This article summarizes published research on vocabulary instruction involving students with learning disabilities. Nineteen vocabulary studies that comprised 27 investigations were located. Study interventions gleaned from the review included keyword or mnemonic approaches, cognitive strategy instruction (e.g., semantic features analysis), direct instruction (DI), constant time delay (CTD), activity-based methods, and computer-assisted instruction (CAI). While findings for the keyword, cognitive strategy, DI, CTD, and activity-based procedures were generally effective in enhancing vocabulary performance for students with learning disabilities, results for CAI were mixed. The studies are discussed with regard to study characteristics (e.g., intervention intensity, instructional arrangement). Implications and recommendations for future research and classroom practice in teaching vocabulary to students with learning disabilities are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
2.
AndersP. L.BosC. S.FilipD. (1984). The effect of semantic feature analysis on the reading comprehension of learning-disabled students. In NilesJ. S.HarrisL. A. (Eds.), Changing Perspectives on Reading/Language Processing and Instruction (pp. 162–166). Rochester, NY: The National Reading Conference.
3.
AndersonR. C.NagyW. E. (1991). Word meanings. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 690–724). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BakerS. K.SimmonsD. C.Kame'enuiE. J. (1998). Vocabulary acquisition: Research bases. In SimmonsD. C.Kame'enuiE. J. (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs (pp. 183–218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BaumannJ. F.Kame'enuiE. J. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. In FloodJ.LappJ. J. D.SquireJ. R. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 604–632). New York: Macmillan.
6.
BeckI.McKeownM. G. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 789–814). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
BeckerB. J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. British Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 257–278.
8.
BeckerW. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.
9.
BiemillerA. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential. American Educator, 25 (1), 24–28, 47.
10.
BoettcherJ. V. (1983). Computer-based education: Classroom application and benefits for the learning-disabled student. Annals of Dyslexia, 33, 203–219.
11.
BosC. S.AllenA. A.ScanlonD. J. (1989). Vocabulary instruction and reading comprehension with bilingual learning disabled students. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 38, 173–179.
12.
BosC. S.AndersP. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42.
13.
BosC. S.AndersP. L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 39 (3), 225–238.
14.
BosC. S.AndersP. L.FilipD.JaffeL. E. (1989). The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22 (6), 384–390.
15.
CarlisleJ. (1993). Selecting approaches to vocabulary instruction for the reading disabled. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8 (2), 97–105.
16.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
17.
CondusM. M.MarshallK. J.MillerS. R. (1986). Effects of the keyword mnemonic strategy on vocabulary acquisition and maintenance by learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19 (10), 609–613.
18.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22 (1 & 2), 8–15.
19.
ElbaumB. E.VaughnS.HughesM. T.MoodyS. W. (1999). Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399–415.
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Researchers and teachers working together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13 (3), 126–137.
21.
GastD. L.WoleryM.MorrisL. L.DoyleP. M.MeyerL. L. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in a group instructional arrangement using constant time delay. Exceptionality, 1, 81–96.
22.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
23.
HebertB. M.MurdockJ. Y. (1994). Comparing three computer-aided instruction output modes to teach vocabulary words to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9 (3), 136–141.
24.
HortonS. V.LovittT. C.GivensA. (1988). A computer-based vocabulary program for three categories of student. British Journal of Educational Technology, 19 (2), 131–143.
25.
JohnsonG.GerstenR.CarnineD. (1987). Effects of instructional design variables on vocabulary acquisition of learning disabilities students: A study of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20 (4), 206–213.
26.
KeelM. C.SlatonD. B.BlackhurstA. E. (2001). Acquisition of content area vocabulary for students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 24 (1), 46–71.
27.
KouryK. A. (1996). The impact of preteaching science content vocabulary using integrated media for knowledge acquisition in a collaborative classroom. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7 (3/4), 179–197.
28.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.
29.
MastropieriM.ScruggsT. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–411.
30.
MastropieriM.ScruggsT. E.FulkB. J. M. (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the keyword method: Effects on recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23 (2), 92–96.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L. (1988). Learning vocabulary: Different ways for different goals. Remedial and Special Education, 9 (1), 42–52.
33.
McLooneB. B.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.ZuckerS. F. (1986). Memory strategy instruction and training with learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research, 2 (1), 45–53.
34.
MurawskiW. W.SwansonH. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data?Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258–267.
35.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
36.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
37.
PanyD.JenkinsJ. R. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of instructional procedures. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 21–32.
38.
PanyD.JenkinsJ. R.SchreckJ. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 202–215.
39.
ReyesE. I.DuranG. Z.BosC. S. (1989). Language as a resource for mediating comprehension. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 38, 253–259.
40.
RutherfordF. J.AlgrenA. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
SchusterJ. W.StevensK. B.DoakP. K. (1990). Using constant time delay to teach word definitions. The Journal of Special Education, 24 (3), 306–318.
42.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BakkenJ. P.BrighamF. J. (1993). Reading versus doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27 (1), 1–15.
43.
SnowC. E. (2002). Reading for understanding. Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
44.
StahlS. A. (1986). Three principles of vocabulary instruction. Journal of Reading, 29 (1), 662–668.
45.
StahlS. A.FairbanksM. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56 (1), 72–110.
46.
StahlS. A.ShielT. G. (1999). Teaching meaning vocabulary: Productive approaches for poor readers. Read all about it! Readings to inform the profession. Sacramento: California State Board of Education.
47.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Cognitive processes and the reading problems of learning-disabled children: Evaluating the assumption of specificity. In TorgesenJ. K.WongB. Y. L. (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on LD (pp. 87–131). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
48.
SwansonH. L. (1986). Do semantic memory deficiencies underlie learning readers' encoding processes?Journal of Exceptional Child Psychology, 41, 461–488.
49.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.
50.
WoodwardJ.CarnineD.CollinsM. (1988). Closing the performance gap: CAI and secondary education for the mildly handicapped. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4 (3), 265–286.
51.
VeitD. T.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1986). Extended mnemonic instruction with learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 (4), 300–308.
