Vocabulary is a prominent contributor to reading comprehension. However, little is known about how students with disabilities with lower vocabulary performance respond to Tier 1 instruction, or how their vocabulary knowledge relates to their content acquisition. To examine the differential impact of Tier 1 instruction for U.S. middle school students with disabilities and to investigate the relations among academic vocabulary, content knowledge, and reading comprehension, this study analyzed data collected in previous randomized controlled trials. Findings suggest that evidence-based Tier 1 instruction targeting academic vocabulary can help eighth graders with disabilities grow as much as students without disabilities on academic vocabulary and content reading comprehension. In addition to students’ baseline performance, learning gains in academic vocabulary significantly predicted the growth of content acquisition among students with disabilities.
AhmedY.FrancisD. J.YorkM.FletcherJ. M.BarnesM.KuleszP. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002
2.
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(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510390
3.
BrazeD.TaborW.ShankweilerD. P.MenclW. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030401
4.
CainK.OakhillJ. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411410042
5.
CattsH. W.HoganT. P.AdlofS. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In CattsH. W.KamhiA. G. (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
ComptonD. L.MillerA. C.EllemanA. M.SteacyL. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability?Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.836200
7.
CromleyJ. G.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
8.
CromleyJ. G.Snyder-HoganL. E.Luciw-DubasU. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452
9.
EllemanA. M.LindoE. J.MorphyP.ComptonD. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200
10.
EllemanA. M.OslundE. L.GriffinN. M.MyersK. E. (2019). A review of middle school vocabulary interventions: Five research-based recommendations for practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0145
11.
FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x
12.
FoormanB. R.WanzekJ. (2016). Classroom reading instruction for all students. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 235–252). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_14
13.
HockM. F.BrasseurI. F.DeshlerD. D.CattsH. W.MarquisJ. G.MarkC. A.StriblingJ. W. (2009). What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools?Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/25474660
14.
LawrenceJ. F.RollandR. G.Branum-MartinL.SnowC. E. (2014). Generating vocabulary knowledge for at-risk middle school readers: Contrasting program effects and growth trajectories. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19(2), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.958836
15.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 596–632. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209355469
16.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.FallerS. E.KelleyJ. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3
17.
NagyW. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 27–44). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612922
18.
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
StahlS. A.NagyW. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Routledge.
21.
StanovichK. E.CunninghamA. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.211
22.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.McCulleyL.Stillman-SpisakS.VaughnS.SimmonsD.FogartyM.HairrellA. (2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English language arts classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(3), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.910718
23.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA.-M. (2015). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge among middle school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(4), 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563704
24.
UccelliP.GallowayE. P.BarrC. D.MenesesA.DobbsC. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104
25.
VaughnS.RobertsG.SwansonE. A.WanzekJ.FallA.-M.Stillman-SpisakS. J. (2015). Improving middle-school students’ knowledge and comprehension in social studies: A replication. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9274-2
26.
VaughnS.SwansonE. A.RobertsG.WanzekJ.Stillman-SpisakS. J.SolisM.SimmonsD. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.039
27.
WanzekJ.SwansonE.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA.-M. (2016). English learner and non-English learner students with disabilities: Content acquisition and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915619419
