Moving past “right” or “wrong” toward a continuum of young children’s semantic knowledge

Christ, Tanya. (2011). Moving past “right” or “wrong” toward a continuum of young children’s semantic knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 130-158.

A potentially important continuum that qualitatively describes how children’s depth of vocabulary knowledge is displayed incrementally is presented here. Christ built the model by synthesizing previous research on depth of vocabulary knowledge (which mostly examined such knowledge in older children and adults) and then merging that knowledge with what she learned from her own research with young children. The result is a nuanced continuum with five basic categories, hierarchically arranged, from the least well developed knowledge to the most well developed knowledge: No Knowledge (Level 0), Schematically Related Knowledge (Level 1), Contextual Knowledge (Level 2), Decontextual Knowledge (Level 3), and Paired Knowledge (Level 4). Each category has subcategories, which sometimes are hierarchical within the main category and sometimes are not. The continuum is clearly summarized in Figure 1 (page 145).

The article mainly describes the process used to build the categories, and that description is nicely detailed and clearly explained. The descriptions of the categories and subcategories are clear, but I found myself hungering for more examples of children’s responses that fit each category. I realize that this article was not meant to go into detail regarding the empirical research that Christ did that undergirds her work on the continuum; that is another article that has yet to come out. Still, the very few examples given here were not enough for me. An appendix containing several examples for each subcategory would have been immensely helpful, though space restrictions may have precluded that.

Nevertheless, I did come away with a basic understanding of the five main categories. To me, Schematically Related Knowledge (Level 1) is the most interesting. It is amazing how the human mind works to make connections with prior knowledge, even though those connections may reflect incomplete understandings. I like that Christ sees these incomplete understandings as developmental steps, rather than dismissing them as “wrong”. When talking with young children, you notice the links they make sometimes, which can sometimes seem almost supernaturally astute, and other times can produce some interesting (and even sometimes humorous) meaning juxtapositions. I also have some new clarity now related to the difference between being able to use a word in a meaningful context (Level 2 Contextual Knowledge) and being able to define a word using its essential elements (Level 3 Decontextual Knowledge). Of course, at Level 3 we are talking about definitions the child generates, not copying and memorizing dictionary definitions. The most developed level of all is the ability both to define words AND place them in meaningful contexts (Level 4 Paired Knowledge). It seems evident that meaningful vocabulary instruction is needed to further children’s development along the continuum. Developing an assessment instrument with this continuum may help us design optimal instruction. That is the obvious next step, and I easily inferred here that Christ is planning to take on that challenge. I’ll be watching for that piece in the literature.