This argument--falsely--assumes that the 2% of novel words are also unique words--extremely unlikely. And if 1 in 20 words encountered is learned, it will be, most probably, the ones repeated most often.
Of course, children do in fact learn many new words each year, so the conclusion must be reached somehow. It seems more likely that, as the authors argue, the rate of learning is higher than 1 in 20, especially for self-selected text. But there's no citation for the figure of 1 in 10 that they give, so it's hard to evaluate this.
Research has often underestimated the vocabulary resources of the English language and, hence, the size of students' vocabularies and the rate of their vocabulary growth, by failing to take into account words that would not typically be thought of as general vocabulary, but that are nevertheless essential to text comprehension. These words include proper names, words with multiple meanings, idioms, and compounds and derivatives (e.g., shiftless) whose meanings are not fully predictable from the meanings of their parts. A synthesis of research on vocabulary growth suggests that the average student learns from 2,000 to 3,000 words per year, and that many students learn at twice that rate. Even an average rate of vocabulary growth is possible only if students learn large numbers of words incidentally, as they are exposed to new words while reading. Although the likelihood of learning any particular word from context is relatively low, a moderate level of daily reading can lead to gains of several thousand words per year, a rate of learning beyond the reach of any vocabulary-building approach that attempts to cover words one at a time. A fundamental weakness of conventional approaches to vocabulary building, then,is that they simply cannot cover a sufficient volume of words without exceeding reasonable limits on time. A second weakness of conventional approaches to vocabulary instruction lies in the limitations of definitions. Although definitions play an important role in most vocabulary instruction, educators tend seriously to underestimate (a) the difference between knowing a definition and knowing a word, (b) the shortcomings of many of the definitions found in glossaries and school dictionaries, and (c) the difficulty that students have interpreting definitions. Vocabulary instruction that promotes word consciousness, a sense of curiosity about word meanings, appreciation of nuances of meaning,independence in word analysis, and wide, regular reading appears to be superior to conventional instruction.
|Richard C. Anderson||Author|
|William E. Nagy||Author|