanings and considerably fewer moves (i.e., 13 moves total) and code applications (i.e., 

13.28% combined) dedicated to interesting students in words and word learning, scaffolding 

students’ word use, and building awareness of words and word learning. This dominance of 

Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk is apparent in both within- and between-teacher 

comparisons. 

While there does appear to be a relationship between Knowledge & Understanding 

vocabulary talk and the language aspects of science talk focused on building knowledge of 

science oral language (i.e., Component 1), further research is needed to examine whether a 

relationship exists between Student Word Use vocabulary talk and the language aspects of 

science talk focused on scaffolding students’ word use (i.e., Component 2). Further, this analysis 

points to the need to consider the context in which vocabulary talk moves are made and the 

overall quality of this vocabulary talk in addition to examining which moves the teachers make.

 98 

CHAPTER 5—STUDY 2 FINDINGS: RESEARCH QUESTION 3 

The primary goal of this study was to describe the relationship between curricular 

features of science materials and a kindergarten teacher’s enhanced vocabulary talk. I report 

findings based on 128.03 minutes of observational data across three total lessons, ranging from 

35:45 to 56:21, in Ms. Thompson’s kindergarten classrooms. Ms. Thompson’s science 

instruction was selected for this analysis because she taught from a different set of curriculum 

materials for each of her three lessons, providing an opportunity to investigate how the different 

curricular features within these sets of materials may have contributed to the considerable 

variance in Ms. Thompson’s talk (i.e., within-subject differences) across the three science 

lessons (see Figure 12). In this study, I investigated the following research question: What 

features of science curriculum materials are related to a kindergarten teacher’s enhanced 

vocabulary talk? In this chapter, I first describe the three lessons Ms. Thompson taught, as 

presented by the three sets of curriculum materials. Then I present three curricular features that 

may be associated with Ms. Thompson’s vocabulary talk, along with transcripts depicting how 

vocabulary talk varied relative to these features. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 99 

Figure 12 

Ms. Thompson’s Vocabulary Talk 

13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

1

2

3

Knowledge & Understanding

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness

Student Word Use

Affective Factors

 

Note: Rates show number of vocabulary talk moves per minute. 

The Lessons 

 

In this section, I describe the three lessons Ms. Thompson drew from when teaching her 

three video recorded lessons. Note that these descriptions are of the written lessons, as presented 

by the curriculum materials, rather than the enacted lessons. 

SOLID Start: How Can We Prepare for Severe Weather Conditions? 

 

For the first video recorded lesson (i.e., PrePD), Ms. Thompson drew from the SOLID 

Start (Gotwals & Wright, 2017; Wright & Gotwals, 2017) kindergarten Weather Forecasting 

unit, teaching Lesson 7: How Can We Prepare for Severe Weather Conditions? This lesson is 

from a 10-lesson unit exploring the driving question How Does Our Weather in [Your Location] 

Change Over Time? The lesson overview estimates this to be a 50-minute lesson and shows five 

lesson activities with the following descriptions: 

 100 

•  Ask: Review types of precipitation and introduce Lesson Question 

•  Explore: Students consider ways to prepare for different types of precipitation. 

•  Read: What Is Severe Weather? by Jennifer Boothroyd and What Is Precipitation by 

Robin Johnson 

•  Write: The teacher and students create a class list of how to prepare for different types of 

severe weather. 

•  Synthesize: Students discuss severe weather and connect it to the Driving Question. 

The frontmatter to the lesson also includes the following components: 

•  Lesson Question: How Can We Prepare for Severe Weather Conditions? 

• 

I-can statements: I can describe types of weather conditions in my state. I can explain 

why it is important to prepare for severe weather. 

•  Relevant NGSS performance expectation components (NGSS Lead States, 2013):  

o  Disciplinary Core Idea: ESS3.B: Some kinds of severe weather are more likely 

than others in a given region. Weather scientists forecast severe weather so that 

the communities can prepare for and respond to these events. 

o  Crosscutting Concept: Patterns: Students should identify patterns in their 

observations of the natural world. These patterns can be used as evidence. 

o  Science and Engineering Practices: Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating 

Information: Students should read texts or use other media to obtain information 

about patterns in the natural world or to obtain evidence. In texts, student should 

be able to interpret diagrams. Evidence should be obtained from multiple sources 

to answer scientific questions. Students should communicate their ideas orally, in 

writing, or in drawings. 

 101 

•  New science content vocabulary with child-friendly definitions: severe, flood, 

snowstorm, tornado, hurricane 

•  List of vocabulary to review/reinforce from previous lessons: weather conditions, rain, 

snow, wind, season, fall, winter, spring, summer, cool, cold, warm, hot, prepare, 

measure, meteorologist, precipitation, thunderstorm 

•  List of materials for lesson 

The lesson plan itself details each of the five lesson activities, with vocabulary terms introduced 

at specific points in the lesson using the given child-friendly definitions and with discussion 

questions provided throughout. Additionally, teaching tips appear alongside the lesson plan, with 

recommendations for teachers. For example, the following tip accompanies the Ask activity: 

Encourage students to use the vocabulary words they have learned from previous lessons when 

discussing precipitation. At the end of the lesson plan is a sample summary table with examples 

of what the lesson’s entries could include. For example, for the column What Did We Learn? 

(Claims) (statements), the sample text reads: Severe weather is dangerous, and it is important to 

stay inside and usually it is also important to stay away from windows.  

Teachers Pay Teachers: A Push Is a Force! 

 

Ms. Thompson drew from a teacher-created packet of kindergarten lesson materials from 

Teachers Pay Teachers for her second video recorded lesson (i.e., Week 5). The packet contains 

two force and motion activities. Ms. Thompson’s lesson used the first activity: A Push Is a 

Force! The following components were included in the packet for this activity: 

•  Performance expectation: K-PS2-1 [Plan and conduct an investigation to compare the 

effects of different strengths or different directions of pushes and pulls on the motion of 

an object (NGSS Lead States, 2013)] 

 102 

•  List of materials for the activity 

• 

Instructions for the activity 

•  Two templates to print, laminate, and cut out for the activity 

•  Three photographs with captions showing how to set up the activity and how to have 

students record their responses 

•  Two students sheets and an answer key 

During this activity, the students predict how far their toy car will go after being pushed with 

“medium” and “hard” force. Then they take turns pushing their cards and recording the results. 

The activity description does not mention how the worksheet entitled Why does the car stop 

moving? fits into the activity, but the answer key indicates that the word students are to write in 

the blank is friction, implying that friction is discussed at some point in the activity. 

Mystery Science: Where Do Animals Live? 

 

For the third video recorded lesson (i.e., Week 9), Ms. Thompson drew from the Mystery 

Science (Schacht & Peltz, 2020) kindergarten Plant and Animal Secrets unit, teaching Lesson 2: 

Where Do Animals Live? This web-based lesson is from a 6-lesson unit focused on helping 

kindergarten students understand that animals and plants need things to survive and that they do 

the things they do in order to meet their needs. The following components comprise the online 

lesson materials: 

•  Overview identifying grade level (K), topic (Plant & Animal Needs), and focus (Animal 

Needs: Shelter) 

•  25-minute digital text (i.e., slides with video-recorded pages) Who Lives There? 

•  A description of the lesson labeled “Activity Prep” and “Prep Instructions” with a 

suggestion (and link) for the optional activity  

 103 

•  “Extensions” with links for Google Classroom (to assign the video), a PDF to download 

for assessment (with space for students to draw an animal in its home and write about it 

with the sentence frames “My animal is a…” and “It makes its home in…”), the optional 

activity (one-minute video and three discussion questions), the transcript of the lesson 

introduction video (part of the digital text), and a link to embed the lesson on a class 

website. 

This lesson explores the question Where do animals live? and is labeled as a “Read-Along” 

lesson. For this lesson, the teacher advances slides through the video-recorded reading of a 

digital text. Afterward, there is an optional activity to show a one-minute video and facilitate a 

discussion with the three given prompts. This optional video and discussion is labeled as a 20-

minute “hands-on activity.” Additionally, the K-5 planning guide available on the website 

identifies the following NGSS alignment for this lesson: 

•  Performance expectation: K-ESS3-1 [Use a model to represent the relationship 

between the needs of different plants and animals (including humans) and the places they 

live (NGSS Lead States, 2013)] 

•  Topic: Animal Homes 

•  Disciplinary Core Ideas: ESS3.A Living things need food, water, shelter, and many other 

resources to survive! All living things live in places that provide the needs they have to 

survive. Not all living things live in a house, like humans do. Animals live in many 

different types of homes close to their resources. 

•  Science and Engineering Practices: Students obtain information through media about 

how different animal homes are built. They communicate this information in order to 

identify patterns in the natural world. 

 104 

•  Crosscutting Concepts: Students identify the pattern that all living things live where their 

needs are met. They recognize that plants, animals, and their surroundings make up a 

system as parts that work together. 

 

In summary, the SOLID Start lesson identifies components of the NGSS performance 

expectations it addresses, includes five activities, targets vocabulary words for instruction 

through introduction or review/reinforcement, and provides recommendations to teachers—

including some for supporting oral language and vocabulary development. The Teachers Pay 

Teachers activity identifies the NGSS performance expectation it addresses and provides 

templates and instructions for the activity. Finally, the Mystery Science lesson provides a digital 

text with video recorded pages and an optional activity with a video clip and discussion prompt 

(and the planning guide shows alignment with NGSS). In the sections that follow, I share my 

findings for Research Question 3: What features of science curriculum materials are related to a 

kindergarten teacher’s enhanced vocabulary talk? 

Targeted Vocabulary 

 

The identification of specific vocabulary words targeted for instruction within a lesson by 

science curriculum materials was related to Ms. Thompson’s enhanced vocabulary talk. This was 

apparent in the SOLID Start Weather Forecasting lesson, which identifies five new vocabulary 

words (i.e., severe, flood, snowstorm, tornado, and hurricane) to introduce at specific points 

within the lesson, provides child-friendly explanations for each, and offers discussion questions 

to engage students in active processing (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986) of the target words. For 

example, the lesson directs teachers to provide instruction on the target word severe within the 

context of introducing the lesson question: How can we prepare for severe weather conditions? 

 105 

The lesson provides “dangerous or extreme” as the child-friendly explanation and offers the 

following sample questions for eliciting students’ initial ideas: 

•  What are some examples of severe weather you are familiar with? 

•  What are some things you have learned about preparing for severe weather? 

•  What are some questions you have about severe weather? 

The following transcript shows Ms. Thompson’s vocabulary talk as she introduced the targeted 

vocabulary term severe: 

Ms. Thompson: this word says severe. [Introduce Word, Use Target Word, 

Emphasize, Visually Display Word] 
teacher has written “severe” on a small whiteboard; teacher emphasizes the 
word “severe” 

Child(ren): severe? 
Ms. Thompson: thumbs up if you've ever heard that word before? [Ask if Heard of 

Word] 
many students give thumbs up 

Ms. Thompson: uh, in the past three, four days, we've had some severe weather 

conditions. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Provide Example/Nonexample, 
Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes the word “severe” 

Ms. Thompson: do you agree? 
Ms. Thompson: have you heard anybody say that on the news? [Ask if Heard of Word] 
Ms. Thompson: or your parents use that word? [Ask if Heard of Word] 
Ms. Thompson: severe? [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes the word “severe” 

Child(ren): no. 
Ms. Thompson: oh boy / 
Child(ren): xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: let me tell you what it means.  
Ms. Thompson: and then you tell me if you've, if you've heard that in the last couple 

days. [Ask if Heard of Word] 

Ms. Thompson: it means dangerous. [Explain/Define, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes the word “dangerous” 

Ms. Thompson: has the weather in the last few days been dangerous? [Help Students 

Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): yeah, the only dangerous weather is tornadoes. 
Ms. Thompson: that's not the only dangerous // 
Ms. Thompson: why couldn't you go outside? [Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 

 106 

Ms. Thompson: why didn't we go to school yesterday? [Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 

Child(ren): because severe xxx frostbite. 
Ms. Thompson: it was severe. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Help Students Make 

Personal Connection, Use with Hint] 
teacher emphasizes the word “severe” 

Ms. Thompson: it was dangerous. [Emphasize, Help Students Make Personal 

Connection, Use with Hint] 
teacher emphasizes the word “dangerous” 

Ms. Thompson: <it was //>  
Child(ren): <you could get a frostbite in one minute>.  
Ms. Thompson: from what? 
Child(ren): five, five minutes. 
Ms. Thompson: I'm thinking of the therm / 
Child(ren): five. 

students arguing in background about number of minutes before frostbite sets in 

Ms. Thompson: we're not going to argue about this. 
Ms. Thompson: what was severe about the weather yesterday? [Use Target Word, Help 

Students Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: why can you get frostbite? [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

teacher emphasizes the word “why” 

Ms. Thompson: because it was what, Myles? [Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 

Child(ren): way too cold. 
Ms. Thompson: it was too cold. [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
Ms. Thompson: the temperature was severe. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Provide 

Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes the words “temperature” and “severe” 

Ms. Thompson: say that sentence. [Ask to Repeat] 
Ms. Thompson: <the temperature was severe>.  [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Use 

with Hint, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes the words “temperature” and “severe” 

Child(ren): <the temperature was severe>. 
Ms. Thompson: it was dangerous. [Emphasize, Visually Display Word, Use with Hint, 

Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes the word “dangerous” and points to it on whiteboard 

Ms. Thompson: do you agree? 
Child(ren): yeah. 
Ms. Thompson: it was // 
Ms. Thompson: here's another good word. [Appreciate Word/Word Choice] 

teacher writes word on whiteboard 

Ms. Thompson: it was extreme. [Introduce Word, Use Target Word, Emphasize, 

Visually Display Word, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes the word “extreme” 
Ms. Thompson: try that word. [Ask to Repeat] 
Ms. Thompson: <extreme>. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

 107 

teacher emphasizes the word “extreme” 

Child(ren): <extreme>. 
Ms. Thompson: extreme means so so so so so. [Use Target Word, Explain/Define] 
Ms. Thompson: was it so so so so so cold? [Emphasize, Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “so so so so so” 

Child(ren): yeah. 
Ms. Thompson: instead of saying so so so so so, we could say it was extreme. [Use 

Target Word, Emphasize, Use with Hint, Offer Alternative, Help Students 
Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “so so so so so” and “extreme” 

Ms. Thompson: it was severe. [Use Target Word, Use with Hint, Help Students Make 

Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: it was dangerous. [Use with Hint, Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: it was extreme. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Visually Display 

Word, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “extreme” and points to the word on the whiteboard. 

Ms. Thompson: do you agree? 
Child(ren): xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: it hurt your face if you went outside or your throat if you were breathing 

the air. [Provide Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal 
Connection] 

 

This example shows the relationship between the SOLID Start lesson’s (a) identification of the 

target word severe, (b) provision of a child-friendly explanation, and (c) offering of sample 

questions for engaging students further with the meaning of the word and Ms. Thompson’s 

enhanced vocabulary talk. In Ms. Thompson’s enactment of the lesson, she used part of the 

definition provided (i.e., dangerous) to explain the meaning of severe and then introduced 

extreme (the other part of the child-friendly definition provided by the SOLID Start lesson) as its 

own target word. She provided students with multiple exposures to these words in a variety of 

contexts, with 17 exposures for severe and 12 for extreme (not including instances in which these 

terms were read from text). Ms. Thompson connected these terms to recent severe weather the 

children had all experienced, as school had been canceled for more than a week due to extreme 

cold and a prolonged period of snowfall. Ms. Thompson encouraged students to say these words 

 108 

aloud and visually displayed these words as she talked about them. Following the transcript 

shown here, Ms. Thompson used a variation of one of the sample questions provided to engage 

students further in a discussion regarding preparing for severe weather. (See next paragraph for 

transcript of this discussion). Ms. Thompson’s thorough introduction of the term severe with a 

variety of vocabulary talk moves is seemingly related to its identification as a target word. Ms. 

Thompson consistently engaged in this kind of dense vocabulary talk throughout the lesson in 

places in which the SOLID Start lesson had identified target words to introduce or review, 

indicating a relationship between targeted vocabulary words and enhanced vocabulary talk. 

The SOLID Start lesson also identifies 18 previously-introduced vocabulary words (e.g., 

weather conditions, meteorologist, precipitation) to be reviewed and reinforced within the 

current lesson, providing multiple exposures to these words and highlighting connections 

between them and newly-introduced target words. (See Table 5 for complete list of words 

identified in the SOLID Start lesson for review and reinforcement.) Accompanying this list of 

words is the following teaching tip: These words are from past lessons to review and reinforce 

throughout this lesson. Repetition and multiple exposures to words support vocabulary 

development. For science content words, draw students’ attention to the Word Wall. In the 

following example, Ms. Thompson reviews/reinforces the target word prepare (from Lesson 2 in 

the SOLID Start Weather Forecasting unit) while engaging students in a discussion related to the 

new target word severe:  

Ms. Thompson: here's another word. 
Ms. Thompson: this makes me think of what you did if you went outside yesterday. 

[Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: you really had to // [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
Ms. Thompson: look at this word. 

teacher writes the word on the whiteboard 

Ms. Thompson: you had to prepare. [Review Word, Use Target Word, Emphasize, 

Visually Display Word, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

 109 

teacher emphasizes the word “prepare” 

Ms. Thompson: what does prepare mean? [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Use Target 

Word, Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word] 
teacher emphasizes the word “prepare” 
Child(ren): get all your snow stuff, I get ready / 
Ms. Thompson: get ready. [Emphasize, Explain/Define] 

teacher emphasizes “get ready” 

Ms. Thompson: you had to get ready. [Emphasize, Explain/Define, Help Students 

Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “get ready” 

Ms. Thompson: so prepare means get ready. [Use Target Word, Explain/Define] 
Ms. Thompson: what do you have to do to get ready for that extreme weather we had 

yesterday? [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Elicit Student Ideas: 
Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “get ready” and “extreme” 

Ms. Thompson: what would you have to do? [Elicit Student Ideas: 

Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: put your what? [Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample, Help 

Students Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): snow gear on. 
Ms. Thompson: put your snow gear on. [Provide Example/Nonexample, Help Students 

Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: what else did you have to do to prepare? [Use Target Word, 

Emphasize, Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make 
Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasized the word “prepare” 

Child(ren): xxx, scarf, xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: scarves?  
Ms. Thompson: you know what I did to prepare? [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasized the word “prepare” 

Ms. Thompson: before the weather, before the severe weather came? [Use Target Word, 

Emphasize] 
teacher emphasized the word “severe” 

Ms. Thompson: I went to the grocery store. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Ms. Thompson: and I made sure I had enough food at home. [Provide 

Example/Nonexample] 

Ms. Thompson: did anyone else's family go shopping so you made sure you had enough 

food at home? [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): I don't know. 
Ms. Thompson: you know what else I did to prepare? [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasized the word “prepare” 

Ms. Thompson: I filled my gas tank up with gas. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Ms. Thompson: because I did not want to have to go to the gas station when it was severe 

weather outside. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Visually Display Word, 
Example/Nonexample] 

 110 

teacher holds up whiteboard and emphasizes the word “severe” 

Ms. Thompson: it would have been dangerous for me to stand outside. [Emphasize] 
teacher points to the word “dangerous” on the whiteboard and emphasizes it 

Ms. Thompson: I could have hurt my face or my skin. 
Ms. Thompson: so I prepared by getting groceries, by getting gas in my gas tank. [Use 

Target Word, Provide Example/Nonexample] 

Ms. Thompson: and if I did go outside, what do you think I wore? [Elicit Student Ideas: 

Example/Nonexample] 

Ms. Thompson: when I went to lunch with Kyle yesterday, what do you think I wore? 

[Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample] 

Child(ren): snow clothes, scarf. 
Ms. Thompson: a scarf? 
Ms. Thompson: yes, I did. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Child(ren): xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: gloves. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Ms. Thompson: what else did I wear? [Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample] 
Child(ren): coat. 
Ms. Thompson: a coat. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Child(ren): snow pants. 
Ms. Thompson: snow pants. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Ms. Thompson: what else? [Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample] 
Child(ren): xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: boots on my feet. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Ms. Thompson: and a hat on my head. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
Child(ren): xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: I had to prepare because the weather / [Use Target Word, Emphasize, 

Visually Display Word] 
teacher emphasized “prepare” and points to it on whiteboard 

Child(ren): xxx pants on. 
Ms. Thompson: I had to prepare because the weather was... [Use Target Word, Prompt 

Word, Visually Display Word] 
teacher prompts students and is still holding up whiteboard with word “severe” 

Child(ren): <severe>. 
Ms. Thompson: <severe>. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes “severe” 

Ms. Thompson: when the weather is going to be severe, you have to prepare. [Use 
Target Word, Emphasize, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “prepare” 

Ms. Thompson: you have to prepare. [Use Target Word, Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 

Child(ren): you have to put a scarf on. 
Ms. Thompson: yes, all of those things. [Provide Example/Nonexample] 
 

In this transcript, Ms. Thompson elicited students’ ideas to review the meaning of prepare and to 

generate examples of preparing within the context of severe winter weather. Ms. Thompson also 

 111 

provided examples of preparing and helped students make personal connections to their recent 

shared experience with severe winter weather. By using the term prepare repeatedly throughout 

the discussion, she provided multiple exposures, as suggested in the lesson’s teaching tip. She 

also drew attention to the word by repeatedly emphasizing it. Once again, Ms. Thompson’s in-

depth review and reinforcement of the word prepare with a variety of vocabulary talk moves 

seems to be related to its designation as a target word to be reviewed and reinforced by the 

SOLID Start curriculum materials. 

 

In addition to the terms targeted for instruction by the SOLID Start lesson, Ms. 

Thompson, on her own, also targeted seven words for instruction or review/reinforcement by 

bringing students’ awareness to them and their meanings. Of these words, four were targeted for 

instruction in previous SOLID Start Weather Forecasting lessons but did not appear in the list of 

words to review/reinforce at the beginning of this particular lesson (i.e., breezy, calm, stratus, 

cumulonimbus). Although these words were not targeted for review/reinforcement within this 

particular lesson, Ms. Thompson’s decision to do so within the current lesson may be related to 

their identification as target words in previous lessons. Two of the words targeted by Ms. 

Thompson were not words targeted for instruction by the SOLID Start curriculum but were 

discussed in previous lessons (i.e., wind flag, storm clouds). The final word targeted for 

instruction by Ms. Thompson was severe, which was provided as part of the child-friendly 

explanation of severe within the current lesson. Therefore, the words Ms. Thompson targeted for 

instruction on her own were words previously targeted for instruction or were related to words 

targeted for instruction by the SOLID Start curriculum materials, once again suggesting that 

having targeted vocabulary words enhanced Ms. Thompson’s vocabulary talk. In the following 

transcript, Ms. Thompson briefly reviews breezy as part of an activity in which students match 

 112 

the clothing items they would need to wear in order to be prepared to play outside to the given 

type of weather conditions and season: 

Ms. Thompson: what're the weather conditions usually in the fall? [Use Target Word] 
Child(ren): light, light wind. 
Ms. Thompson: light // 
Ms. Thompson: love that! [Praise] 
Ms. Thompson: maybe we could say the word (2) breezy? [Prompt, Suggest 

Word/Phrase] 
teacher pauses for two seconds and waves hand as if it is blowing slightly in a 
breeze—seems to be trying to prompt students 

Ms. Thompson: maybe breezy. [Use Target Word] 
Ms. Thompson: so what would you wear on your body if it's, if it's going to be breezy? 

[Use Target Word, Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample, Help 
Students Make Personal Connection] 

 

In this example, Ms. Thompson scaffolded students’ word use by prompting students to use the 

previously-introduced target word breezy. When students did not take up this prompt, she 

suggested breezy as a more precise way to say “light wind.” She then elicited students’ ideas for 

examples of what they would need to wear in order to be prepared to play outside if it were a 

breezy fall day. If breezy had not been introduced as a target word in a previous lesson within the 

unit, it is possible that Ms. Thompson would have accepted “light wind” and continued the 

discussion. The fact that breezy had been targeted for instruction previously may be related to 

Ms. Thompson’s vocabulary talk within this activity. 

Table 5 

Words Targeted for Instruction 

Type of Target Word 

SOLID Start 

Weather Forecasting 

Teachers Pay 

Teachers 

Lesson 

Force and Motion 

Words Targeted by 
Curriculum to 
Introduce in Lesson 

severe (17) 
flood (3) 
snowstorm (2) 
tornado (10) 
hurricane (0) 
 

Lesson 

friction (16) 
 

 113 

Mystery Science 
Plant and Animal 

Secrets Lesson 

(no words identified) 

Table 5 (cont’d) 
Words Targeted by 
Curriculum to 
Review/Reinforce in 
Lesson 

Words Targeted by 
Teacher for 
Introduction or 
Review/ 
Reinforcement 

weather conditions 
(2) 
rain (19) 
snow (8) 
wind (58) 
fall (5) 
winter (3) 
spring (1) 
summer (1) 
cool (0) 
cold (2) 
warm (7) 
hot (0)  
prepare (18) 
measure (0) 
meteorologist (0) 
precipitation (4) 
thunderstorm (0) 
(wind) flag (14) 
breezy (7) 
calm (0) 
extreme (12) 
stratus (3) 
storm clouds (1) 
cumulonimbus (1) 

(no words identified) 

(no words identified) 

(not) living (33) 
photosynthesis (0) 
insect (1) 
unique (3) 
safe(ty) (20) 
protect (10) 
shelter (6) 
food (11) 
sun (11) 
near (2) 
qualities (1) 
traits (1) 
perch (1) 
grasslands (1) 
specific (1) 

move(ment) (30) 
gears (2) 
*push (33) 
pull (11) 
force (7) 
spin (4) 
machines (1) 
stop-motion movie 
(2) 
sequence (1) 
forward (9) 
backward (4) 
side-to-side (1) 
curve (3) 
demolition derby (2) 
guttering (2) 
two-finger push (32) 
predict(ion) (8) 
tread (7) 
grip (1) 
aerodynamic (1) 
 

 
Note. This table lists target words and the number of times the teacher used each target word 

within the lesson (in parentheses), excluding instances in which target words were read aloud 

 114 

from text. Derivations of target words are included in the count (e.g., moving as form of 

move/movement). 

*This does not include push when used as part of the targeted term two-finger push. 

In contrast, only one word is seemingly targeted for instruction in the Teachers Pay 

Teachers force and motion lesson, although this is done so implicitly. The activity description 

itself does not include an introduction of the word friction; however, one of the student sheets 

asks Why does the car stop moving? and the answer key identifies friction as the correct 

response. Further, the bottom of this student sheets states, “Things rubbing together create a 

force called friction. The car would keep moving if it were on a sheet of ice; there would be 

nothing to slow it down. The friction of the dirt against the wheels slow down the car.” The 

following transcript shows Ms. Thompson introducing the term friction during the activity: 

Ms. Thompson: the bumps that are on the road, in real life, on our track, with the sand, on 

the carpet because the carpet is bumpy, cause a force that is called friction. 
[Introduce Word, Use Target Word, Emphasize, Provide 
Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “friction” 

Ms. Thompson: who has heard of that word before? [Heard of Word] 

teacher makes the sign for making a connection/agreeing and some students copy 

Ms. Thompson: friction is the force that slows things down. [Use Target Word, 

Emphasize, Explain/Define] 
teacher emphasizes “friction” and “force” and “slows things down” 

Ms. Thompson: slows things down. [Explain/Define] 
Ms. Thompson: if we rolled our matchbox cars across a table top, would they go smooth 

and fast or slow down? 

Child(ren): smooth and fast. 
Ms. Thompson: what if we took (th)em out to the playground on that big piece of ice that 

used to be out there. 

Ms. Thompson: would they slide smooth and fast or slow down? 
Ms. Thompson: smooth and fast. 
Ms. Thompson: because ice is so slippery smooth on top. 

teacher spreads her hands out smoothly, as if on top of a surface of ice. 

Ms. Thompson: what if we took one of our cars to the beach or the sandbox? 

 115 

Ms. Thompson: how would they go there? 
Child(ren): slow. 
Ms. Thompson: I don't even think they'd move, would they? [Use Target Word] 
Ms. Thompson: would they even move? [Use Target Word] 
Child(ren): a little bit. 
Child(ren): no. 
Ms. Thompson: maybe. 
Ms. Thompson: maybe hardly anything at all. 
Child(ren): just like that much. 
Ms. Thompson: Ben. 
Ms. Thompson: hold your truck up, Ben, so we can look at it. 
Ms. Thompson: Ben's treads also cause friction. [Use Target Word, Provide 

Example/Nonexample] 

Ms. Thompson: but on that kind of truck, you want the friction because you want it to 

grab the ground. [Use Target Word] 

Ms. Thompson: does that make sense? 
Ms. Thompson: the kind of cars that have a tread like that, like tanks in the army that 

have to travel on dirt or sand. [Use Target Word, Provide 
Example/Nonexample] 

Ms. Thompson: cars with little wheels would never work in the desert, would they? 
Ms. Thompson: but cars with treads like Ben's would work great in the desert. 
Ms. Thompson: Ben, bring me your car. 

teacher is asking a student to give up his car because he is not using it 
appropriately. 

Ms. Thompson: they would work great in the desert because they work with the friction. 

[Use Target Word] 

Ms. Thompson: they work with the friction. [Use Target Word] 

In this example, Mrs. Thompson introduced the term friction, providing examples and an 

explanation. She asked if students were familiar with the word and helped them make personal 

connections to it. She also used the word repeatedly, providing multiple exposures and drawing 

students’ attention to it by emphasizing it at times. It is likely that Ms. Thompson’s introduction 

of the term friction was influenced by it being the correct response, according to the answer key, 

to the student sheet accompanying the activity. Therefore, the inclusion of friction as a term 

 116 

students should know by the time they complete the activity sheet seems to be related Ms. 

Thompson’s enhanced vocabulary talk in connection to this term. 

While Ms. Thompson, on her own, targeted an additional 20 words for instruction (see 

Table 5) by bringing students’ awareness to them and their meanings, she engaged in the least 

vocabulary talk overall during this lesson (see Figure 12) compared to the other two video 

recorded lessons. With the exception of terms like move(ment), push, pull, and two-finger push, 

which were used a great number of times throughout the lesson, most of the terms Ms. 

Thompson introduced were briefly explained but not used throughout the lesson. For example, 

Ms. Thompson demonstrated the meaning of the term grip by making gripping motion with her 

hands while saying the word but did not use the term or explain its meaning further. Similarly, in 

the following example, Ms. Thompson briefly introduces the term guttering when setting up the 

track students would push their car down during the activity: 

Ms. Thompson: your car is going to travel down this track of this white stuff. 

teacher is laying out a track made out of gutters in the center of a circle of 
students and continues to lay it out as she talks 

Ms. Thompson: this is the kind of stuff that catches rain on the edge of your house. 

[Explain/Define, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: do you know what I'm talking about?  
Child(ren): no. 
Ms. Thompson: it's called guttering. [Introduce Word, Use Target Word, Provide 

Visual Support] 

Ms. Thompson: say that word. [Ask to Repeat] 
Child(ren): guttering. 
Ms. Thompson: guttering. [Use Target Word] 
Ms. Thompson: yep. 
Ms. Thompson: it catches the rain and makes the rain flow off your roof. 

[Explain/Define, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: but we are using it for science. 

In this example, Ms. Thompson introduced the term guttering, used it repeatedly, provided visual 

support, and explained/defined what it is and what it does. She helped students make personal 

 117 

connections and asked students to repeat the word. However, after this brief episode, the term is 

not used again and does not seem essential to the activity. Likewise, many of the terms Ms. 

Thompson targeted for instruction on her own during this lesson were introduced in passing in 

this way, including machine, sequence, demolition derby, and side-to-side. Therefore, while Ms. 

Thompson brought students’ awareness to these terms and their meanings (i.e., making them 

target words), she did not engage in the kind of sustained vocabulary talk that often accompanied 

the terms that (a) were identified for instruction, (b) had child-friendly definitions, and (c) had 

marked places in the lesson for introduction and/or review by the SOLID Start materials. 

  

The Mystery Science Plant and Animal Secrets lesson did not identify any words to be 

introduced or reviewed/reinforced. While this does not mean that Ms. Thompson could not 

engage in vocabulary talk, the data shows that she engaged in considerably less vocabulary talk 

during this lesson than during the SOLID Start lesson (see Figure 12). The vocabulary talk that 

Ms. Thompson did engage in during the Mystery Science lesson was all based on words that she 

herself targeted for instruction by bringing students’ awareness to them and their meanings, such 

as (not) living, safety, and protect. Many of these terms were briefly explained in passing, 

without in-depth discussion of their meaning. For example, Ms. Thompson briefly reviews the 

meaning of the word photosynthesis when a student offers it a response to a question regarding 

what all living things need: 

Child(ren): photosynthesis. 
Ms. Thompson: what is that? [Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word] 
Ms. Thompson: tell me more about that big kid word. [Elicit Student Ideas: Review 

Word] 

Ms. Thompson: do you remember what it means? [Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word] 
Ms. Thompson: good job remembering that long word. [Praise] 
Ms. Thompson: can someone // 
Ms. Thompson: do you want someone to help you out, David? 
Ms. Thompson: remembering what it means? 
Ms. Thompson: you remembered the word. [Acknowledge Student Ownership] 

 118 

Ms. Thompson: let's see if somebody else remembers what it means. 
Ms. Thompson: Eleanora, do you remember what it means? [Acknowledge Student 

Ownership] 

Child(ren): that plants get food from the sun. 
Ms. Thompson: plants make their own food. [Explain/Define] 
Ms. Thompson: but they need the sun to make their own food. [Explain/Define] 
Ms. Thompson: great connection. 
Ms. Thompson: way to work together friends. 
Ms. Thompson: okay today, we're going to do a new lesson in Mystery Science where we 

talk about living things and something new about them. [Use Target Word, 
Emphasize] 
teacher emphasizes “living things” 
 

In this example, Ms. Thompson briefly supported students in connecting the term photosynthesis 

to the idea that plants make food with the help of the sun. This discussion was over rather 

quickly, likely because the word photosynthesis was only loosely connected to the topic of the 

lesson. Notably, Ms. Thompson did not use the term photosynthesis herself or engage students in 

the discussion beyond quickly reviewing its meaning. In another example from this lesson, Ms. 

Thompson briefly reviews the word perch while holding up covers of books the class had 

previously read and discussing where the animal on the cover finds its home: 

Ms. Thompson: does anyone remember that special word they called for the stick? 

[Prompt Word] 

Ms. Thompson: I'll give you a hint. 
Ms. Thompson: it starts with /p/. [Prompt Word] 
Ms. Thompson: what was it Elizabeth? [Prompt Word] 
Child(ren): perch. 
Ms. Thompson: perch. [Review Word, Use Target Word] 
 

In this example, Ms. Thompson prompted students to use the word perch one time. It is evident 

that this word was previously introduced—most likely when the text was originally read. This 

review again happened quickly and the word was only loosely connected to greater lesson, as 

was the case with the words insect, unique, near, qualities, traits, grasslands, and specific.  

 

The words Ms. Thompson targeted for instruction that received more attention during the 

Mystery Science lesson (i.e., (not) living, protect, safe(ty), shelter, food, sun) were all more 

 119 

closely connected to the lesson topic: Where do animals live? Ms. Thompson engaged in more 

vocabulary talk surrounding these terms. In the following example, Ms. Thompson reviews the 

meaning of the word safety: 

Ms. Thompson: what does it mean? [Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word] 
Ms. Thompson: what does safety mean? [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Elicit Student 

Ideas: Review Word] 
teacher emphasizes the word “safety” 

Ms. Thompson: it's hard to put in words. 
Ms. Thompson: like we know in our mind what it means. 
Ms. Thompson: but if you put it in words, what would you say? [Elicit Student Ideas: 

Review Word] 

Ms. Thompson: safety means... [Use Target Word, Elicit Student Ideas: Review 

Word] 

Ms. Thompson: let's see, um, Kaitlin. 
Child(ren): um / 
Ms. Thompson: it means... [Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word] 
Child(ren): that um, like, um, if, um, like, if you're home and your mom was in the 

shower, and then, and then you / 

Ms. Thompson: but what does safety mean? [Use Target Word, Elicit Student Ideas: 

Review Word] 

Child(ren): that you gotta, um, like, go somewhere safety. 
Ms. Thompson: okay. 
Ms. Thompson: wanna add to that, Charlie? 
Child(ren): um, it's about, um, the, the spiders in / 
Ms. Thompson: okay but we're talking about safety right now. [Use Target Word, 

Emphasize] 
teacher emphasizes the word “safety” 

Ms. Thompson: thank you. 
Ms. Thompson: how would you describe what safety means? [Use Target Word, Elicit 

Student Ideas: Review Word] 

Ms. Thompson: Maddie, what do you think? [Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word] 
Child(ren): xxx a place to stay xxx so you can feel like xxx. 
Ms. Thompson: it's a place where you can stay where you feel what? [Elicit Student 

Ideas: Review Word] 

Child(ren): safe. 
Ms. Thompson: safe. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes the word “safe” 

Ms. Thompson: another word? [Elicit Student Ideas: Review Word] 
Ms. Thompson: comfy. [Explain/Define] 
Child(ren): live. 
Ms. Thompson: live. [Use Target Word] 
Child(ren): cozy. 
Ms. Thompson: cozy. [Explain/Define] 

 120 

Ms. Thompson: how about protected? [Suggest Word/Phrase, Review Word, Use 

Target Word, Emphasize, Explain/Define] 
teacher emphasizes the word “protected” 

Child(ren): yes. 
 

In this example, Ms. Thompson elicited students’ ideas about the meaning of the word safety, 

which was difficult for them to explain. After students eventually offered comfy and cozy as 

explanations, Ms. Thompson suggested the word protected. Ms. Thompson commented that 

safety is a hard word to explain, which points to the usefulness of child-friendly, curriculum-

provided explanations. Because no words were targeted for instruction within this Mystery 

Science lesson, Ms. Thompson did not have access to a child-friendly definition from the 

curriculum. 

Although Ms. Thompson engaged in some vocabulary talk with a few terms she targeted 

for instruction on her own, this is considerably less vocabulary talk than she engaged in when 

targeted words were identified in the curriculum. This suggests a relationship such that using 

curriculum materials that target specific vocabulary words to be introduced and/or 

reviewed/reinforced is associated with Ms. Thompson’s enhanced vocabulary talk, while not 

using curricular materials that identify words to target for instruction is associated with 

considerably less vocabulary talk. 

Texts and Supports for Extra-Textual Talk  

Text selection and prompts provided to support extra-textual talk (i.e., the talk that 

happens around the text) (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development, 2000; Wright, 2018) also seemed to be related to enhanced vocabulary 

talk for Ms. Thompson. Children are exposed to words through text and through talk; therefore, 

it makes sense that the texts and supports for talk around these texts would be related to 

enhanced vocabulary talk. The SOLID Start lesson identifies two excerpts from trade books to be 

 121 

read, which highlight specific vocabulary terms that have been targeted for instruction within the 

lesson. For example, the two-page excerpt from What Is Precipitation? (Johnson, 2013) is used 

to introduce the terms flood and snowstorm. The text provides both written explanations of these 

terms and photographs of a flood and snowstorm. Additionally, the SOLID Start Weather 

Forecasting lesson supports extra-textual talk with the following prompts: 

•  Page 14: A flood is when too much rain falls in a short time and the water does not soak 

into the ground. Have the students repeat the word. Show them the picture of the flood in 

the book. Could you play outside in a flood? 

•  Page 15: A snowstorm is when a lot of snow falls in a short time. Have students repeat 

the word. Do snowstorms ever happen where we live? 

These supports for extra-textual talk promote vocabulary talk by encouraging teachers to use 

specific moves. On each of these pages, the teacher is encouraged to use the target word, provide 

an explanation/definition, ask students to repeat the word, and help students make a personal 

connection. The prompt for page 14 also encourages the teacher to draw the students’ attention to 

the photograph of a flood, thereby providing visual support for the term. The following transcript 

shows how Ms. Thompson engaged in vocabulary talk while reading this excerpt: 

Ms. Thompson: look at this severe weather. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Provide 

Visual Support] 
teacher is pointing to a picture in a book that she is projecting up on the 
SMARTBoard and emphasizes “severe” as she says it 

Ms. Thompson (reading text): sometimes a lot of precipitation falls in a very short period 

of time. 

Ms. Thompson (reading text): when too much rain falls, there may be floods. 
Ms. Thompson: a flood /  
Child(ren): what's a flood? 
Ms. Thompson: a flood is when too much rain falls and there's kind of nowhere for it to 

go. [Introduce Word, Use Target Word, Explain/Define, Provide Visual 
Support, Answer a Question] 
teacher is gesturing to a picture of a flood projected on the SMARTBoard 

Ms. Thompson: that's extreme weather. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

 122 

teacher emphasizes “extreme” 

Ms. Thompson: do you agree? 
Child(ren): mm-hmm. 
Ms. Thompson (reading text): floods can happen when rivers or lakes get too full and the 

water flows out over the land that is usually dry. 

Ms. Thompson (reading text): floods can happen very quickly so it is best to stay away 

from rivers or lakes when it's raining very hard. 

Child(ren): or if there’s sharks or alligators in it. 
Ms. Thompson: this was us a couple days ago. [Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 
teacher is gesturing to a picture with a lot of snow 

Child(ren): oh my god! 
Ms. Thompson (reading text): when a lot of snow falls in a short time, it is called a 

snowstorm. 

Ms. Thompson (reading text): snowstorms can bury roads and sidewalks and cars under 

thick layers of snow. 

Ms. Thompson (reading text): the snow makes it hard for people to get from place to 

place. 

Ms. Thompson (reading text): heavy snow can also damage buildings and trees. 
Ms. Thompson: this is what it looked like outside on Monday. [Help Students Make 

Personal Connection, Provide Visual Support] 
teacher is gesturing to the same picture, where snow covers cars, trees, and 
houses 

Ms. Thompson: this is why we didn't have school on Monday, because there was just too 

much snow on the roads. [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: <couldn't drive!> [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
Child(ren): <and on cars.> 
Ms. Thompson: too much. [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
Ms. Thompson: there was a snowstorm. [Introduce Word, Use Target Word, 

Emphasize, Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
teacher emphasizes “snowstorm” 

Ms. Thompson: what was there? [Ask to Repeat] 
Child(ren): snowstorm. 
Ms. Thompson: too much snow, snowstorm. [Use Target Word, Emphasize, 

Explain/Define] 
teacher emphasizes “snowstorm” 

Child(ren): <there's been a lot of snowstorms lately.> 
Child(ren): <xxx.> 
Ms. Thompson: we did. [Help Students Make Personal Connection] 
Ms. Thompson: too much rain, what's that called? [Prompt Word] 

teacher is gesturing to the same picture of the flood used before 

Child(ren): floods. 
Ms. Thompson: flood. [Use Target Word, Emphasize] 

teacher emphasizes “flood” 
 

 123 

This transcript shows that Ms. Thompson engaged in vocabulary talk around this text by 

explaining the target words flood and snowstorm, prompting students to say these words aloud, 

drawing attention to the visual supports provided by the photographs depicting the meaning of 

the words, and helping students make personal connections based on their shared recent 

experiences with snowstorms. She also drew attention to flood and snowstorm saying them with 

emphasis. In other words, Ms. Thompson took up and built upon the supports for extra-textual 

talk provided within the lesson. This suggests that the use of texts to introduce and/or reinforce 

targeted vocabulary and the provision of supports for extra-textual talk are related to enhanced 

vocabulary talk. 

 

In contrast, the Teachers Pay Teachers activity does not include any text, and the Mystery 

Science lesson uses a digital text (Who Lives There? by Pat Murphy) that appears to have been 

created for the lesson. Although the Mystery Science lesson overview indicates that the focus of 

the lesson is on the animal need of shelter and the “Activity Prep” description indicates students 

will learn about squirrels’ habitats, the terms shelter and habitat are not included in the text. 

Similarly, no science vocabulary words are identified to be introduced alongside the text, as no 

words are targeted for instruction within the lesson. Further, the supports for extra-textual talk do 

not promote vocabulary talk. The lesson identifies just one point in the read-aloud to pause for 

discussion, with the prompts: Which animal do you think lives up there? Why do you think that? 

The adjacent page shows a photograph of a nest high up in a tree. Below the nest are 

photographs of a squirrel, deer, and turtle, with arrows pointing from each animal to the nest. 

Above the nest is a question mark. The following transcript shows the discussion of the given 

prompts: 

Ms. Thompson (reading text): which animal // 
Ms. Thompson: look at your choices: squirrel, deer, or turtle. 

 124 

Ms. Thompson (reading text): which animal lives up there? 
Child(ren): squirrel. 
Child(ren): well deer can eat acorns too. 
Ms. Thompson: deer can eat acorns. 
Child(ren): but it's like, but it's probably squirrel (be)cause it's a nest. 
Ms. Thompson: okay. 

many students speak at once 

Ms. Thompson: okay, hold on a second. 
Ms. Thompson: let's take a look // 
Ms. Thompson: let's think about what Lydia just said. 
Ms. Thompson: she said deer like to eat acorns. 
Ms. Thompson: but it's a nest. 
Ms. Thompson: and it's up high. 
Ms. Thompson: so why would that not work for a deer? 
Child(ren): because a deer would have to have suction cups to climb up but it's fantasy / 
Ms. Thompson: but we're not talking fantasy. 
Ms. Thompson: today we're talking realism. 
Ms. Thompson: today we're talking realism. 
Ms. Thompson: so can deer climb a tree, Name? 
Ms. Thompson: no. 
Ms. Thompson: no. 
Ms. Thompson: anybody have something else they want to share? 
Ms. Thompson: how // 
Ms. Thompson: Name, what do you think? 
Child(ren): a squirrel can climb trees because if a deer would climb a tree it would go 

/woo/ and it would fall, it would keep falling down. 
student makes falling gesture with hand while making /woo/ sound effect 

Ms. Thompson: it doesn't have any tools on its body to help it climb a tree, does it? 
Child(ren): only a squirrel does. 
Ms. Thompson: only a squirrel does. 
Ms. Thompson: of these three choices. 
Ms. Thompson: of these three choices. 
Ms. Thompson: yes, Name? 
Child(ren): a turtle can climb a tree but they don’t xxx really hard for them to climb trees 

but turtles could climb—I bet turtles could climb xxx than a deer. 

Ms. Thompson: you think a turtle could do a better job than a deer. 
Ms. Thompson: but I have never // 
Ms. Thompson: have you ever seen a turtle climb a tree? 
Child(ren): no. 
Ms. Thompson: I don't know if their legs, um // 
Ms. Thompson: look how teeny and short their legs are. 
Ms. Thompson: I'm not sure those are good climbing legs. 
Child(ren): they could stick their claws into each one. 
Ms. Thompson: maybe. 
Ms. Thompson: maybe. 
Child(ren): it would be so slow though. 

 125 

Ms. Thompson: do you think their shell is heavy? 
Child(ren): yes. 
Ms. Thompson: that might make it hard for them to climb. 
Ms. Thompson: do you think a squirrel's fur is heavy? 
Child(ren): no. 
Ms. Thompson: no, I don't think so either. 
Ms. Thompson: so maybe it makes it better for them to, to climb a tree. 
Ms. Thompson: let's keep going. 
Ms. Thompson (reading text): I think I'll watch that clump of leaves for a while. 
 

This transcript shows that the discussion prompts provided to support extra-textual talk did not 

support vocabulary talk, as Ms. Thompson did not use any vocabulary talk moves during this 

discussion. In fact, throughout the entire interactive read-aloud, Ms. Thompson used only one 

vocabulary talk move in one utterance. This finding suggests that the absence of (a) texts that 

introduce or review science vocabulary and (b) curricular supports for extra-textual talk that 

encourage teachers to use vocabulary talk moves is related to considerably less vocabulary talk 

than when these features are present. 

Discussion Prompts 

Discussion prompts that include words targeted for instruction and/or engage students in 

active processing also seem to be associated with enhanced vocabulary talk for Ms. Thompson. 

The SOLID Start lesson provides 36 prompts for teachers to draw from when facilitating 

discussions throughout the lesson. Most of these prompts include a word that has been targeted 

for instruction (e.g., What are some examples of severe weather you are familiar with?) and/or 

engage students in actively processing a word’s meaning and developing understanding of its 

underlying concept (e.g., In what types of precipitation is it safe to play outside? to contrast the 

idea of severe weather). These discussion prompts provide opportunities for teachers to engage 

in vocabulary talk. For example, the SOLID Start lesson encourages teachers to facilitate a 

discussion in which students consider what they need to be prepared for when there is severe 

 126 

weather and precipitation. As part of this discussion, Ms. Thompson asks a variation of the 

sample discussion prompt that was provided in the lesson (i.e., What do we need to think about if 

there is a tornado?): 

Ms. Thompson: and what do we do at school to prepare, or get ready, in case there's a 

tornado? [Use Target Word, Emphasize, Use with Hint, Visually Display 
Word, Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make 
Personal Connection] 
teacher holds up the whiteboard with “prepare” written on it; teacher emphasizes 
“prepare” 

Ms. Thompson: what do we do? [Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample, Help 

Students Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): stay inside. 
Ms. Thompson: we stay inside. [Provide Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make 

Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): xxx 
Ms. Thompson: get // 
Ms. Thompson: well we don't get groceries at school. [Help Students Make Personal 

Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: but what do we do when have our tornado drill? [Use Target Word, 

Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample, Help Students Make Personal 
Connection] 
Child(ren): have a... 
Ms. Thompson: where do we go? [Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample, Help 

Students Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: what do we do? [Elicit Student Ideas: Example/Nonexample, Help 

Students Make Personal Connection] 

Child(ren): a strong, a strong building. 

students are talking over themselves and the teacher as she asks her questions 

Ms. Thompson: we're in a strong building. [Provide Example/Nonexample, Help 

Student Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: we go out to the hallway. [Provide Example/Nonexample, Help 

Student Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: we kneel down on our knees. [Provide Example/Nonexample, Help 

Student Make Personal Connection] 

Ms. Thompson: show me what we look like. [Help Student Make Personal 

Connection] 
students kneel down in tornado position 

Ms. Thompson: kneel down on your knees. [Help Student Make Personal Connection] 
Ms. Thompson: tuck your head down. [Help Student Make Personal Connection] 
Ms. Thompson: and put your hands over the top of your head. [Help Student Make 

Personal Connection] 

 

 127 

In this example, Ms. Thompson reviewed the meaning of the word prepare (a target word) and 

elicited examples from students of ways they prepare for tornadoes (another target word). She 

helped students make personal connections to each of these target words by asking them to 

consider their own experiences with preparing for tornadoes at school through participating in 

tornado drills. This example shows the relationship between discussion prompts that include 

target words and aim to develop students’ understanding of their underlying meanings and Ms. 

Thompson’s enhanced vocabulary talk. 

 

In contrast, the Teachers Pay Teachers activity provides no discussion prompts, and the 

Mystery Science lesson provides only five discussion prompts, with two of them appearing 

within the read-aloud text (as previously described). The remaining three discussion prompts are 

found within the optional lesson extension, which involves watching a one-minute video and 

discussing the given prompts. These prompts are not related to any science vocabulary terms (as 

there are no words targeted for instruction within this lesson): 

•  What animals did you see in the video? 

•  Where do the animals live? How do you know? 

• 

If the animals could talk, what would you ask them? 

Ms. Thompson showed the video provided within the Mystery Science lesson and another video 

not listed within the curriculum. The following transcript shows part of the discussion Ms. 

Thompson’s class had about what animals they saw in the two videos and where they live: 

Ms. Thompson: okay so what I wanted to talk about are the things that we saw in that 

video. 

Ms. Thompson: give me an example of one animal you saw and where it made its unique       

// [Review Word, Use Target Word, Emphasize] 
teacher emphasizes “unique” 

Ms. Thompson: what does unique mean? [Use Target Word, Elicit Student Ideas: 

Review Word] 

CHI: special. 

 128 

Ms. Thompson: special. [Explain/Define] 
CHI: in their own way. 
Ms. Thompson: in their own way. [Explain/Define] 
Ms. Thompson: different. [Explain/Define] 
Ms. Thompson: special to just one thing. [Explain/Define] 
Ms. Thompson: good. 
Ms. Thompson: okay, raise your hand if you can think of an example of something we 

saw // 

Ms. Thompson: thank you. 

teacher is speaking to students who have already raised their hands 

Ms. Thompson: something we saw and where it had its unique home. [Use Target 

Word, Emphasize] 
teacher emphasizes “unique” 

Ms. Thompson: Micah, give me one example. 
Ms. Thompson: I saw... 
Child(ren): the, the turtle in the fire desert. 
Ms. Thompson: where does it make its home? 
Ms. Thompson: there was a turtle. 
Ms. Thompson: and it's in a place that catches fire. 
Ms. Thompson: so where does it make its home? 
Child(ren): in the ground. 
Ms. Thompson: why? 
Child(ren): because the fire burns xxx place / 
Ms. Thompson: it's a protected place. 
Child(ren): and because um, because um, fire can't get underneath ground. 
Ms. Thompson: great. 
 

In this example, Ms. Thompson engaged in some vocabulary talk around the word unique, which 

she reviewed here even though it was not identified within the Mystery Science lesson for 

introduction or review and reinforcement. Ms. Thompson does use some vocabulary talk moves 

when reviewing the meaning of unique; however, little vocabulary talk follows in the duration of 

this discussion. This suggests that discussion prompts that are not related to targeted vocabulary 

words are associated with less vocabulary talk.  

Summary of Findings 

 

This analysis shows an association between enhanced vocabulary talk by Ms. Thompson 

and using science curriculum materials that (a) identified target words and provided child-

friendly explanations/definitions, (b) selected texts highlighting these target words and provided 

 129 

supports for extra-textual talk promoting vocabulary talk, and (c) offered discussion prompts for 

deepening students’ understandings of target word meanings. Likewise, this analysis showed that 

the absence of these curricular features is associated with less vocabulary talk. This study 

suggests that while science instruction can offer a rich context for oral language and vocabulary 

development (e.g., Gotwals & Wright, 2017; Wright & Gotwals, 2017; Wright & Neuman, 

2014), without high-quality curricular materials with features that enhance teachers’ vocabulary 

talk, the potential of this context for promoting oral language and vocabulary development may 

not be realized. 

 130 

CHAPTER 6—DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS 

Discussion 

The purpose of this dissertation study was to examine the ways in which teachers use 

language to promote oral language and vocabulary development during science instruction in the 

early-elementary grades. This is critical because, while oral language and vocabulary 

development support students’ literacy and science learning (e.g., Anderson & Freebody, 1981; 

Guthrie et al., 1999; Mercer et al., 2004; Richmond & Striley, 1996; Senechal et al., 2006; Wang 

& Herman, 2006; Wright & Gotwals, 2017) and national standards place emphasis on oral 

language and vocabulary development (National Governors Association Center for Best 

Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; NGSS Lead States, 2013), little is 

known about how teachers promote oral language and vocabulary development during science 

instruction in the early-elementary grades. It is important to understand what opportunities 

students have to develop oral language and also access science content, as both support literacy 

and science learning. Therefore, I conducted two instrumental case studies (Barone, 2011; Stake, 

2000) to examine teachers’ vocabulary talk during science instruction in early-elementary 

classrooms.  

In the first study, I examined the science instruction of a cohort of eight early-elementary 

teachers in order to determine (1) how they used language to promote students’ oral language 

and vocabulary development and (2) whether vocabulary talk is related to the language aspects 

of science talk, and if so, how. I used discourse analysis techniques to analyze 24 video recorded 

science lessons (894.27 minutes of observational data) across three timepoints from the eight 

participating teachers. I then used quantitative techniques to make within- and between-teacher 

comparisons of vocabulary talk over the course of the study. I found that the cohort of teachers 

 131 

used all four types of vocabulary talk (i.e., Knowledge & Understanding, Affective Factors, 

Student Word Use, and Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness) during science instruction; 

however, the cohort as a whole engaged in considerably more Knowledge & Understanding 

vocabulary talk (i.e., 86.72%) than any other type of vocabulary talk. This was also reflected in 

the vocabulary talk of individual teachers, with a few exceptions when teachers did not engage in 

any vocabulary talk or made only one vocabulary talk move during a lesson. Between-teacher 

comparisons show no consistent patterns in teachers’ vocabulary talk over time. In examining the 

relationship between vocabulary talk and the language aspects of science talk, I found that there 

appears to be a relationship between Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk and science 

talk focused on building knowledge of science oral language (as measured by Domain 3, 

Component 1 of the SOLID Start Tool); however, further research is needed to examine whether 

there is a relationship between Student Word Use vocabulary talk and science talk focused on 

scaffolding students’ word use language (as measured by Domain 3, Component 2 of the SOLID 

Start Tool). Further, my analysis points to the need to consider the context in which vocabulary 

talk moves are made and the overall quality of this vocabulary talk in addition to examining 

which moves the teachers make and how frequently they make them. 

In the second study, I examined the science instruction of Ms. Thompson, a kindergarten 

teacher, in order to identify what features of science curriculum materials are related to enhanced 

vocabulary talk. I used qualitative analysis techniques to analyze three video recorded science 

lessons (128.03 minutes of observational data) alongside the curricular materials from which Ms. 

Thompson drew for these lessons. I found that using science curriculum materials that (a) 

identified target words and provided child-friendly explanations/definitions, (b) used texts that 

highlight these target words and provided supports for extra-textual talk promoting vocabulary 

 132 

talk, and (c) offered discussion prompts that deepen students’ understandings of target word 

meanings was associated with enhanced vocabulary talk by Ms. Thompson. Likewise, I found 

that the absence of these curricular features was associated with less vocabulary talk. 

In the following sections, I discuss these findings in relation to the empirical and 

theoretical literature on how children learn words. 

Types of Vocabulary Talk 

The cohort of early-elementary teachers in this study engaged in considerably more 

Knowledge & Understanding talk than any other type of vocabulary talk. This finding reflects 

the focus of the research literature on how children learn words, as far more studies have 

explored instructional practices for building students’ knowledge of word meanings than 

scaffolding students’ word use, building students’ awareness of words and word learning, or 

interesting students in words and word learning. However, most of the studies that comprise the 

research base on how children learn words examined vocabulary instruction within the context of 

literacy instruction (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 

2007, 2009, 2010; Hadley et al., 2019; McKeown & Beck, 2003; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; 

Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik & Hindman, 

2014). Importantly, the present study shows that this cohort of early-elementary teachers used 

language in many ways that are aligned with the research on building students’ knowledge of 

word meanings during science instruction. This is promising for both literacy and science 

learning in the early-elementary grades because this suggests that there are important 

opportunities for teachers to build students’ vocabulary knowledge across content areas. Given 

the sheer number of vocabulary words there are to learn (Anderson & Nagy, 1992; Nagy & 

 133 

Anderson, 1984) and the need to learn discipline-specific vocabulary (Bravo & Cervetti, 2008), it 

is important to seize the opportunities for vocabulary learning across the elementary school day. 

 

In addition to having the greatest percentage of the cohort’s vocabulary talk, Knowledge 

& Understanding was also the type of talk with the most individual vocabulary talk moves (i.e., 

number of unique second-level codes). I identified 21 different vocabulary talk moves that align 

with the research on building students’ knowledge of word meanings, compared to only six 

moves for interesting students in words and word learning (i.e., Affective Factors), six moves for 

scaffolding students’ word use (i.e., Student Word Use), and one move for building awareness of 

words and word learning (i.e., Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness). This may be because 

the research literature has focused primarily on building students’ knowledge of word meanings; 

therefore, much is known about how to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development in this way.  

 

Notably, the type of vocabulary talk used second most frequently after Knowledge & 

Understanding was Affective Factors. This is somewhat surprising, as this type of vocabulary 

talk is the least reflective of the research base. This type of vocabulary talk is based in the theory 

of word consciousness (e.g., Anderson & Nagy, 1991, 1992; Graves, 2000, 2006; Graves & 

Watts-Taffe, 2002, 2008; Nagy & Scott, 2000; Scott & Nagy, 2004), and to my knowledge, only 

one study has examined the specific impact of word consciousness instruction on students’ 

vocabulary development. Neugebauer et al. (2017) investigated the impact of teachers’ word 

consciousness talk on kindergarten students’ general vocabulary knowledge. They identified 

three specific talk moves—reinforcing students’ word use, affirming students’ recognition of 

word meanings, and helping students make personal connects to words—and found that these 

moves were positively associated with gains in students’ general vocabulary knowledge at the 

 134 

end of the school year. In the present study, the cohort of teachers used two of these moves—

reinforcing students’ word use (i.e., PRAISE) and helping students make personal connections to 

words (i.e., HELP STUDENTS MAKE PERSONAL CONNECTIONS). They also used four 

additional Affective Factors moves that align with the research on interesting students in word 

and word learning. When students showed curiosity about a word’s meaning, the teachers 

answered their questions. At times, the teachers celebrated students’ word use by acknowledging 

their “ownership” of words. Infrequently, teachers also modeled appreciating words/word choice 

and enjoying favorite words. While it is promising that the cohort of teachers engaged in this 

kind of Affective Factors talk, across the data set, this talk accounted for only 7.85% of total 

vocabulary talk code applications. This suggests that interesting students in words and word 

learning was not a primary focus of the teachers’ vocabulary instruction during science lessons. 

In order to provide more empirical support for this primarily theoretical type of vocabulary talk, 

further research is needed to examine the relationship between Affective Factors vocabulary talk 

moves and students’ oral language and vocabulary development. 

 

Another type of vocabulary talk with relatively few code applications (i.e., 5.23% of total 

vocabulary talk code applications) was Student Word Use. This may be reflective of the common 

finding in observational studies that teachers do most of the talking within a classroom (e.g., 

Nystrand, 2006; Silverman et al., 2014). In an observational study of vocabulary instruction at 

the elementary level, Silverman et al. (2014) found that 75% of utterances across all lessons were 

teacher utterances, and these utterances were more than four times as long as student utterances, 

on average. The present study captured what students said in order to provide context for teacher 

utterances but did not record student speech at the level of the utterance; therefore, it is not 

possible to determine the percentage of utterances that were teacher talk compared to student 

 135 

talk. However, it was evident that the cohort of teachers did more talking than their students. 

With limited opportunities for students to talk, there were also limited opportunities to use target 

vocabulary. The finding that teachers used little Student Word Use talk is consistent with the 

overall trend for Domain 3 Component 2 scores on the SOLID Start Tool (i.e., measuring the 

language aspects of science talk focused on scaffolding students’ word use). Of the 24 lessons 

observed in the present study, only 10 had composite scores at or above 3.0 for this component, 

meaning that 14 lessons scored below Medium for scaffolding students’ use of previously-

introduced discipline-specific oral language (Wright et al., 2017). Together, these low scores for 

the language aspect of science talk focused on scaffolding students’ word use and the lack of 

vocabulary talk moves encouraging students to use target words suggests that scaffolding 

students’ use of target words was not a focus of the teachers’ vocabulary instruction during 

science lessons. Given that studies have found scaffolding students’ word use to promote oral 

language and vocabulary development (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Coyne et al., 2007, 

2009, 2010; Juel & Deffes, 2004; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; McKeown & Beck, 2003; 

Rosenthal & Ehri, 2011; Silverman, 2007a; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Zipoli et al., 2011), this 

lack of scaffolding students’ word use highlights an area for professional development. 

 

Finally, there was only one Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness vocabulary talk 

move across the entire data set—asking students if they had heard of a word—and it accounted 

for only 0.20% of total vocabulary talk code applications. This may be reflective of the research 

base, as building students’ awareness of words and word learning is well researched, but much of 

this work has focused on upper-elementary and intermediate grades (e.g., Baumann et al., 2002, 

2003; P. N. Bowers & Kirby, 2010; Lesaux et al., 2010; Lubliner & Smetana, 2005; Zipke, 2007, 

2008; Zipke et al., 2009). Only a few of the studies examining instruction focused on developing 

 136 

metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness have taken place within the context of early-

elementary classrooms (i.e., K-2) (e.g., Cain, 2007; Freeman et al., 2019; Nash & Snowling, 

2006; Wise, 2019). Nash and Snowling (2006) compared instruction in which 7- and 8-year olds 

were taught the meanings of target words with instruction in which they were taught to look for 

context clues to derive the meaning of target words. They found that three months after the 

intervention, students in the context instruction condition showed significantly better expressive 

vocabulary, comprehended text containing target words significantly better, and could 

independently derive word meanings from written context. This study suggests that building 

early-elementary students’ awareness of words and word learning may have a greater impact on 

vocabulary development than merely focusing on buildings students’ knowledge of specific 

word meaning. Similarly, Wise (2019) examined the effects of an intervention designed to teach 

second-grade students to use four types of context clues (i.e. synonyms, pictures, definitions, and 

antonyms), finding that students in the intervention condition significantly outperformed students 

in the business-as-usual comparison condition with the skill of noticing unfamiliar words. As 

Wise argued, this is an important step for supporting students in becoming independent word 

learners because it may support their incidental word learning from oral and written contexts. 

Relatedly, Cain (2007) examined whether explanation facilitated contextual analysis with 7- and 

8-year-old students, finding that students who explained how a word was derived from context 

made the greatest gains in definition accuracy. Again, accurately deriving word meanings from 

context is important for supporting students in becoming independent word learners. Focusing 

instead on morphological instruction, Freeman et al. (2019) explored how three first-grade 

students responded to a small-group intervention with explicit instruction on Greek and Latin 

roots that was integrated with science vocabulary and texts. Freeman and colleagues found that 

 137 

this instruction increased students’ morphological awareness, as they were able to find roots in 

words and were developing the ability to analyze word features and look for clues to their 

meaning. These too are important skills for becoming independent word learners. Therefore, 

while only a few studies have examined instruction focused on developing early-elementary 

students’ metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness, their findings point to the need for this 

kind of instruction in order to set young students on a path toward becoming independent word 

learners. 

These studies focused on building students’ metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness 

in the early-elementary grades (i.e., Cain, 2007; Freeman et al., 2019; Nash & Snowling, 2006; 

Wise, 2019) have been intervention studies that have intentionally focused on this approach to 

promoting oral language and vocabulary development. Like the present study, observational 

studies of vocabulary instruction have found limited focus on developing students’ 

metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness. In particular, the lack of vocabulary talk moves in 

attending to morphology and syntax in the present study is consistent with other studies that have 

found limited instructional attention devoted to these aspects of word learning in the upper-

elementary grades (e.g., Scott et al., 2003; Silverman et al., 2014; Watts, 1995). Likewise, the 

lack of vocabulary talk moves addressing contextual analysis is consistent with the lack of 

contextual analysis instruction observed by Silverman et al. (2014). Given that studies have 

found that metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness instruction promotes oral language and 

vocabulary development in the early-elementary grades (e.g., Cain, 2007; Freeman et al., 2019; 

Nash & Snowling, 2006; Wise, 2019), the consistent absence of this instruction in elementary 

classrooms points to the need for professional development focused on developing students’ 

 138 

metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness—including within science instruction in the early-

elementary grades. 

Quality of Vocabulary Talk 

 

My analysis of the cohort of teacher’s vocabulary talk in relation to the language aspects 

of science talk highlight the need to consider not only the vocabulary talk moves made by 

teachers but also the quality of the talk involved in each move. My analysis of vocabulary talk 

captured teacher talk that aligned with the research and theory on how children learn words—

such as explaining or defining the meaning of a word. However, this analysis did not evaluate 

how well the vocabulary talk moves were executed—such as whether the explanation/definition 

used familiar words and concepts (i.e., child-friendly) to help students understand the new word. 

My analysis of the language aspects of science talk shows the discrepancy between quantity of 

vocabulary talk, as captured by rate of each type of vocabulary talk per minute, and quality of 

this talk, as captured by Components 1-2 of Domain 3 of the SOLID Start Tool (i.e., Talk that 

Develops Literacy and Language for Science). This distinction between quantity and quality of 

vocabulary talk is evident in Ms. Nelson’s first lesson (i.e. PrePD), in which the weather terms 

students had learned so far in the SOLID Start Weather Forecasting unit were reviewed, but this 

was done as its own activity rather than within the context of science learning. Ms. Nelson 

engaged in a great deal of vocabulary talk and prompted her kindergarten students to use science 

oral language throughout the lesson. However, because this talk happened outside the context of 

science learning and because students were using science oral language to list words rather than 

to share their ideas, this lesson scored lower overall for science talk than for vocabulary talk. In 

other words, the context in which the vocabulary talk moves were made was not as rich as 

described in the research literature and therefore may not have been as impactful. 

 139 

This distinction between quantity and quality of vocabulary talk is important because, for 

vocabulary talk moves to effectively promote students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development, the quality of talk within a given move likely matters. In their observational study 

of vocabulary instruction during language arts instruction in third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade 

classrooms, Silverman et al. (2014) surprisingly found that the research-based practice of 

applying words in various contexts was negatively associated with change in vocabulary. Further 

analysis revealed that instruction that was coded as application across contexts sometimes led 

students off track and may have distracted them from the actual meaning of the word, such as 

when a teacher applied the target word delivery to the pizza delivery she had the night before and 

then the conversation turned to the foods students like to order rather than focusing on the 

delivery of those foods. Silverman and colleagues noted that while their study did not investigate 

the quality of instruction, future research should take this into consideration. Likewise, the 

present study points to the need for future research that takes quality of vocabulary talk moves 

into consideration—especially research that investigates the relationship between vocabulary talk 

moves and students’ oral language and vocabulary development. 

Further, while it has been common practice in vocabulary research to capture counts 

related to word learning (e.g., number of words, counts of different types of words, number of 

minutes of instruction, frequency of use of various instructional practices) (e.g., Barnes et al., 

2017; Barnes & Dickinson, 2018; Hart & Risley, 2003; Scott et al., 2003; Silverman et al., 2014; 

Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wright, 2014), the present study, like Silverman et al. (2014), 

shows the need to also take into consideration quality as it relates to these counts. Vocabulary 

research focused on the “word gap,” for instance, has focused on comparing counts of how many 

words young children from various socioeconomic backgrounds have been exposed to by a 

 140 

particular age (e.g., Hart & Risley, 2003). The present study suggests that such counts may not 

capture what is important in terms of promoting oral language and vocabulary development.  

Curricular Supports for Vocabulary Talk 

 

My analysis of features of science curriculum materials that are related to enhanced 

vocabulary talk was centered on one kindergarten teacher’s science instruction across three 

lessons that drew from three different sets of curriculum materials; therefore, my findings cannot 

be generalized beyond this particular teacher and these particular lessons from these sets of 

curriculum materials. However, this analysis offers insight that may be particularly useful for 

developers of science curriculum materials. The identification of specific words to target for 

instruction within the lesson was associated with enhanced vocabulary talk; therefore, an 

important way curriculum materials may support students’ vocabulary growth is by identifying 

words to introduce and review/reinforce within a lesson. Ms. Thompson engaged in far more 

vocabulary talk when the curriculum materials she used identified specific vocabulary words to 

introduce and review/reinforce, with the given child-friendly definitions, at specified points in 

the lesson (i.e., SOLID Start Weather Forecasting lesson). This is important because, while I 

coded any word that teachers targeted for instruction (by drawing students’ attention to it and its 

meaning) as a target word—and therefore words outside of those identified by the curriculum 

materials could be target words—Ms. Thompson engaged in less vocabulary talk overall when it 

was up to her to identify words to target for instruction. 

Many of the words Ms. Thompson targeted for instruction on her own were introduced 

briefly and then not revisited within the lesson, and often, these words were loosely related to the 

science content of the lesson (e.g., gears, spin, machines, curve, and grip in the Teachers Pay 

Teachers force and motion lesson) but were not central to communicating science 

 141 

understandings from the lesson. This is consistent with Wright and Neuman's (2014) finding in 

their observational study of vocabulary instruction across the school day in kindergarten 

classrooms that teachers often gave one-time, brief word explanations with unsystematic word 

selection. In contrast, the words in the SOLID Start Weather Forecasting lesson that were 

targeted for introduction (i.e., severe, flood, snowstorm, tornado, hurricane) and 

review/reinforcement (i.e., weather conditions, rain, snow, wind, fall, winter, spring, summer, 

cool, cold, warm, hot, prepare, measure, meteorologist, precipitation, thunderstorm) were 

central to the lesson question (i.e., How Can We Prepare for Severe Weather Conditions?). 

Further, the words identified for instruction in the SOLID Start lesson are aligned with the 

research on teaching target words in conceptually- or semantically-related sets in order to 

promote students’ knowledge of word meanings (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2016; Hadley et al., 2019; 

Neuman et al., 2011; Neuman & Dwyer, 2011; Neuman & Kaefer, 2013, 2018; Pollard-Durodola 

et al., 2011; Wasik et al., 2006; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Zipoli et al., 2011). The importance of the 

relationship between the target words for promoting vocabulary talk is evident in the transcripts 

from the SOLID Start lesson, as the density of vocabulary talk is greater throughout the lesson in 

comparison to the Teachers Pay Teachers and Mystery Science lessons with loosely related 

words discussed more sporadically here and there. 

Two other features of science curriculum materials were associated with enhanced 

vocabulary talk by Ms. Thompson, but they were ultimately dependent on the curriculum 

materials having identified target words in the first place. The text selection and prompts for 

extra-textual talk in the SOLID Start lesson highlighted specific vocabulary terms that had been 

targeted for instruction, providing written explanations and photographs for visual support. This 

text selection provided a rich context for vocabulary talk, aided by the discussion prompts 

 142 

provided in the lesson to support extra-textual talk. That the read-aloud context enhanced Ms. 

Thompson’s vocabulary talk is unsurprising, as many studies of vocabulary instruction have 

been situated within read-alouds due to the rich context they provide for word learning (e.g., 

Barnes & Dickinson, 2018; Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et 

al., 2007, 2009, 2010; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Dickinson & Tabors, 1991; Hadley et al., 2019; 

McKeown & Beck, 2003; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Wasik et al., 

2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014). In contrast, the Teachers Pay Teachers 

lesson did not include text, and the Mystery Science lesson included text but did not use that text 

to highlight any science vocabulary—as no words had been targeted for instruction within the 

lesson. The opportunity was there for the Mystery Science text to highlight terms such as shelter 

and habitat; however, the text selected (i.e., created) for this lesson does not include these terms, 

the lesson itself does not target these terms for instruction, and Ms. Thompson did not introduce 

these terms on her own. The absence of texts and extra-textual talk highlighting target words was 

related to considerably less vocabulary talk by Ms. Thompson. 

Similarly, the discussion prompts provided throughout the SOLID Start lesson often 

included a target word or engaged students in actively processing a target word’s meaning and 

developing understanding of its underlying concept. These prompts provided rich opportunities 

for Ms. Thompson to engage in vocabulary talk. This is unsurprising, as using target words and 

engaging students in deeper processing of target words is aligned with the research on how 

children learn words (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et 

al., 2007, 2009, 2010; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; McKeown & Beck, 2003; National Institute 

of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Silverman, 2007a, 

2007b; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & 

 143 

Bond, 2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014; Zipoli et al., 2011). In contrast, the Teachers Pay 

Teachers lesson did not provide any discussion prompts, and the Mystery Science lesson 

provided several prompts that did not use science vocabulary terms. Without having identified 

target words within the lesson, these discussion prompts did not provide opportunities for 

students to actively process target word meanings or develop understanding of their underlying 

concepts. The absence of discussion prompts related to target words was associated with less 

vocabulary talk by Ms. Thompson. 

Beyond these specific curricular features, this analysis shows that the science curriculum 

materials teachers use matter in terms of supporting students’ literacy and science learning. 

Science materials such as the SOLID Start curriculum seemingly set the stage for vocabulary talk 

and provide a rich context that develops students’ language and literacy while deepening their 

science understanding. Such materials support coherence across lessons by identifying target 

words to review/reinforce as relevant to the current lesson, which provides multiple exposures to 

target words (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2010; 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986) in 

multiple contexts (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2010; 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Silverman et al., 2014; Stahl 

& Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 2016), often in conceptually- or semantically-related sets (e.g., 

Cervetti et al., 2016; Hadley et al., 2019; Neuman et al., 2011; Neuman & Dwyer, 2011; Neuman 

& Kaefer, 2013, 2018; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011; Zipoli et al., 2011)—all of which is 

supported by the research base on how children learn words. What made Ms. Thompson’s 

science instruction particularly interesting for further examination is that she taught three 

different lessons from three different sets of curriculum materials. From a curriculum analysis 

 144 

perspective, this was helpful for analyzing curricular features across a variety of science 

curriculum materials. From a student learning perspective, however, this was likely not helpful 

for supporting either science or literacy learning, as these three lessons addressed different 

disciplinary core ideas from different branches of science—all within the span of just 12 weeks 

or so (i.e., PrePD videos were recorded before the 10-week SOLID Start usability trial began). 

Without following a single curriculum with coherent units of study, the opportunities to support 

students’ oral language and vocabulary development across time were limited, as ideas and 

concepts that would repeat throughout coherent science materials—and therefore support 

vocabulary development—were not present. 

Implications 

 

The findings from this study have implications for curriculum development, teacher 

professional development, teacher preparation, and policy. In the following sections, I describe 

the implications for each area. 

Curriculum Development 

 

The present study highlights the need for science curriculum materials to identify words 

to target for instruction—both through introduction and review/reinforcement in subsequent 

lessons. These words need to be conceptually related (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2016; Hadley et al., 

2019; Neuman et al., 2011; Neuman & Dwyer, 2011; Neuman & Kaefer, 2013, 2018; Pollard-

Durodola et al., 2011; Wasik et al., 2006; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Zipoli et al., 2011) and central to 

supporting students’ engagement with science learning (Wright et al., 2017). In addition to 

identifying target words, science curriculum materials should also provide child-friendly 

definitions or explanations of the meanings of these words (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2001, 2007; 

Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985; 

 145 

McKeown & Beck, 2003; Nash & Snowling, 2006; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Silverman et al., 

2014; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 

2001; Wasik & Hindman, 2014). Texts that highlight these target words should be carefully 

selected and prompts should be given to support extra-textual talk during the reading of these 

texts. Finally, curriculum materials should also provide discussion prompts that use target words 

and provide opportunities for students to engage in deeper processing of these words (e.g., Beck 

& McKeown, 2001, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Coyne et al., 2007, 2009, 2010; McKeown 

et al., 1983, 1985; McKeown & Beck, 2003; National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development, 2000; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Silverman, 2007a, 2007b; Silverman & Crandell, 

2010; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wasik et al., 2016; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasik & Hindman, 

2014; Zipoli et al., 2011). Science curriculum materials with these features provide rich contexts 

in which teachers can engage in vocabulary talk in order to promote students’ oral language and 

vocabulary development while also deepening their science understandings. 

Teacher Professional Development 

 

The present study suggests that there may be a need for teacher professional development 

in the early-elementary grades regarding Affective Factors, Student Word Use, and 

Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness vocabulary talk, as 86.72% of vocabulary talk code 

applications were for Knowledge & Understanding talk moves. Other studies have found limited 

instructional attention to Student Word Use and Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness in 

particular (e.g., Scott et al., 2003; Silverman et al., 2014; Watts, 1995). While further research is 

needed to determine if there is a relationship between teachers’ vocabulary talk moves and 

students’ oral language and vocabulary development, the alignment of these vocabulary talk 

moves with the research on how children learn words makes it likely that teachers’ vocabulary 

 146 

talk impact students’ word learning. Therefore, it is important for teachers to use language in 

ways that align with the full research base on how children learn words and not just on one type 

of vocabulary talk. 

Teacher Preparation 

Thinking of vocabulary instruction in terms of Knowledge & Understanding, Student 

Word Use, Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness, and Affective Factors offers a four-part 

framework that could be useful for introducing preservice teachers to the tenets of vocabulary 

instruction. Teacher preparation programs should encourage preservice teachers to consider how 

they can promote students’ oral language and vocabulary development through these types of 

vocabulary talk across the school day, as any time something new is learned is an opportunity for 

word learning (Wright, in press). Further, teacher preparation programs should emphasize the 

reciprocal relationship between literacy and science learning (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2012; Connor 

et al., 2017; Gotwals & Wright, 2017, 2017; Guthrie et al., 1999; Romance & Vitale, 1992, 2001; 

Varelas et al., 2006; Varelas & Pappas, 2006; Vitale & Romance, 2012; Wang & Herman, 2006) 

in both literacy and science methods courses so that beginning teachers enter the field 

understanding that science instruction provides a rich context for oral language and vocabulary 

development while building background knowledge—both of which ultimately support reading 

comprehension (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Kintsch, 2013). Currently, much of the elementary 

curriculum is siloed (Wright & Domke, 2019), and little time is devoted to science instruction 

(Berliner, 2011; Blank, 2012); yet, it is not the case that taking time “from” literacy instruction 

for science lessons reduces literacy learning. Helping beginning teachers understand this from 

the start of their career has the potential to impact practice as they enter the field. 

 147 

Policy 

 

Just as it is important to teach preservice teachers about the reciprocal relationship 

between literacy and science learning (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2012; Connor et al., 2017; Gotwals & 

Wright, 2017, 2017; Guthrie et al., 1999; Romance & Vitale, 1992, 2001; Varelas et al., 2006; 

Varelas & Pappas, 2006; Vitale & Romance, 2012; Wang & Herman, 2006), it is important for 

policy makers to get this message as well. The cohort of eight teachers participating in this study 

reported spending 450-900 minutes on literacy instruction per week while spending only 30-90 

minutes on science during this same timeframe. This cohort is not unique in this regard, as 

research has shown that little time is devoted to science instruction in elementary classrooms, 

while language arts and mathematics dominate the curriculum (Berliner, 2011; Blank, 2012). It is 

important for policy makers to understand that literacy learning is limited when students are not 

given the opportunity to develop oral language and vocabulary within the rich context provided 

by science instruction or to deepen science understandings that would provide valuable 

background knowledge—and both vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge play 

pivotal roles in students’ reading comprehension (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Kintsch, 2013). 

Therefore, focusing instructional time on literacy at the expense of science instruction for the 

purpose of promoting literacy learning, in reality, is to the detriment of both literacy and science 

learning. 

 

In addition to creating policy that makes room for science instruction in the elementary 

curriculum, policy makers need to consider that the curriculum selected for teachers to use 

matters. While science instruction can offer a rich context for oral language and vocabulary 

development (e.g., Gotwals & Wright, 2017; Wright & Gotwals, 2017; Wright & Neuman, 

2014), it is evident from the analysis of Ms. Thompson’s science instruction that science 

 148 

curriculum materials such as those found on Teachers Pay Teachers and the Mystery Science 

curriculum are not designed to promote students’ oral language and vocabulary development 

while supporting their engagement with science learning. It is also evident from Ms. Thompson’s 

teaching of the SOLID Start lesson that curriculum materials can set the stage for integrated 

vocabulary and science learning. Therefore, science curriculum materials should be carefully 

selected in order to best promote students’ science and literacy learning. 

Limitations 

 

There are several limitations to this dissertation study. First, all eight of the teachers in 

the cohort participating in this study identified as White/European American females, and they 

primarily taught White/European American students (95.74% of students across the eight 

classes)—none of whom were learning English as an additional language. This limits the 

generalizability of my findings to other contexts, as the National Center for Education Statistics 

(2020) projected that 45.65% of students attending public schools in the United States would be 

White in 2019 and reported that 9.6% of students attending public schools in the United States 

were English Learners in 2016 (most recent data reported). Therefore, the students of the 

teachers participating in this study are not representative of the student population of schools in 

the United States, and the findings of this study cannot be generalized to the greater population. 

 

The second limitation of this study is that I examined only one lesson from each of the 

three sets of science curriculum materials used by Ms. Thompson (i.e., SOLID Start, Teachers 

Pay Teachers, Mystery Science). It is possible that these particular lessons are not representative 

of the respective curriculum materials as a whole, and therefore, characterizations of these sets of 

curriculum materials are limited to the specific lesson analyzed from each and cannot be 

 149 

extended to other lessons within these sets of curriculum materials without further analysis of 

additional lessons. 

 

A third limitation of this study is that I did not interview the teachers after they taught 

their video recorded lessons in order to understand why they made the particular instructional 

decisions they made. This would have allowed me better understand how teachers were thinking 

about promoting oral language and vocabulary development. Specifically, I could have asked 

about the words they had planned to target for instruction and the words they targeted for 

instruction more spontaneously by bringing students’ attention to them and their meanings. 

However, because this was an observational study of teachers’ oral language and vocabulary use 

during science instruction, asking these questions could have altered the teachers’ instruction in 

subsequent lessons. 

Finally, as discussed in Chapter 3, perhaps the greatest limitation of the present study is 

that no student outcome data was collected. Like the present study, a number of observational 

studies of vocabulary instruction have not included student outcome data (Blachowicz, 1987; 

Dickinson et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2003; Wanzek, 2014; Watts, 1995; 

Wright & Neuman, 2014); however, the absence of this information makes it impossible to 

confirm that the vocabulary talk moves identified in the present study promote students’ oral 

language and vocabulary development. While some observational studies have found 

correlations between vocabulary instructional methods and students’ learning (e.g., Carlisle et 

al., 2013; Neugebauer et al., 2017; Silverman & Crandell, 2010), the relationship between the 

vocabulary talk moves identified in the present study and students’ oral language and vocabulary 

development have not yet been examined. Although the vocabulary talk moves identified in the 

 150 

present study are aligned with research suggesting they would promote oral language and 

vocabulary development, future research is needed to determine if this is the case.  

Future Research 

 

Further research is needed to examine how teachers’ use of vocabulary talk moves during 

science instruction impacts students’ oral language and vocabulary development. All of the 

vocabulary talk moves identified in the present study align with research and theory on how 

children learn words, suggesting that these vocabulary talk moves should promote students’ oral 

language and vocabulary development. An observational study of vocabulary talk during science 

instruction is needed now to confirm this hypothesis. Using the codebook for vocabulary talk 

developed in the present study and measures of students’ vocabulary knowledge (e.g., 

knowledge of target words taught within science lessons, general vocabulary knowledge), 

statistical analysis should be used to determine the correlation between each type of vocabulary 

talk and students’ word learning. Further statistical analysis could also determine the correlation 

between each vocabulary talk move and students’ word learning. Once the relationship between 

teachers’ vocabulary talk and students’ oral language and vocabulary development has been 

established, follow-up studies of professional development could aim to increase teachers’ use of 

Student Word Use, Metalinguistic & Metacognitive Awareness, and Affective Factors talk—

given that these types of vocabulary talk are correlated with oral language and vocabulary 

development. 

 

The present study focused on teachers’ vocabulary talk within science instruction in early 

elementary classrooms, as little is known about how teachers promote oral language and 

vocabulary development during early-elementary science lessons; however, the vocabulary talk 

moves identified in this study could be examined across the school day. Future research should 

 151 

also explore vocabulary talk beyond science instruction in order to learn how teachers promote 

oral language and vocabulary development in other content areas (e.g., social studies, 

mathematics), as additional vocabulary talk moves that were not identified in the present study 

may be commonly used in these areas. 

 

The present study examined one science lesson from three different sets of science 

curriculum materials and identified three different curricular features associated with enhanced 

vocabulary talk when present and considerably less vocabulary talk when absent. A content 

analysis of a wide range of science curriculum materials could build on this work by identifying 

how prevalent these features are in the curriculum options available to teachers. This type of 

analysis could provide valuable information for curriculum developers and curriculum adopters. 

Relatedly, future research should aim to identify additional features of science curriculum 

materials associated with enhanced vocabulary talk by examining vocabulary talk in relation to a 

wider range of science curriculum materials with a greater number of teachers. 

Conclusions 

 

This study contributes to the field’s understanding of the ways that science instruction 

supports literacy learning and literacy instruction supports science learning in the early-

elementary grades. This is particularly important because science instruction offers a rich context 

for oral language and vocabulary development (Gotwals & Wright, 2017; Wright & Gotwals, 

2017; Wright & Neuman, 2014), yet little time is devoted to science instruction in elementary 

classrooms (Berliner, 2011; Blank, 2012) and little is known about how teachers promote oral 

language and vocabulary development during science instruction. This study shows that teachers 

primarily engage in Knowledge & Understanding vocabulary talk during science lessons in the 

early-elementary grades, and vocabulary talk is enhanced when teachers use science curriculum 

 152 

materials that target conceptually-connected vocabulary words for instruction and highlight these 

words through careful text selection and related discussion prompts. 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

APPENDICES 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 154 

 

APPENDIX A—SOLID START PD RECRUITMENT INFORMATION 

Science, Oral Language and Literacy Development from the Start of School 

(SOLID Start) Professional Development and Research Partnership Opportunity 

  

You’re invited! 

Who: K-2 teachers 
What: Become a research partner for the online SOLID Start Professional Development course 
When: Spring 2019 (beginning in early February) 
Where: Wherever you are (online course) 
Why: Learn about important practices for science and literacy learning and support the development of 
the SOLID Start Professional Development course! 
How: Contact Dr. Tanya Wright (tswright@msu.edu) or Dr. Amelia Wenk Gotwals (gotwals@msu.edu) 
with questions or to sign up; enrollment is on first come, first served basis. 
 

What is SOLID Start? 

●  SOLID Start, which stands for Science, Oral Language and Literacy Development from the Start 
of School, is a project designed to support K-2 teachers in integrating science, oral language, and 
literacy in their teaching. 

●  SOLID Start is developing NGSS-aligned curriculum, a formative classroom observation tool to 

support teachers in enacting high-quality discourse, and online professional development and 
coaching.  

●  SOLID Start is funded by the National Science Foundation and led by Dr. Tanya Wright and Dr. 

Amelia Wenk Gotwals of Michigan State University’s Department of Teacher Education. 

What will SOLID Start research partners do? 

●  Participate in a 10-week online professional development focused on supporting talk around 

equitable science participation and engagement, deepening students’ science understanding, and 
supporting students’ science language and literacy development. 

●  Upload three videos of teaching science lessons throughout the course and receive feedback from 

a coach on these lessons  

●  Provide feedback on the course through surveys, interviews, and/or focus groups.  

What are the objectives of the SOLID Start professional development? 
Teachers will learn about why the three following practices are important for science and literacy 
learning: 

1)  Fostering equitable science participation and engagement 
2)  Deepening students’ science understanding, and  
3)  Supporting students’ science language and literacy development. 

Teachers will gain strategies for implementing these practices, through analysis of videos, reading 
articles, and enacting and reflecting upon their own instruction. 

What are the benefits of becoming a SOLID Start research partner? 

●  Learn about fostering equitable science participation and engagement, deepening students’ 

science understanding, and supporting students’ science language and literacy development.  

●  Receive support from a coach who will support you in reflecting on your teaching practices 

related to language and literacy development in the context of science learning.  

●  Receive a $500 stipend and SCECHs (number TBD). 

 

 155 

APPENDIX B—DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE 

INFORMATION SURVEY 

Name: 
Date: 
 
Part 1: Background 

1.  What is your gender? 

  Female 
  Male 
  Gender Diverse 

 

2.  What are your pronouns? 

  She/her 
  He/him 
  They/their 

 

3.  In what year were you born? 

 

4.  Check ALL the categories that best describe your race or ethnicity: 

  Black or African American 
  Arab American 
  Hispanic or Latino/a 
  White or European American 
  Asian/Pacific Islander 
  Native American 
  Multiracial 
  Other: 

 

5.  Is English your first language? 

  Yes 
  No 

 

6.  If no, what is your first language? 

 

Part 2: Professional Experience 

1.  For each degree you hold, please provide the following information: 

a.  Education degree 

  Associate’s degree 
  Bachelor’s degree (BA or BS) 
  Master’s degree 
  Doctoral degree 

b.  Major, minor, and/or focus area (e.g., elementary education): 
c.  Year of graduation: 

 156 

 

2.  Which teaching certification do you currently have? (Check one.) 

a.  Provisional certificate (initial teaching license) 
b.  Professional education certificate (advanced teaching license) 
c.  Temporary teacher employment authorization (one year non-renewable) 
d.  Other: 

 

3.  Which endorsements do you have? (Check all that apply.) 

  Special Education Consultant 
  English as a Second Language 
  Early Childhood Education 
  National Board Certification 
  Reading 
  Reading Specialist 
  Special Education 
  None 
  Other:  

 

4.  How many years have you worked as a teacher? (Check one.) 

  Fewer than 5 
  6-10 
  11-15 
  16-20 
  Over 20 

 

5.  How many years have you taught the grade level you’re currently teaching? (Check one.) 

  Fewer than 5 
  6-10 
  11-15 
  16-20 
  Over 20 

 

6.  How long have you worked at your current location? 

 
Part 3: Professional Development 

1.  In the past year, in which content areas did you attend or receive professional 

development? (Check all that apply.) 

  Language arts: Reading 
  Language arts: Writing 
  Math 
  Science 
  Social Studies 
  Other:  

 

2.  Please specify the topics the PD covered for each content area you indicated above. 

 157 

 

 

Part 4: Setting Description 
1.  How many children in your class belong to each of the following groups? 

a.  Black or African American: 
b.  Middle Eastern/Arab: 
c.  Hispanic or Latino/a: 
d.  Asian or Pacific Islander: 
e.  White or European American: 
f.  Biracial or multiethnic: 
g.  Other race or ethnicity: 

 

2.  How many children in your class have a documented special need or learning disability? 

 

3.  How many children in your class are English learners (learning English as an additional 

language)? 

 
Part 5: Science and Literacy Curriculum 
1.  For each subject area, please list the name(s) of the curricula you use (i.e. Open Court; 
Reading Street). If you use more than one curriculum per subject area, please list them 
all. Also, add supplementary materials or your own materials, if you use them. 

a.  Language Arts: Reading: 
b.  Language Arts: Writing: 
c.  Language Arts: Oral Language/vocabulary: 
d.  Science: 
 

2.  How closely do you follow the language arts curricula you use? 

a.  I follow it strictly. 
b.  I follow it most of the time/make adaptations when appropriate. 
c.  I use it occasionally/select pieces that are appropriate for my students. 
d.  I rarely use it. 

 

3.  How closely do you follow the science curricula you use? 

a.  How closely do you follow the science curricula you use? 
a.  I follow it strictly. 
b.  I follow it most of the time/make adaptations when appropriate. 
c.  I use it occasionally/select pieces that are appropriate for my students. 
d.  I rarely use it. 

 

4.  Who selects the language arts curricula that you use in your classroom? (Check one.) 

  My school district 
  My principal 
  I do 
  Other: 

5.  Who selects the science curricula that you use in your classroom? (Check one.) 

  My school district 

 158 

  My principal 
  I do 
  Other: 

 159 

APPENDIX C—WEEKLY INSTRUCTIONAL LOG 

Name: 
Week of PD: [Before PD, Week 1, Week 2, … Week 10] 
 

1.  How many times did you teach science this week? 
2.  How many minutes did you teach science each time (e.g., Monday: 30 minutes, Tuesday: 40 

minutes, Thursday: 20 minutes)? 

3.  Comments (e.g., two snow days this week, no school for holiday on Monday, field trip on 

Thursday) 

4.  What did content did you teach in this week’s science lessons? 
5.  Did you use curriculum materials? [yes  no] 
6.  If you responded yes, what curriculum materials did you use? 

 160 

APPENDIX D—TRANSCRIPTION GUIDE 

General Instructions 

 

•  Every line must end with a carriage return.  
•  Each utterance gets its own line (i.e., only one utterance per line). 
•  Use T and teacher number to identify the teacher as speaker. For example, TEA40 is 

noted in transcripts as T40. 

•  Use CHI (for child) for all student talk (whether one student is speaking or multiple 

students are speaking). 

 
Utterances 
This study uses the utterance as the unit of analysis. For this study an utterance is defined as a 
unit of speech bounded by only one speaker (i.e., bound by conversational turns) and one main 
clause (subject-predicate) (MacWhinney, 2000; Neugebauer et al., 2017; Rex & Schiller, 2009). 
 
As a conversational unit (c-unit), an utterance has only one main clause (subject-predicate) but 
may have a dependent clause as well (MacWhinney, 2000). The sentence I’m going home, which 
is far away is one utterance. 
 
If two clauses are joined by one of these coordinating conjunctions, use a separate tier for the 
coordinating conjunction and clause that follows: and, but, for, nor, or, yet, so. For example, if 
two independent clauses are joined by and, each independent clause is a separate utterance. For 
the compound sentence This is my bike, and it goes fast, there are two utterances: 

this is my bike. 
and it goes fast. 

 
Transcription Notes Regarding Utterances: 

•  Each utterance gets its own line. 
•  Start each utterance with the three-character participant code, a colon, and a space. For 

example, a student utterance looks like this:  
CHI: I had to push it to make it go. 

•  Do not capitalize the first word unless it is a proper noun.  
•  End each utterance with a period, question mark, or exclamation point. 

o  Period: use with declarative utterance 

 

this is an utterance. [utterance spoken without emphasis or rising contour] 

o  Question mark: use when a question is asked (in any of the following forms): 

  what is an utterance? [utterance has question word] 
 
 
  utterance? [utterance is spoken with final rising contour] 

is that an utterance? [utterance has inverted subject-verb] 
that’s an utterance, right? [utterance has tag question ending] 

o  Exclamation point: use with imperative or emphatic utterance 
this is an utterance! [utterance spoken with emphasis] 

 

• 

If the speaker doesn’t finish what they were saying, 

o  use ... to indicate that the speaker trailed off. This is typically used when the 

speaker is prompting students to fill in the “blank” they’re creating by trailing off. 

 161 

o  use / to indicate that another speaker interrupted 
o  use // to indicate that that speaker interrupted themselves (i.e., incomplete thought 

that didn’t just trail off, false start) 

• 

If there’s a pause that interrupts the flow of speech, mark it with the number of seconds it 
lasts in parentheses. For example, a 2-second pause in the utterance I noticed there were 
cumulonimbus clouds would be transcribed as 

CHI: I noticed there were (2) cumulonimbus clouds. 

• 

If multiple speakers speak at the same time,  

•  use angle brackets (< >) when speakers speak at the same time. Place what is 

being said at the same time inside the brackets for each speaker.  
T11: the types of force we’re talking about today are <pushes and pulls>. 
CHI: <gravity is a force>. 

•  When a speaker quotes someone or something: 

•  use beginning (“)and ending quotation (”) marks around the quoted words. 

• 

T11: the meteorologist said today’s weather would be “sweltering”. 
If the speaker reads text aloud, use { and } around what is being read 
T11: {the wild things roared their terrible roars}. 

•  Use xxx to indicate unintelligible speech when you cannot hear or understand what the 

• 

speaker is saying. 
If you’re pretty sure you know what was said but aren’t positive, use comment to note 
that it is a best guess. 

•  When a word is incomplete but the intended meaning seems clear, insert the missing 

material within parentheses. (Do not insert fully omitted words.) 
(be)cause 
(un)til 
(a)bout  
(o)kay 

 
 

•  Use www to indicate that some utterances are being left out (e.g., teacher answers phone 

or talks to another teacher); comment in the next tier (dependent tier) to explain why 
utterances were left out 

•  Use Name in place of student’s names if speaker calls student by name. 
• 

If the speaker makes a sound effect, either make a comment to describe the sound effect 
(e.g., teacher made the sound of a train whistle). If unsure of what the sound is, spell the 
sound as best you can and put that in the transcript itself between slashes (e.g., 
/sloosheywoo/). 

 
Providing Additional Information 
To note any kind of additional information that is needed to understand what’s going on in the 
video, make a comment in the row immediately following the utterance to which it refers. Type 
the comment in italics so that it easily stands out as not being an utterance. 

teacher waves arm like flag on a windy day 
teacher is typing the words as she says them 
student is pointing to the flag 
students are acting out shivering 

 
Questions/Decisions 

 162 

•  Student repetitions/false starts: separate by commas but okay to keep all on same main 

line since teacher talk is the focus. 

•  Teacher false starts: if teacher has several false starts in a row, put them all on the same 

main line→ then put the full utterance that follows on a new line. 

o  T11: I, uh, we went, it wasn’t // 
o  T11: that was the first time we went. 

• 

If teacher repeats a word/phrase in the middle of an utterance (not just a false start) and 
then continues the utterance, keep those repetitions on the same line. 

•  Pay attention to intonation curves. If it sounds like the speaker has said their complete 
thought but then tacks something at the end after final intonation (rising for question or 
falling for statement), put what’s tacked on on a new line (new utterance). 

 163 

APPENDIX E—VOCABULARY TALK CODEBOOK 

Knowledge & Understanding Vocabulary Talk Moves 

Vocabulary Talk Move 

Description 

Introduce Word 

Review Word 

Explain/Define 

Use with Hint 

Teacher draws attention to a 
new word 
Teacher reminds students of a 
word that’s already been 
introduced 
Teacher explicitly provides 
an explanation or definition 
of a word 
Teacher uses word in context 
but provides some kind of 
hint/context clue 

Act Out/Demonstrate 

Teacher acts out a word’s 
meaning 

Elicit Student Ideas: Act Out  Teacher asks students to act 

Example/Nonexample 

Elicit Student Ideas: 
Example/Nonexample 

Elicit Student Ideas: New 
Word 
Elicit Student Ideas: Review 
Word 
Elicit Student Ideas: 
Synonym 
Provide Visual Support 

out a word’s meaning 
Teacher shares an example or 
nonexample of a word 
Teacher asks students to 
share an example or 
nonexample of a word 
Teacher asks students what a 
new word means 
Teacher asks students what a 
review word means 
Teacher asks students for a 
synonym 
Teacher shows an image of 
what a word means 

Differentiate Meaning 

Use Target Word 

Teacher explains what word 
means in a particular context 
vs. another 
Teacher says target word 

Example 
And this big word is 
arrangement. 
Do you remember what a 
habitat is? 

So bipeds are animals that use 
two legs for walking. 

So, you will have to design 
some sort of crossing for your 
animal to get across the road 
or for, or under the road. 
Instead of the wind moving 
every which way, it spins in a 
circle. [Teacher demonstrates 
tornado movement with 
fingers.] 
Show me what that would 
look like. 
Grass can also be shelter for 
animals. 
Do you have another extreme 
weather, Micah? 

What does prepare mean? 

What do we know about 
stratus clouds? 
What’s another name for 
concrete? 
We get this gap in between 
and we still have landforms 
that are really high on either 
side. [Teacher is pointing to 
image of a canyon.] 
Not like outer space but like 
we need space to move. 

Yes, the wind in our 
classroom is calm. 

 164 

Emphasize 

Visually Display Word 

Elicit Student Questions: 
Target Word 

Highlight Words Across 
Domains 

Offer Alternative 

Comment on Spelling 

Restate Differently 

Teacher emphasizes target 
word and/or its meaning 
Teacher shows students a 
word 
Teacher asks students what 
they want to know about a 
target word 
Teacher draws students’ 
attention to word from 
another domain 
Teacher offers an alternative 
way to say something 

Teacher draws attention to 
the spelling of a word  
Teacher restates something to 
make it more comprehensible 

So is it a mammal? 

This word says severe. 

What did we want to know 
about sound? 

What a great math word! 
[diagonal] 

Instead of saying so, so, so, 
so, so, we could say it was 
extreme. 
Friction has a blend at the 
beginning. 
Scientists think birds are 
related to dinosaurs. [Text: 
Birds are living dinosaurs.]  

 

Affective Factors Vocabulary Talk Moves 

Vocabulary Talk Move 

Description 

Example 

Help Students Make Personal 
Connection 

Praise 

Acknowledge Student 
Ownership 
Answer a Question 

Appreciate Word/Word 
Choice 
Highlight Favorite Words 

Teacher connects word to 
students’ personal 
experiences 
Teacher praises student word 
use 
Teacher acknowledges 
students’ ownership of words 
Teacher answers students’ 
questions about what words 
mean 
Teacher comments on word 
choice 
Teacher talks about 
favorite/liked words 

In the past three, four days, 
we've had some severe 
weather conditions. 
That’s a good weather word! 

Myra said there’s a force 
happening here. 
The smallest [wind] would be 
calm. 

Here’s another good word. 

That is one of my favorite 
words. [precipitation] 

 

 

 

 

 

 165 

Student Word Use Vocabulary Talk Moves 

Vocabulary Talk Move 

Description 

Example 

Ask to Repeat 

Prompt Word 

Elicit New Word from 
Students 

Encourage to Use Later 

Suggest Word/Phrase 

Revoice 

 

Teacher asks students to 
repeat after her 
Teacher prompts word or 
meaning 
Teacher asks students for a 
word that hasn’t been 
introduced/discussed 

Teacher encourages students 
to use words later 
Teacher suggests another way 
to say something 
Teacher elevates students’ 
word use 

Try that word. 

So if it ate plants, what was it 
called? [herbivore] 
Does anyone know the 
science word when you kind 
of blend into your 
environment? 
So you will be using this 
word later? 
Maybe we could say the word 
breezy. 
S: Yeah, they’re going in a 
circle. 
T: They are moving in a 
curve. 

Metacognitive and Metalinguistic Awareness Vocabulary Talk Moves 

Vocabulary Talk Move 

Description 

Example 

Ask if Heard of Word 

Teacher asks students if 
familiar with word. 

Thumbs up if you’ve ever 
heard of that word before. 

 

 166 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

 167 

REFERENCES 

 

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), 

Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). International Reading 
Association. 

 
Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr, Kamil, Michael L., P. B. 

Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2nd ed., pp. 690–
724). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

 
Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator: The 

Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 16(4). 
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ458646 

 
Barnes, E. M., & Dickinson, D. K. (2017a). The impact of teachers’ commenting strategies on 

children’s vocabulary growth. Exceptionality, 25(3), 186–206. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196447 

 
Barnes, E. M., & Dickinson, D. K. (2017b). The relationship of Head Start teachers’ academic 
language use and children’s receptive vocabulary. Early Education and Development, 
28(7), 794–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1340069 

 
Barnes, E. M., & Dickinson, D. K. (2018). Relationships among teachers’ use of mental state 

verbs and children’s vocabulary growth. Early Education and Development, 29(3), 307–
323. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1440844 

 
Barnes, E. M., Dickinson, D. K., & Grifenhagen, J. F. (2017). The role of teachers’ comments 

during book reading in children’s vocabulary growth. The Journal of Educational 
Research, 110(5), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1134422 

 
Barone, D. M. (2011). Case study research. In Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 7–

27). Guilford Press. 

 
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. M., Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). 

Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade 
students’ ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research 
Journal, 40(2), 447–494. 

 
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C. A., Kame’enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S. 
(2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading 
Research Quarterly, 37(2), 150–176. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.2.3 

 

 168 

Baumann, J. F., Ware, D., & Edwards, E. C. (2007). “Bumping into spicy, tasty words that catch 
your tongue”: A formative experiment on vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 
61(2), 108–122. 

 
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud 

experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 10–20. 

 
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2004). Elements of reading vocabulary: Teacher’s guide level 
A (Harcourt Supplemental Publishers, Rigby Steck-Vaughn, Item Number 0-7398-8458-
1). Steck-Vaughn. 

 
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low‐income children’s oral vocabulary 
repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 
251–271. https://doi.org/10.1086/511706 

 
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & McCaslin, E. S. (1983). Vocabulary development: All contexts 

are not created equal. The Elementary School Journal, 177–181. 

 
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse 

vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The 
nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147–163). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

 
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the 

author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The 
Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385–414. https://doi.org/10.1086/461835 

 
Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing 

and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151 

 
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in 

primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44–62. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44 

 
Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (1987). Vocabulary instruction: What goes on in the classroom? The 

Reading Teacher, 41(2), 132–137. 

 
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Baumann, J. F., Manyak, P. C., & Graves, M. F. (2013). “FLOOD, FAST, 
FOCUSED”: Integrated vocabulary instruction in the classroom. International Reading 
Association. 

 
Blank, R. K. (2012). What is the impact of decline in science instructional time in elementary 

school? Noyce Foundation. 

 

 169 

Bohannon, J. N., & Bonvillian, J. D. (2001). Theoretical approaches to language acquisition. In 

J. B. Gleason (Ed.), The development of language (5th ed., pp. 254–314). Allyn and 
Bacon. 

 
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of 

metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of 
third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70–77. 
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.1.7 

 
Bowers, E. P., & Vasilyeva, M. (2011). The relation between teacher input and lexical growth of 

preschoolers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 221–241. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000354 

 
Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary 

acquisition. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-
9172-z 

 
Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2008). Teaching vocabulary through text and experience in 
content areas.pdf. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say 
about vocabulary instruction (pp. 130–149). International Reading Association. 

 
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. Jarvella, & W. 

Levelt (Eds.), The child’s conception of language. Springer-Verlag. 

 
Cain, K. (2007). Deriving word meanings from context: Does explanation facilitate contextual 

analysis? Journal of Research in Reading, 30(4), 347–359. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00336.x 

 
Carlisle, J. F., Kelcey, B., & Berebitsky, D. (2013). Teachers’ support of students’ vocabulary 

learning during literacy instruction in high poverty elementary schools. American 
Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1360–1391. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213492844 

 
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Lippman, D. N., Lively, T. J., & White, 

C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language 
learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms.pdf. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 
188–215. 

 
Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact 

of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. 
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21015 

 
Cervetti, G. N., Wright, T. S., & Hwang, H. (2016). Conceptual coherence, comprehension, and 

vocabulary acquisition: A knowledge effect? Reading and Writing, 29(4), 761–779. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9628-x 

 170 

 
Chambré, S. J., Ehri, L. C., & Ness, M. (2017). Orthographic facilitation of first graders’ 

vocabulary learning: Does directing attention to print enhance the effect? Reading and 
Writing, 30(5), 1137–1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9715-z 

 
Chambrè, S. J., Ehri, L. C., & Ness, M. (2019). Phonological decoding enhances orthographic 

facilitation of vocabulary learning in first graders. Reading and Writing. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09997-w 

 
Connor, C. M., Dombek, J., Crowe, E. C., Spencer, M., Tighe, E. L., Coffinger, S., Zargar, E., 

Wood, T., & Petscher, Y. (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in 
kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and 
efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI). Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 109(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000128 

 
Cox, R., O’Brien, K., Walsh, M., & West, H. (2015). Working with multilingual learners and 

vocabulary knowledge for secondary schools: Developing word consciousness. English 
in Australia, 50(1), 77–84. 

 
Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten 

students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental 
exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 74–88. 

 
Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y. C., & Kapp, S. 

(2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer 
effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 93–120. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19345741003592410 

 
Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr., R., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary 

instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. The Elementary School 
Journal, 110(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1086/598840 

 
Dale, E. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elementary English, 

895–948. 

 
Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9(3), 

185–197. 

 
Dickinson, D. K., Cote, L., & Smith, M. W. (1993). Learning vocabulary in preschool: Social 

and discourse contexts affecting vocabulary growth. New Directions for Child and 
Adolescent Development, 1993(61), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219936106 

 
Dickinson, D. K., Darrow, C. L., & Tinubu, T. A. (2008). Patterns of teacher–child conversations 

in Head Start classrooms: Implications for an empirically grounded approach to 
professional development. Early Education & Development, 19(3), 396–429. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802065403 

 171 

 
Dickinson, D. K., & Porche, M. V. (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool 
classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities: 
Preschool language experiences and later language and reading. Child Development, 
82(3), 870–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x 

 
Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book 
readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading 
Research Quarterly, 29(2), 104. https://doi.org/10.2307/747807 

 
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (1991). Early literacy: Linkages between home, school and 

literacy achievement at age five. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6(1), 30–
46. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568549109594820 

 
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling 

memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 

 
Ehri, L. C., & Rosenthal, J. (2007). Spellings of words: A neglected facilitator of vocabulary 

learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 389–409. 

 
Freeman, N. D., Townsend, D., & Templeton, S. (2019). Thinking about words: First graders’ 

response to morphological instruction. The Reading Teacher, 72(4), 463–473. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1749 

 
Fukkink, R. G., & de Glopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning from 

context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68, 450–469. 

 
Gee, J. P. (2014). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit (2nd ed.). Routledge. 
 
Gotwals, A. W., & Wright, T. S. (2017). From “plants don’t eat” to “plants are producers.” 

Science and Children, 55(3), 44–50. 

 
Graves, M. F. (2000). A vocabulary program to complement and bolster a middle-grade 

comprehension program. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), 
Reading for meaning (pp. 116–135). International Reading Association. 

 
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. Teachers College Press. 
 
Graves, M. F., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2002). The place of word consciousness in a research-based 

vocabulary program. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say 
about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 140–165). International Reading Association. 

 
Graves, M. F., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2008). For the love of words: Fostering word consciousness in 
young readers. The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.3.1 

 

 172 

Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of Concept-Oriented 

Reading Instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary 
School Journal, 99(4), 343–366. 

 
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Lutz Klauda, S., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. 

(2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low- and 
high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 195–214. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408331039 

 
Hadley, E. B., Dickinson, D. K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2019). Building semantic 

networks: The impact of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers’ depth of word 
knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.225 

 
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. 

American Educator, 27(1), 4. 

 
Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocum, T. A. (1989). Two approaches to vocabulary instruction: 
The teaching of individual word meanings and practice in deriving word meaning from 
context. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/747865 

 
Johnson, R. (2013). What is precipitation? Crabtree Publishing Company. 
 
Jubenville, K., Sénéchal, M., & Malette, M. (2014). The moderating effect of orthographic 

consistency on oral vocabulary learning in monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of 
Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 245–263. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.05.002 

 
Juel, C., & Deffes, R. (2004). Making words stick. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 30–34. 
 
Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its 

implications for instruction. In D. E. Alvermanm, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell, 
Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). International 
Reading Association. 

 
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 

9(5), 4. 

 
Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties 

among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American 
Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 596–632. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209355469 

 
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of 
implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students 
in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228. 
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3 

 173 

 
Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effects of comprehensive vocabulary instruction on Title 

I students’ metacognitive word-learning skills and reading comprehension. Journal of 
Literacy Research, 37(2), 163–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3702_3 

 
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 

 
Manyak, P. C., Von Gunten, H., Autenrieth, D., Gillis, C., Mastre-O’Farrell, J., Irvine-

McDermott, E., Baumann, J. F., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2014). Four practical principles 
for enhancing vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 68(1), 13–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1299 

 
McKeown, M. G. (1985). The acquisition of word meaning from context by children of high and 
low ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/747855 

McKeown, M. G. (1993). Creating effective definitions for young word learners. Reading 

Research Quarterly, 28(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.2307/747814 

 
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2003). Taking advantage of read-alouds to help children make 
sense of decontextualized language. In A. Van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), 
On reading books to children (pp. 159–176). Erlbaum. 

 
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional development 

resources: Six teachers implement a model of teaching for understanding text. The 
Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1086/499759 

 
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-

term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading 
Behavior, 15(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968309547474 

 
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the 
nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. 
Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522. https://doi.org/10.2307/747940 

 
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of 

helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 
30(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920410001689689 

 
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. TERC. 
 
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2015). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional 

development approaches for academically productive discussions. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. 
C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and 
Dialogue (pp. 347–361). American Educational Research Association. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_27 

 

 174 

Michener, C. J., Patrick Proctor, C., & Silverman, R. D. (2018). Features of instructional talk 

predictive of reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 31(3), 725–756. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9807-4 

 
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods 

sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage. 

 
Nagy, W. E. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E. 

Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to 
practice (pp. 27–44). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

 
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? 

Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 304. https://doi.org/10.2307/747823 

 
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1985). Incidental vs. Instructional approaches to increasing 

reading vocabulary. Educational Perspectives, 16–21. 

 
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Learning words from 

context (No. 319). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED246392 

 
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, Richard C. (1985). Learning word meanings from 

context: How broadly generalizable? (No. 347). University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. 

 
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. 

D. Pearson, & R. Barr, Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 269–284). Lawrence 
Erlbaum Association. 

 
Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2006). Teaching new words to children with poor existing 

vocabulary knowledge: A controlled evaluation of the definition and context methods. 
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 41(3), 335–354. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820600602295 

 
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Back to school statistics. Institute of Education 

Research; National Center for Education Statistics. 
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372#PK12_enrollment 

 
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School 

Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association Center 
for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School. 

 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National 

Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the 
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH 
Publication No. 004769). U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 175 

 
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in 

Grades K-8. National Academies Press. 

 
Nelson, K. L., Dole, J. A., Hosp, J. L., & Hosp, M. K. (2015). Vocabulary instruction in K-3 
low-income classrooms during a reading reform project. Reading Psychology, 36(2), 
145–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.839485 

 
Neugebauer, S. R., Gámez, P. B., Coyne, M. D., Cólon, I. T., McCoach, D. B., & Ware, S. 
(2017). Promoting word consciousness to close the vocabulary gap in young word 
learners. The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/692986 

 
Neuman, S. B., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Developing vocabulary and conceptual knowledge for low-

income preschoolers: A design experiment. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 103–
129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11403089 

 
Neuman, S. B., & Kaefer, T. (2013). Enhancing the intensity of vocabulary instruction for 

preschoolers at risk. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 589–608. 

 
Neuman, S. B., & Kaefer, T. (2018). Developing low-income children’s vocabulary and content 

knowledge through a shared book reading program. Contemporary Educational 
Psychology, 52, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.001 

 
Neuman, S. B., Newman, E. H., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Educational effects of a vocabulary 

intervention on preschoolers’ word knowledge and conceptual development: A cluster-
randomized trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 249–272. 

 
Neuman, S. B., & Wright, T. S. (2013). All about words: Increasing vocabulary in the Common 

Core Classroom, prek-2. Teachers College Press. 

 
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. 
 
Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading 

comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 392–412. 

 
O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through 

revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology Education 
Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1993.24.4.04x0063k 

 
O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking 

practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 
63–103). Cambridge University Press. 

 
O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2019). Supporting teachers in taking up productive talk moves: 

The long road to professional learning at scale. International Journal of Educational 
Research, 97, 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.003 

 176 

 
Ouellette, G., & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and 

visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23(2), 189–208. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1 

 
Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research 

Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.3 

 
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., 

Kim, M., & Simmons, L. (2011). The effects of an intensive shared book-reading 
intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children, 
77(2), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700202 

 
Ratner, N. B., & Brundage, S. B. (2018). A clinician’s complete guide to CLAN and PRAAT. 
 
Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2009). Using discourse analysis to improve classroom interaction. 

Routledge. 

 
Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-

group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science 
Teaching, 33(8), 839–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2736(199610)33:8<839::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X 

 
Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Nation, K. (2009). Orthographic facilitation in oral vocabulary 

acquisition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(10), 1948–1966. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802696104 

 
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not 

all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 235–257. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701344306 

 
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new 

vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 54–64. 

 
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth 

elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a 
year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 545–554. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290604 

 
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in 

elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. 
International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 373–404. 

 
Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.100.1.175 

 177 

 
Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Pronouncing new words aloud during the silent reading of 
text enhances fifth graders’ memory for vocabulary words and their spellings. Reading 
and Writing, 24(8), 921–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9239-x 

 
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE. 
 
Schacht, K., & Peltz, D. (2020). Mystery Science: Open-and-go lessons that inspire kids to love 

science. Mystery Science. https://mysteryscience.com/lessons/seasonal/current-events 

 
Scott, J. A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout the day 
in twenty-three Canadian upper-elementary classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 
269–286. 

 
Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2004). Developing word consciousness. In E. J. Kame’enui & J. F. 

Baumann (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (1st ed., pp. 201–217). 
Guilford Press. 

 
Senechal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive 
role of early vocabulary to future reading. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), 
Handbook of early literacy research (2nd ed., pp. 173–182). Guilford Press. 

 
Silverman, R. (2007a). Vocabulary development of English‐language and English‐only learners 

in kndergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365–383. 
https://doi.org/10.1086/516669 

 
Silverman, R. (2007b). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary instruction during read‐

alouds in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 97–113. 
https://doi.org/10.1086/525549 

 
Silverman, R., & Crandell, J. D. (2010). Vocabulary practices in prekindergarten and 

kindergarten classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 318–340. 
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.3 

 
Silverman, R., Proctor, C. P., Harring, J. R., Doyle, B., Mitchell, M. A., & Meyer, A. G. (2014). 
Teachers’ instruction and students’ vocabulary and comprehension: An exploratory study 
with English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual students in grades 3-5. Reading 
Research Quarterly, 49(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.63 

 
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based 

meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/1170287 

 
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative 

research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Sage. 

 

 178 

Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-

analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 261–285. 

 
Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic 

vocabulary for English language learners through science content: A formative 
experiment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113–157. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711003604468 

 
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy 

units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and 
language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211–259. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_2 

 
Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept 

construction: Urban second graders make sense of evaporation, boiling, and 
condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 637–666. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20100 

 
Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2012). Using in-depth science instruction to accelerate student 

achievement in science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 
10(2), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9326-8 

 
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Schribner, & E. 

Souberman, Trans.). Harvard University Press. 

 
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.; Translation newly rev. and 

edited). MIT Press. 

 
Wade, S. E., & Reynolds, R. E. (1989). Developing metacognitive awareness. Journal of 

Reading, 33(1), 10. 

 
Wang, J., & Herman, J. (2006). Evaluation of Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading project: 

Shoreline science and terrarium investigations [Data set]. CRESST, UCLA. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/e644802011-001 

 
Wanzek, J. (2014). Building word knowledge: Opportunities for direct vocabulary instruction in 

general education for students with reading difficulties. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 
30(2), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.789786 

Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and 
language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 
243–250. 

 
Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy 

intervention on Head Start children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 
98(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.63 

 

 179 

Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2014). Understanding the active ingredients in an effective 

preschool vocabulary intervention: An exploratory study of teacher and child talk during 
book reading. Early Education and Development, 25(7), 1035–1056. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2014.896064 

 
Wasik, B. A., Hindman, A. H., & Snell, E. K. (2016). Book reading and vocabulary 

development: A systematic review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 39–57. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.04.003 

 
Watts, S. M. (1995). Vocabulary instruction during reading lessons in six classrooms. Journal of 

Reading Behavior, 27(3), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969509547889 

 
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of 

instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–
903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027 

 
Wise, C. N. (2019). Assessment and instruction for developing second graders’ skill in 

ascertaining word meanings from context [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University 
of Michigan. 

 
Wright, T. S. (in press). A teacher’s guide to vocabulary development across the day (K-3). 

Heinemann. 

 
Wright, T. S. (2014). From potential to reality: Content-rich vocabulary and informational text. 

The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 359. 

 
Wright, T. S. (2018). Reading to learn from the start: The power of interactive read-alouds. 

American Educator, 4, 18. 

 
Wright, T. S., & Domke, L. M. (2019). The role of language and literacy in k-5 science and 

social studies standards. Journal of Literacy Research. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18821141 

 
Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2017). Supporting kindergartners’ science talk in the context of 

an integrated science and disciplinary literacy curriculum. The Elementary School 
Journal, 117(3), 513–537. 

 
Wright, T. S., Gotwals, A. W., Anderson, B. E., & Edwards, K. D. (2017). Supporting classroom 

discourse during primary grades science instruction: A review of research. Literacy 
Research Association Annual Conference, Tampa, FL. 

 
Wright, T. S., & Neuman, S. (2014). Paucity and disparity in kindergarten oral vocabulary 

instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(3), 330–357. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X14551474 

 

 180 

Zipke, M. (2007). The role of metalinguistic awareness in the reading comprehension of sixth 

and seventh graders. Reading Psychology, 28(4), 375–396. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710701260615 

 
Zipke, M. (2008). Teaching metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension with riddles. 

The Reading Teacher, 62(2), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.2.4 

 
Zipke, M., Ehri, L. C., & Cairns, H. S. (2009). Using semantic ambiguity instruction to improve 

third graders’ metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension: An experimental 
study. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 300–321. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.4 

 
Zipoli, R. P., Coyne, M. D., & McCoach, D. B. (2011). Enhancing vocabulary intervention for 
kindergarten students: Strategic integration of semantically related and embedded word 
review. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 131–143. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510361262 

 

 181