CALT Vocabulary Development and Word Knowledge Flashcards

A CALT is selecting words for explicit vocabulary instruction from a science text that includes the word 'variable.' The term is used both in its technical sense (an experimental variable) and in passages describing 'variable weather patterns.' According to Beck, McKeown, and Kucan's three-tier model, which factor MOST determines whether 'variable' should be treated as Tier 2 or Tier 3 in this context?

Answer: The degree to which the word carries high-utility meaning transferable across multiple content domains beyond the science context

The defining characteristic separating Tier 2 from Tier 3 words is cross-domain utility. 'Variable' used as a narrow technical science term (Tier 3) belongs to a specific discipline, but its broader meaning — something that changes or varies — transfers to literature, social studies, math, and everyday analytical language, which is the hallmark of Tier 2 status. The instructional decision hinges on which sense is being targeted, not frequency lists, morphology, or prior oral exposure.

During intervention, a CALT presents a student with the semantic gradient: tepid → warm → hot → scalding → searing → incandescent. The student correctly orders all items but cannot explain the connotative difference between 'scalding' and 'searing.' Which dimension of word knowledge, as described by Nation's (2001) framework, is this student most clearly lacking?

Answer: Meaning-association knowledge — the student lacks understanding of the affective and contextual constraints distinguishing near-synonyms

Nation's framework includes form, meaning, and use. Within the meaning dimension, 'associations' captures the connotative shadings, collocational tendencies, and contextual constraints that differentiate near-synonyms. The student can sequence the words (demonstrating some meaning-concept knowledge) but cannot articulate the register, imagery, or contextual appropriateness that separates 'scalding' (physical contact with liquid) from 'searing' (intense heat or figurative pain). This is a meaning-association gap, not a form or grammar deficit.

A CALT is explaining morphological productivity to a supervising teacher. She states that some morphemes are 'highly productive' while others are 'restricted.' Which of the following examples BEST illustrates a highly productive English morpheme, and why?

Answer: The suffix '-ness,' because it can attach to virtually any English adjective — including novel or invented ones — to form a well-formed noun

In morphological theory, a morpheme is 'productive' when it can attach freely to new or coinable bases to create novel, immediately interpretable words. '-ness' meets this criterion completely: native English speakers readily form and understand words like 'grumpiness,' 'awesomeness,' or even invented forms like 'snarkiness' without prior exposure. 'Rupt,' 'mal-,' and 'graph' occur in existing learned vocabulary but are not freely generative in the same way — you cannot coin new words with them as freely, which makes them restricted rather than productive.

Applying Ehri's orthographic mapping theory to students with dyslexia, a CALT explains why vocabulary growth is disproportionately impacted in these learners beyond what would be predicted by oral language scores alone. Which explanation MOST accurately reflects the evidence-based mechanism?

Answer: Imprecise phonological representations impair the amalgamation of grapheme–phoneme–meaning links, weakening the formation of stable word-specific orthographic entries and thus slowing vocabulary consolidation

Ehri's orthographic mapping theory holds that words are permanently stored when a reader bonds the word's pronunciation, spelling, and meaning simultaneously, anchored by phonemic awareness. Students with dyslexia typically have degraded or imprecise phonological representations, which disrupts the bonding process. As a result, orthographic entries are less stable, requiring more exposures for retention and leading to weaker word-specific knowledge — affecting not just decoding but vocabulary depth. Reduced reading volume is a secondary consequence, not the root mechanism.

A student correctly defines 'exacerbate' on a vocabulary test but six weeks later cannot use it spontaneously in writing or recognize it in a novel passage where it carries a formal, somewhat ironic tone. The MOST evidence-aligned explanation for this pattern is:

Answer: Initial instruction focused on definitional knowledge without building contextual, collocational, or generative use — resulting in shallow word knowledge that degrades without reinforcement across varied encounters

Research on vocabulary depth (Beck, McKeown, Nagy, and others) consistently shows that a single definitional encounter produces fragile, context-bound knowledge that fades rapidly without multi-dimensional reinforcement. Full word knowledge requires encounters in varied contexts, collocational use, generative application, and exposure to the word's register nuances (including irony). The student's pattern — correct definition initially, loss over time, failure with subtle register — is the classic signature of instruction that stopped at the definitional level without extending to robust, flexible word knowledge.

Research on incidental vocabulary acquisition from context consistently informs CALT instructional recommendations. Which of the following statements MOST accurately represents the research consensus on how many contextual encounters are typically needed for robust incidental word learning — and its instructional implication?

Answer: Students typically require upward of 10–15 or more contextual encounters before a word is robustly acquired, making incidental reading alone a chronically slow and unreliable primary vehicle for academic vocabulary — especially for students with reading disabilities

Multiple large-scale studies (including those by Beck & McKeown, 1991; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985; and subsequent replications) estimate that students need 10–15+ meaningful exposures before a word is reliably encoded in long-term memory through incidental means. This is a critical point for CALTs: even highly motivated, fluent readers acquire only a fraction of words incidentally encountered in text, and students with language-based learning disabilities are even less efficient at this. The implication is that explicit, multi-encounter, multi-dimensional vocabulary instruction is essential — not supplementary — for academic vocabulary growth.