KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS’ VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICES, AND INFLUENTIAL FACTORS: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY

Abstract

Early and explicit vocabulary instruction is one important way teachers can support early readers for later reading comprehension success (Duncan et al., 2007; Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Neuman & Dwyer, 2011; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 2000); however, some observations indicate that early childhood and early elementary teachers do not provide consistent and explicit vocabulary support (e.g., Dwyer & Harbaugh, 2020; Wright & Neuman, 2014; Donaldson, 2011) and that most teachers do not have much time to spend on vocabulary instruction generally (Baumann et al., 2003). To further explore why these phenomena may occur and to provide direction for future research and teacher education initiatives, this study examined the reported vocabulary knowledge, reported vocabulary practices, and reported influential factors on vocabulary instruction of seven kindergarten teachers in public school settings in the United States. Using a multiple case study design, I studied seven teachers to answer the following research questions: (1) What do kindergarten teachers report about their own knowledge related to vocabulary instruction? (2) What do kindergarten teachers report about how they implement and change their vocabulary instruction? (3) What factors do kindergarten teachers report as influencing their vocabulary instruction? Each case was bound as one teacher, and I framed my study using two main theories: Shavelson and Stern’s (1981) pedagogical decision making and Shulman’s (1986, 1987) pedagogical content knowledge as it relates to teacher professional knowledge. I collected data using a demographic survey, a knowledge screening survey, an initial interview about reported vocabulary practices, four pre- and post-vocabulary lesson interviews, and artifacts related to the vocabulary lessons. I used multiple rounds of coding for both individual case analysis and cross-case analysis. Individual case analysis yielded a profile for each teacher which describes in detail their reported vocabulary knowledge, practices, and influential factors. For example, one teacher’s profile (pseudonym Brenda) describes reported use of a consistent Tier 2 vocabulary routine for every lesson, whereas other teachers in the study did not report a consistent vocabulary instructional routine. Another teacher (pseudonym Joyce) frequently reported using hands on science lessons to teach vocabulary; she also frequently discussed how knowledge of her students’ needs impacted her vocabulary instruction. Cross-case analysis revealed that participants reported little knowledge of and wide variation in reported pedagogies to effectively support Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs) or students with reading difficulties’ oral vocabulary development. Participants frequently reported using explicit instruction to teach Tier 2 (Beck et al., 2002) vocabulary words before and during literacy read aloud lessons. However, participants did not often report teaching taxonomically or thematically connected words using informational texts; these pedagogies have proven to be particularly effective for increasing word knowledge and comprehension in young children (Neuman & Dwyer, 2011; Pinkham et al., 2014). Additionally, participants reported that they received very little professional development in how to effectively teach vocabulary, despite knowing that vocabulary instruction is important for young learners. Most of participants’ reported knowledge about vocabulary instruction was rooted in their knowledge of students’ perceived needs and knowledge they gained informally from other members of their teaching teams. These findings have implications for the professional development of both pre-service and in-service teachers, and for future research on early vocabulary practices in classroom contexts.