Flexible, Multi-Modal Approach and Vocabulary Performance Among Grade 3 Learners at Laranjo Elementary School
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: Vocabulary development is essential to English language learning because it supports learners' ability to understand texts, communicate ideas, and participate effectively in classroom activities. Despite its importance, many Grade 3 learners at Laranjo Elementary School demonstrated limited vocabulary, which affected their reading comprehension, word recognition, and classroom participation. Results of the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) indicated that 55% of the learners were classified as low emerging or high emerging readers, highlighting the need for an instructional approach that could strengthen vocabulary development. This study examined the effectiveness of the W.O.R.D. (Watching, Observing, Responding, and Developing) Strategy, a flexible multimodal instructional approach, in improving the vocabulary performance and classroom engagement of Grade 3 learners.
Materials and Methods: This study employed a quasi-experimental research design with structured classroom observations involving forty (40) Grade 3 learners, with eighteen (18) comprising the non-equivalent control group and twenty-two (22) comprising the experimental group. Participants were selected through purposive sampling with non-random assignment based on their reading proficiency as determined by the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA). Vocabulary performance was measured using a researcher-developed 30-item Vocabulary Recognition Test (VRT), administered as a pre-test and post-test, while learners' classroom engagement and vocabulary learning behaviors were documented using a researcher-developed classroom observation checklist. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired-samples t-test, and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to control for baseline differences through Jeffreys's Amazing Statistics Program (JASP) Version 0.19.3. Observation data were analyzed using the mean and standard deviation to describe learners' classroom engagement and vocabulary learning behaviors throughout the intervention.
Results: Before the intervention, both groups demonstrated low vocabulary proficiency and were classified as Frustration Vocabulary Users, with mean scores of 46.48% for the control group and 36.52% for the experimental group, confirming a distinct baseline imbalance. Following the four-week implementation of the W.O.R.D. Strategy, vocabulary performance improved in both groups, with the experimental group reaching a final mean score of 76.06% and the control group obtaining a final mean score of 75.19%, placing both groups within the Instructional Vocabulary User level. Statistical analyses further revealed that both groups improved significantly from pre-test to post-test, with the experimental group showing a larger mean gain (39.55 percentage points; t(21) = 24.03, p < .001, d = 5.12) than the control group (28.70 percentage points; t(17) = 14.75, p < .001, d = 3.48). When controlling for initial baseline differences, the ANCOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect for the instructional treatment, F(1, 37) = 6.19, p = .017, partial =.143, even though final absolute post-test mean scores looked nearly identical. Classroom observations likewise showed that learners exposed to the W.O.R.D. Strategy participated more actively, demonstrated greater enthusiasm and confidence, collaborated more effectively with peers, and applied newly learned vocabulary more consistently than learners who received conventional classroom instruction.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that when pre-existing baseline variations are statistically controlled, the W.O.R.D. Strategy serves as an effective and practical instructional approach for improving vocabulary performance growth and classroom engagement among Grade 3 learners. By integrating visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and collaborative learning experiences, the strategy supported learners' vocabulary development, increased classroom engagement, and encouraged more confident use of newly acquired vocabulary. However, broad claims regarding its absolute superiority over traditional instruction should be avoided due to the non-randomized baseline differences and the small sample size.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Anderson, B. E., Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2023). Teachers’ vocabulary talk in early-elementary science instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 55(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X231163117
Black, C. K., & Wright, K. L. (2024). What’s up with words? A systematic review of designs, strategies, and theories underlying vocabulary research. Reading Psychology, 45(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2023.2253249
Cao, Y., & Kim, Y.-S. G. (2025). Longitudinal relations between literacy instruction and early reading achievement: Findings from classroom observations in Grades 1–3. Reading and Writing, 38(4), 1177–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10556-1
Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Ware, S. M., Loftus-Rattan, S. M., Baker, D. L., Santoro, L. E., & Oldham, A. C. (2022). Supporting vocabulary development within a multitiered system of support: Evaluating the efficacy of supplementary kindergarten vocabulary intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1225–1241. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000724
Department of Education. (2024, July 23). Policy guidelines on the implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum (DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024). https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/DO_s2024_010.pdf
Fengyu, Z. (2023). The impact of vocabulary learning methods on students’ vocabulary application skills. English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies, 5(4), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.22158/eltls.v5n4p206
Haque, A., Ariansyah, M. R., Wiladyah, N. C., & Sari, R. N. (2024). Teaching vocabulary in a digital era: A study on tools and techniques for engaging English learners. IREELL: Indonesian Review of English Education, Linguistics, and Literature, 2(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.30762/ireell.v2i2.4433
Kim, Y.-S. G., & Petscher, Y. (2023). Do spelling and vocabulary improve classification accuracy of children’s reading difficulties over and above word reading? Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.496
Knaak, T., Grünke, M., & Barwasser, A. (2021). Enhancing vocabulary recognition in English foreign language learners with and without learning disabilities: Effects of a multicomponent storytelling intervention approach. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 19(1), 69–85. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1295384.pdf
Matwangsaeng, R., & Sukying, A. (2023). The effects of morphological awareness on L2 vocabulary knowledge of Thai EFL young learners. World Journal of English Language, 13(2), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n2p51
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
Quines, Z. M. (2023). Impact of students’ vocabulary level on their reading and writing performance. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 11(2), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijellr.13/vol11n21832
Requina, E., Burato, J. F., Libay, A., Galos, M. G., Bernaldez, R., & Ampo, W. M. (2026). Teachers’ implementation of vocabulary-building strategies: Its influence on learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 4(8), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2026.210
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Wen, W. N. L., & Naim, R. M. (2023). Vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) in second language acquisition (SLA): A review of literature. International Journal of Language, Literacy and Translation, 6(2), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.36777/ijollt2023.6.2.087
Wright, T. S., Cervetti, G. N., Wise, C., & McClung, N. A. (2022). The impact of knowledge-building through conceptually coherent read alouds on vocabulary and comprehension. Reading Psychology, 43(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.2020187
