Analysis of the effect of specific vocabulary instruction on high school chemistry students' knowledge and understanding

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of specific vocabulary instruction on high school chemistry students' knowledge and understanding. Students might be able to formally recite a definition for a term without actually having understood the meaning of the term and its connection to other terms or to related concepts.; Researchers (Cassels & Johnstone, 1983; Gabel, 1999; Johnstone, 1991) have been studying the difficulty students have in learning science, particularly chemistry. Gabel (1999) suggests that, "while research into misconceptions (also known as alternative conceptions) and problem-solving has dominated the field for the past 25 years, we are no closer to a solution that would improve the teaching and learning of chemistry" (P. 549). Gabel (1999) relates the difficulty in learning chemistry to use of language. She refers to student difficulty both with words that have more than one meaning in English and with words that are used to mean one idea in chemistry and another idea in every day language.; The Frayer Model, a research-based teaching strategy, is a graphic organizer which students use to create meaningful definitions for terms in context (Frayer, Frederick, & Klausmeier, 1969). It was used as the treatment---the specific vocabulary instruction---in this research study.; The researcher collected and analyzed data to answer three research questions that focused on the effect of using the Frayer model (a graphic organizer) on high school students' knowledge and understanding of academic language used in chemistry. The research took place in a New England high school. Four intact chemistry classes provided the student participants; two classes were assigned to the treatment group (TG) and two classes were assigned to the control group (CG). The TG received vocabulary instruction on 14 chosen terms using the Frayer Model. The CG received traditional vocabulary instruction with no special attention to the 14 terms selected for this study.; The vocabulary knowledge was examined by means of multiple-choice pre- and post-tests which were administered to all student participants. The choices included a scientific synonym, an everyday synonym, and a synonym based on a common misconception related to the term. Student understanding of the chemistry content was examined using chemistry content understanding pre- and post-tests comprised of four probes based on the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) and linked to common student misconceptions which were administered to all student participants.; Vocabulary knowledge effect scores were compared between the TG and CG using a t-test. Only a slight gain in vocabulary knowledge mean effect scores was found in the TG compared to the CG; however, it was not statistically significant. Chemistry content understanding effect scores were compared between the TG and CG using Chi-square analysis. The results of the chemistry content understanding effect scores in the TG compared to the CG showed that the student participants in the CG did significantly better. Chemistry content understanding effect scores and vocabulary knowledge effect scores were compared using a t-test.; Chapter V provides explanations for the results which do not corroborate those found by other researchers. The researcher contends that the use of the Frayer model for specific terms in content across the curriculum is worth further study.