Drawing upon theory-driven vocabulary instruction and the vocabulary-reading comprehension connection, this study compared the effectiveness of three interactive vocabulary strategies derived from the knowledge hypothesis with definition instruction derived from the access and instrumental hypotheses. Subjects were 61 learning disabled junior-high students. Using content-area texts, students participated in one of three interactive strategies — semantic mapping (SM), semantic feature analysis (SFA), and semantic / syntactic feature analysis (SSFA) — or in definition instruction (DI). Learning was measured both at short and long term by vocabulary and comprehension multiple-choice items and written recalls. Results from the multiple-choice items suggested that students participating in the interactive strategies demonstrated greater comprehension and vocabulary learning than students receiving definition instruction. Results of the written recalls indicated qualitatively and quantitatively greater recalls at long term for students in the SFA and SSFA conditions compared with the DI condition. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsA.CarnineD.GerstenR. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying content area text in the intermediate grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 27–55.
2.
AndersP. L.BosC. S. (1986). Semantic feature analysis: An interactive strategy for vocabulary development and text comprehension. Journal of Reading, 29, 610–616.
3.
AndersonR. C.FreebodyP. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In GuthrieJ. T. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
4.
AndersonR. C.ReynoldsR. E.SchallertD. L.GoetzE. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367–382.
5.
BeckerW. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged — What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 46, 518–543.
6.
BosC. S.AndersP. L. (in press). Toward an interactive model: Teaching text-based concepts to learning disabled students. In SwansonH. L.KeoghB. (Eds.), Learning disabilities; Theoretical and research issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
7.
BosC. S.AndersP. L.FilipD.JaffeL. E. (1989). The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing learning disabled students' reading comprehension and content area learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 384–390.
8.
BosC. S.FilipD. (1984). Comprehension monitoring in learning disabled and average students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 229–233.
9.
CooperC. R. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In CooperC. R.OdellL. (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 3–31). Buffalo, NY: National Council of Teachers of English.
10.
DavisF. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9, 185–197.
11.
DavisF. B. (1972). Psychometric research on comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 7, 628–678.
12.
EngelmannS.CarnineD. W. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.
13.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: Process, structure, and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54, 513–520.
14.
FarrR. (1969). Reading: What can be measured?Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
15.
FrayerD. A.FrederickW. C.KlausmeierH. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of concept mastery (Working Paper No. 16). Madison: The University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
16.
FrederiksenC. H. (1975). Representing logical and semantic structures of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 371–458.
17.
FryE. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity and extensions to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242–252.
18.
GipeJ. P. (1978). Investigating techniques for teaching word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 624–644.
19.
GlassG. V.HopkinsK. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20.
HuntE. (1978). Mechanics of verbal ability. Psychological Review, 85, 109–130.
21.
IrwinP. A.MitchellJ. N. (1983). A procedure for assessing the richness of retellings. Journal of Reading, 26, 391–396.
22.
JohnsonD. D.PearsonP. D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
23.
KirkR. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
24.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
25.
LangerJ. A. (1982). Facilitating text processing: The elaboration of prior knowledge. In LangerJ. A.Smith-BurkeM. T. (Eds.), Reader meets author/bridging the gap (pp. 149–162). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
26.
LesgoldA. M.PerfettiC. A. (1978). Interactive processes in reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 1, 323–326.
27.
LindquistE. R. (1953). Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
28.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.OmansonR. C.PopleM. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 522–535.
29.
MezynskiK. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253–279.
30.
MyersM. A. (1980). A procedure for writing assessment and holistic scoring. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse, National Institute of Education and National Council of Teachers of English.
31.
OsakoG. N.AndersP.L. (1983). The effect of reading interest on comprehension of expository materials with controls for prior knowledge. In NilesJ. A.HarrisL. A. (Eds.), Searches for meaning in reading/language processing and instruction (Thirty-second yearbook pp., 56–60). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
32.
PanyD.JenkinsJ. J. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of instructional procedures and effects on measures of reading comprehension with learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1 (2), 21–32.
33.
PanyD.JenkinsJ. J.SchreckJ. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 202–215.
34.
PearsonP. D.JohnsonD. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
35.
RumelhartD. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In SpiroR. J.BruceB. C.BrewerW. F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
36.
SimmonsD. C.KameenuiE. J. (1988). Learning disabled and normal achievers' vocabulary knowledge: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. In ReadenceJ. E.BaldwinR. S. (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research (Thirty-seventh yearbook, pp. 133–140). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
37.
StahlS. A.FairbanksM. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A mode-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
38.
TorgesenJ. K. (1987). Thinking about the future by distinguishing between issues that have resolutions and those that do not. In VaughnS.BosC. S. (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions (pp. 55–64). San Diego: College-Hill Press.
39.
WeisbergR. (1988). 1980s: A change in focus of reading comprehension research: A review of reading/learning disabilities research based on an interactive model of reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 149–159.
40.
WixsonK. K. (1986). Vocabulary instruction and children's comprehension of basal stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 317–329.
41.
WongB. Y. L. (1980). Activating the inactive learner: Use of questions/prompts to enhance comprehension and retention of implied information in learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3 (1), 20–37.
42.
WongB. Y. L. (1987). Conceptual and methodological issues in interventions with learning-disabled children and adolescents. In VaughnS.BosC. S. (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions (pp. 185–196). San Diego: College-Hill Press.
