In many countries, a considerable number of students speaks a first language (L1) different from the language of instruction. According to the PISA survey (OECD, 2010), in most European countries, around 10% of 15-year old students speak the language of instruction as a second language (L2). In Austria, for example, one out of 4 children at the end of fourth grade speaks German (the language of instruction) as L2 (Statistik Austria, 2014). These L2 learners run a higher risk of developing reading difficulties than their age-matched L1 German-speaking peers (Schabmann, Landerl, Bruneforth, & Schmidt, 2012). As international research has shown, L2 learners, while frequently not having problems in decoding, often face specific challenges in reading comprehension (Melby-Lervag & Lervag, 2013; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2012). Researchers explain this specific comprehension deficit to a large extend in terms of deficits in vocabulary knowledge ( Hutchinson, Whiteley, Smith, & Connors, 2003; Verhoeven, 2011). Vocabulary knowledge has a greater impact on the reading development of L2 learners than on readers who acquire reading competencies in their L1 (Verhoeven, 2000). Nation (1995/1996) perceives insufficient vocabulary knowledge as one of the major barriers to reading acquisition for L2 learners.

The increasing number of L2 learners in classrooms has required teachers to adapt their teaching methods and materials to the various learners' needs. Particularly L2 learners need specific learning strategies, which not only aim at helping them understand the linguistic structure of the language of instruction, but also enable them to comprehend and remember the numerous different words in the L2.

The need for new approaches to teaching reading in classes with L1 and L2 learners led to the conceptualization and implementation of a reading programme in Austria. This programme faced different learning needs by offering reading materials in different ability levels. As another crucial pillar of the programme, vocabulary work was included.

This presentation will focus on the vocabulary work. The following research questions will be answered:

1. Do vocabulary focused reading lessons lead to higher gains in vocabulary skills than reading lessons without special focus on systematic vocabulary work?

2. Which aspects should be considered when vocabulary work is included in reading lessons?

First, the conducted study will be shown, presenting the research design and the results in terms of vocabulary skills. Second, approaches to vocabulary building are discussed with particularly focusing on aspects that need to be considered for vocabulary selection (e.g. linguistic aspects). Third, we offer recommendations on the instruction of the selected vocabulary.

This presentation provides suggestions for vocabulary focused reading lessons appropriate for classrooms with L1 and L2 learners. These suggestions - which can be applied to many different classrooms and languages of instruction - are derived from our evaluated reading programme conducted in Austria with L1 and L2 learners of German. The programme was implemented in elementary school classrooms with a rather high proportion of L2 learners (for nearly half of these children (45.9%), German was the L2) coming from various linguistic backgrounds. In these classrooms, more than 20 different first languages were spoken. The programme was implemented twice a week in regular second and third grade school lessons. To explore the effects of the programme, a quasi-experimental cohort design with a comparison group (CG) receiving conventional reading instruction without specific systematic vocabulary work was implemented. Thus, 159 second graders (and 333 third graders, respectively) received the intervention. Additionally, 218 second graders (and 275 third graders, respectively) received conventional instruction. This presentation aims at the growth in students’ vocabulary skills. Vocabulary knowledge was assessed twice: pre- and post-intervention. Two different tests were used. One test assessing the vocabulary trained in the intervention lessons (expressive vocabulary test) and the other test focussed on general vocabulary knowledge (receptive vocabulary test including non-trained vocabulary). The test assessing trained vocabulary was only used for the first year of the study, thus, for second graders.

As shown recently (authors, 2015), second graders participating in the reading programme showed higher increases in expressive vocabulary knowledge of the trained vocabulary than children of the control group (F(1, 369)=7.42, p<.01; η²=.02). This rather small effect reflects a training or learning effect. No differences in receptive vocabulary knowledge of untrained vocabulary were shown, both in second grade (F(1, 369)=0.2, n.s.) and in third grade (F(1, 576)=0.17, n.s.). The absence of a difference in receptive vocabulary gains for untrained vocabulary shows that there was no transfer of the trained vocabulary to general vocabulary knowledge. This is in line with other studies that similarly showed a lack of transfer effects (Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009). Regarding the learning effect no difference was seen in the vocabulary gains of L1 an L2 learners, which indicates that both L1 and L2 learners can benefit from vocabulary work as also discussed by Rupley, Blair, and Nichols (1999). Working in mixed classes with L1 and L2 learners is often challenging. Integrating vocabulary building and providing rich and robust vocabulary instruction in reading classes is one essential approach to address the learning needs of both L1 and L2 learners. Although only small effects were shown in our study, explicitly focusing on vocabulary building during reading lessons proved to be successful. Thus, the suggestions for vocabulary work given in the presentation might help to face the challenges and give the teachers tools that support them in adapting reading lessons to the various learners’ needs.

authors (2015). XXX. Reading and Writing Quarterly. Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The Impact of Vocabulary Instruction on Passage-Level Comprehension of School-Age Children: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2 (1), 1-44. Hutchinson, J.M., Whiteley, H.E., Smith, C.D., & Connors, L. (2003). The developmental progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(1), 19-32. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2013). Reading comprehension and its underlying components in second language learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing first and second language learners. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 409-433. Nation, I.S.P. (1995/1996). Best practice in vocabulary teaching and learning. EA Journal, 3(2), 7-15. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do – Student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Retrieved October 28, 2015 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R., & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective Reading Instruction for Struggling Readers: The Role of Direct/ Explicit Teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 25 (2-3), 125-138. Schabmann, A., Landerl, K., Bruneforth, M., & Schmidt, B.M. (2012). Lesekompetenz, Leseunterricht und Leseförderung im österreichischen Schulsystem: Analysen zur pädagogischen Förderung der Lesekompetenz. [Reading competence, instruction and promotion of reading in the Austrian school system: analyses in terms of the pedagogical promotion of reading]. In B. Herzog-Punzenberger (Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich Band 2: Fokussierte Analysen bildungspolitischer Schwerpunktthemen [National educational report volume 2: focused analyses of education-political key topics] (pp. 17-69). Graz: Leykam. Statistik Austria. (2014). Bildung in Zahlen 2012/2013: Tabellenband [Figures about education: list of tables]. Retrieved October 28, 2015 from http://www.statistik.at/web_de/services/publikationen/5/index.html Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 313-330. Verhoeven, L. (2011). Second language reading acquisition. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 661-683). New York: Routledge. Verhoeven, L., & Leeuwe, J. Van (2012). The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1805-1818.