The Effect of Task Alternatives on Vocabulary Knowledge: A Comparison of Students With and Without Learning Disabilities

Abstract

This study used a two-part task format to (a) describe the vocabulary knowledge of 10- and 12-year-old students with learning disabilities and (b) assess the effect of task alternatives on their vocabulary knowledge. We addressed these research objectives by comparing the performance of 24 students with learning disabilities to an equal number of their normally achieving peers. Vocabulary knowledge was first assessed through a production task. In the even the student's response was inaccurate or incomplete, an identification task assessing the same vocabulary term was presented. Results revealed that, compared to normally achieving students, students with learning disabilities are (a) significantly less able to construct fully specified responses to production tasks, (b) comparable in their ability to use pictorial responses to demonstrate vocabulary knowledge not accessible in production tasks, and, (c) when equated in reading achievement, only 10-year-olds are significantly poorer in composite vocabulary knowledge.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelman, H.S. (1971). The not so specific learning disability population. Exceptional Children, 37, 528–533.

Anderson, R.C. , & Freebody, P. (1979). Vocabulary knowledge (Tech. Rep. No. 136). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Baumann, J.B. , & Kameenui, E.J. (in press). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. In J. Flood , J. Jensen , D. Lapp , & J.R. Square (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts. New York: Macmillan.

Beck, I.L. , Perfetti, C.A. , & McKeown, M.G. (1982). Effects on long-term vocabulary instruction in lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.

Bos, C. , & Filip, D. (1982). Comprehension monitoring skills in learning disabled and average students. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 79–85.

Engelmann, S. , & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.

Enright, M.K., Duran, R., & Peirce, L.P. (1986, April). Strategies and processes in the solution of GRE analogies. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting, San Francisco.

Gardner, E.F. , Rudman, H.C. , Karlsen, B. , & Merwin, J.C. (1982). Stanford achievement test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

Groshung, C.C. (1987). Assessing oral language comprehension: Are picture-vocabulary tests enough? Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 108–115.

10.

Hagen, J.W. , Barclay, C.R. , & Schwethelm, B. (1982). Cognitive development of the learning disabled child. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 1–41.

11.

Kameenui, E.J. , Carnine, D.W. , & Freschi, R. (1982). Effects of text construction and instructional procedures for teaching word meanings on comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 367–388.

12.

Kameenui, E.J. , Dixon, R.C. , & Carnine, D.W. (1987). Issues in the design of vocabulary instruction. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Kameenui, E.J. , Simmons, D.C. , & Darch, C.B. (1987). LD children's comprehension of selected textual features: Effects of proximity of information. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 237–248.

14.

Keogh, B.K. (1982). Research in learning disabilities: A view of status and need. In J.P. Das , R.F. Mulcahy , & A.E. Wall (Eds.), Theory and research in learning disabilities (pp. 27–44). New York: Plenum.

15.

Lipson, M.Y. , & Wixson, K.K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56, 111–136.

16.

Mosenthal, P. (1982). Designing training programs for learning disabled children: An ideological perspective. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 97–107.

17.

Norusis, M.J. (1986). SPSS/PC + for the IBM PC/XT/AT. Chicago: SPSS.

18.

Otis, A.S. , & Lennon, R.T. (1982). Otis-Lennon school ability test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

19.

Spear, L.C. , & Sternberg, R.J. (1986). An information processing framework for understanding reading disability. In S. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

20.

Stahl, S. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 33–50.

21.

Stanovich, K.E. (1983). Individual differences in the cognitive process of reading: II. Text-level processes. Annual Review of Learning Disabilities, 1, 66–71.

22.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.

23.

Tabachnick, B. , & Fidell, L. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.

24.

Thorndike, R.L. , & Hagen, E. (1982). Cognitive abilities test (Form 3). Chicago: Riverside.

25.

Wechsler, D. (1974). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

26.

Zigmond, N. , Vallecorsa, A. , & Silverman, R. (1983). Assessment for instructional planning in special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.