Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Systematic Review
A Systematic Review
T
he ultimate goal of all reading-related instruction in schools is
to help students comprehend text. Among the many factors
that influence readers’ abilities to make meaning from texts is
their knowledge of the words in those texts. Dozens of studies
conducted over the last century have documented a strong relation-
ship between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension, finding,
among other things, that the size of a person’s vocabulary is one of the
strongest predictors of his or her reading comprehension (Ricketts,
Nation, & Bishop, 2007; Sénéchal, Ouellette, & Rodney, 2006;
Thorndike, 1917).
Despite the consistency of this predictive relationship, there is
evidence that schooling has a limited impact on students’ vocabulary
development (Christian, Morrison, Frazier, & Massetti, 2000). As
such, children who arrive at school with low levels of vocabulary
Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2)
pp. 203–226 | doi:10.1002/rrq.163
knowledge are likely to continue to have relatively small vocabularies
© 2016 International Literacy Association. and are likely to struggle with text comprehension throughout
203
their school lives (Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; students with more limited early vocabulary knowledge
Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Stanovich, 1986). A struggle to gain meaning from text and tend to read less
host of recent consensus documents and literacy stan- frequently, and therefore, they learn fewer new words
dards have sought to change this, describing the impor- from text (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Sénéchal
tance of instructing vocabulary in school, and et al., 2006). Those who recommend vocabulary instruc-
recommending explicit instruction of vocabulary words tion in schools seek to disrupt this cycle by boosting
and strategies for determining the meaning of unknown students’ vocabulary knowledge or vocabulary-learning
words (National Governors Association Center for Best strategies to support text comprehension. Yet, it remains
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, unclear whether vocabulary instruction can accomplish
2010; National Institute for Literacy, 2008; National this goal and what types of vocabulary instruction might
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, improve comprehension.
2000). The argument underlying these instructional Anderson and Freebody (1981) described several
recommendations is that increased attention to vocabu- hypotheses that seek to explain the well-documented
lary instruction in school will improve students’ vocab- relationship between vocabulary and comprehension.
ulary knowledge and that this increased vocabulary The aptitude hypothesis proposes that vocabulary and
knowledge will, in turn, improve students’ reading comprehension are linked by an underlying factor (i.e.,
comprehension. general aptitude) that impacts both outcomes. Given its
Although there is strong evidence to substantiate focus on an innate aptitude, this hypothesis has had
the first part of this argument—that vocabulary limited instructional implications. The knowledge
instruction supports vocabulary learning (e.g., hypothesis suggests that vocabulary actually represents
Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Ford-Connors & Paratore, knowledge (i.e., a person who knows the word deglaze
2015; Marulis & Neuman, 2010)—less is known about likely knows something about cooking), and it is the
the impact of vocabulary instruction on students’ knowledge that boosts comprehension. However, stud-
reading comprehension. Therefore, this article exam- ies investigating this hypothesis have found that knowl-
ines vocabulary interventions that seek to impact text edge and vocabulary may make distinct contributions
comprehension. Specifically, we report the results of a to comprehension (e.g., Stahl, Hare, Sinatra, & Gregory,
systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis 1991). Most vocabulary studies have ascribed to the
of this body of research to understand the characteris- instrumentalist hypothesis, which suggests that knowl-
tics of instruction in these studies. We were interested edge of a word’s meaning directly impacts reading com-
in describing vocabulary interventions that do and do prehension. Based on this hypothesis, to improve text
not improve passage- level text comprehension. We comprehension, one must either lower the vocabulary
examined studies of vocabulary interventions that demands in a text or ensure that readers know the
measured comprehension outcomes using passages meanings of a majority of the words in a text before
that included the words taught during the interven- reading.
tions and those that used more generalized compre- A final hypothesis, proposed by Mezynski (1983),
hension measures that did not intentionally use the focuses on speed of access to word meanings. From this
instructed words. perspective, the goal of vocabulary instruction is not
only knowledge of a word’s meaning but also easy
access to the word’s meaning in memory. If a word
Theory Relating Vocabulary meaning is challenging to retrieve, the reader is forced
to expend attentional resources that are needed for
to Comprehension comprehension. This hypothesis led to a focus on inter-
The nature of the relationship between vocabulary ventions that involve depth of processing of word mean-
knowledge and comprehension is not entirely under- ings. For example, Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) proposed
stood. However, educational researchers have posited a a hierarchy in which association of a word with a defini-
reciprocal model in which vocabulary knowledge tion reflects limited depth of processing, comprehen-
supports comprehension of text and text comprehension sion of a word’s meaning (e.g., understanding a word in
supports vocabulary learning (Nagy, 2005; Stanovich, a sentence, providing an antonym) is evidence of greater
1986). That is, students who possess more vocabulary depth of processing, and generation of a new response
knowledge are likely to be better text comprehenders (i.e., using the word in an original sentence) is evidence
because they are more likely to know the meanings of of greatest depth of processing. Similarly, Beck,
the words contained in a text. Because reading is a mean- McKeown, and colleagues have focused on active pro-
ingful activity for these students, they tend to read fre- cessing of word meaning based on the premise that flu-
quently and gain additional vocabulary knowledge ency of retrieval is better promoted when students
incidentally from their extensive reading. In contrast, actively engage with a word and its meaning (e.g.,
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 205
vocabulary teaching methods included both defini- teaching vocabulary. Methods for locating and select-
tional and contextual information in their programs, ing these studies were not provided. However, based
involved the students in deeper processing, and gave on the included studies, Mezynski concluded that
students more than one or two exposures to the to-be- there appeared to be three important variables that
learned words. mattered for vocabulary instruction to transfer to
Elleman et al. (2009) updated Stahl and Fairbanks’s comprehension: “(1) amount of practice given to the
(1986) meta-analysis by using newer analytic methods. words, (2) breadth of training in the use of the words,
Elleman et al. included only studies of K–12 instruction and (3) the degree to which active processing is
(whereas Stahl and Fairbanks included studies of adults) encouraged” (p. 273).
and only studies that included a passage comprehension The National Reading Panel (National Institute of
outcome (i.e., versus other kinds of measures such as Child Health and Human Development, 2000) also
cloze tests). In total, Elleman et al. included 37 studies attempted to look systematically at the impact of vocab-
in their meta- analysis. Unlike Stahl and Fairbanks, ulary instruction on comprehension. Although they
Elleman et al. compared all researcher-designed (cus- found too few studies that met criteria for their intended
tom) measures, regardless of whether they contained meta-analysis, based on a qualitative review, they con-
taught or untaught words, with standardized measures. cluded that vocabulary instruction can impact compre-
The researchers found larger effects of vocabulary hension. The researchers were unable to draw specific
instruction on the custom measures (Hedges’s g = 0.50), conclusions about the characteristics of effective
with minimal effects for standardized measures instruction because the studies with comprehension
(Hedges’s g = 0.10). The researchers suggested that the outcomes “typify the heterogeneity among definitions
difference in effect sizes across the two meta-analyses and implementations of vocabulary instruction” (p.
may be due either to differences in the included studies 4-20). Other reviews (e.g., Baumann, 2005; Baumann,
or to the more conservative methods used to evaluate Kame’enui, & Ash, 2003; Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000;
effects in the newer meta-analysis (e.g., different effect RAND Reading Study Group, 2002) include sections
size calculations). Elleman et al. found stronger effects summarizing studies of vocabulary with comprehen-
on comprehension when the participants receiving the sion outcomes. Yet, none of these reports includes a sys-
treatment were reading below grade level and smaller tematic review of the literature.
effects when studies included more stringent control
groups.
Unlike Stahl and Fairbanks (1986), Elleman et al.
(2009) were unable to consider instructional variables The Current Study
such as depth of processing. They argued that there Given the practical importance of understanding what
were too few studies across instructional categories to we do and do not yet know based on vocabulary inter-
conduct a moderator analysis and that direct statistical ventions that may impact comprehension, we under-
comparison of these studies, as was done in the early took the present study to systematically examine
meta-analysis, is methodologically tenuous because relevant research. Although there have been several
there were not enough studies to represent all levels of syntheses and book chapters (see the previous discus-
each factor. In addition, some of the variance attributed sion) addressing the topic of the relationship between
to these instructional variables could be due to method- vocabulary and comprehension, it is not apparent that
ological and participant factors that could not be taken the qualitative reviews relied on exhaustive methods for
into account. Therefore, although the researchers were searching the literature with the focus on including all
able to update and substantiate Stahl and Fairbanks’s relevant intervention studies that met criteria.
overall findings, they were unable to provide informa- Therefore, the first goal of this study was to complete a
tion related to the specific characteristics of vocabulary systematic search of the literature to ensure the inclu-
instruction that impacted comprehension. Also, sion of all available peer-reviewed vocabulary interven-
because they compared custom and standardized mea- tion studies with passage- level comprehension
sures, Elleman et al. did not distinguish between com- outcomes that we could locate. Given the large number
prehension of passages with taught words and more of vocabulary intervention studies published in the past
generalized comprehension. decade, we were also interested in how findings from
In addition to Stahl and Fairbanks’s (1986) and newer studies might contribute to the discussions in
Elleman et al.’s (2009) meta-a nalyses, there have also earlier chapters and meta-analyses.
been several qualitative reviews that focused specifi- Because this research has been considered too het-
cally on vocabulary interventions with comprehen- erogeneous for statistical moderator analyses, our sec-
sion outcomes. Mezynski (1983) reviewed eight studies ond goal was to use qualitative coding and analytic
that attempted to improve reading performance by strategies to look for patterns in the characteristics of
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 207
TABLE 1
Inclusion Criteria Across Three Reviews
Study Total number
Review years Participants Search Outcome of studies
Stahl, S.A., & Fairbanks, M.M. (1986). The 1932–1985 All (grade 1– ERIC search, Any 52
effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based college) including comprehension
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, dissertations outcome,
56(1), 72–110. including cloze
Elleman, A.M., Lindo, E.J., Morphy, P., & 1961–2006 Pre-K–12 Multiple Passage 37
Compton, D.L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary databases, comprehension
instruction on passage-level comprehension of including
school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal dissertations
of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1),
1–44.
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 209
students during a pilot, based on curricular materials). Brief Direct Instruction of Word Meanings
Six studies selected words directly from a vocabulary
As shown in Table 2, the 19 direct teaching studies with
list (e.g., Coxhead, 2000; Dale & O’Rourke, 1981). Four
significant positive effects on taught-word comprehen-
studies combined teacher nomination and the word’s
sion measures ranged in overall duration and in the
presence on an existing vocabulary list. Given the over-
instructional time (minutes per word) dedicated to
whelming similarity of word selection techniques, we
teaching word meanings. Some studies involved very
were unable to look for patterns of findings using the
brief interventions. For example, three studies com-
word selection code. Therefore, we primarily describe
pared brief direct teaching of word meanings in the
outlier studies if they used alternate strategies for word
context of reading or read-a louds to an exposure-only
selection (i.e., beyond nomination of challenging words
condition (no instruction; Greene Brabham & Lynch-
or word lists). Information about word selection for
Brown, 2002; Hawkins, Musti-Rao, Hale, McGuire, &
each study is included in the Appendix.
Hailley, 2010; Kame’enui, Carnine, & Freschi, 1982). All
The Results subsections that follow are organized
three studies demonstrated that providing even brief
primarily by type of comprehension measure (i.e., taught
instruction on word meanings before or during reading
word or generalized) and whether the intervention had
is more effective for supporting comprehension than
effects on that measure. We viewed these different mea-
exposure to the words through reading alone. For
sures as indications of different instructional goals for
example, in Hawkins et al.’s study, the treatment
the intervention. The studies with taught-word compre-
involved having the fourth-grade students pronounce
hension measures were typically seeking to understand
each word and then the teacher read a definition and
how vocabulary instruction could boost comprehension
sentence for each word directly before students read the
of a particular text containing taught words. Studies
text. We estimated that this routine required less than
that included generalized comprehension measures
one minute per word. Yet, even this brief instructional
were typically attempting to use strategy instruction or
attention to word meanings improved passage compre-
long-term or more in-depth instruction of large num-
hension compared with exposure during reading alone.
bers of words to boost students’ comprehension more
Similarly, the treatment in two studies involved giv-
generally. Within these sections, we compared studies
ing students access to glosses while they read on a com-
based on instructional characteristics with type of inter-
puter (i.e., the computer provided students with
vention—whether the study focused on direct teaching
information about word meanings during reading;
of word meanings or on strategy instruction—as our
Reinking & Rickman, 1990; Türk & Erçetin, 2014).
secondary method of organization. At the third level, we
Reinking and Rickman found that requiring sixth grad-
examined other instructional characteristics of these
ers to access definitions while they read on a computer
studies to look for meaningful patterns that might
was more effective for supporting comprehension than
inform current practice and future research.
giving students a dictionary and allowing them to
choose whether to access definitional information.
Studies With Taught-Word Similarly, Türk and Erçetin found that requiring
Comprehension Measures Turkish ninth-grade students to view verbal and visual
The majority of the studies included in this research definitional information about a word was more effec-
synthesis examined the impact of interventions that tive for supporting their English text comprehension
involved direct teaching of word meanings on compre- than letting students choose either the verbal or visual
hension of passages that included the taught target information.
words. We found a total of 25 studies in this category. Four studies compared brief preteaching of word
Two of these studies combined direct teaching of word meanings before (i.e., immediately before to a few days
meanings with strategy instruction. Although studies before) reading a text that included those words with a
varied greatly in the details of their instructional meth- no-treatment control group (Carney, Anderson,
ods, 21 of the 25 studies (19 direct teaching studies and Blackburn, & Blessing, 1984; Medo & Ryder, 1993; Pany,
the two that combined direct teaching with strategy Jenkins, & Shreck, 1982; Stahl, 1983). Although these
instruction) found significant effects for at least one studies were more likely to attend to active processing
condition on the taught-word comprehension measure. than those described previously, instruction was brief,
Therefore, in most cases, teaching students the mean- lasting from one to four hours total and devoting two to
ings of the words in a passage supported students’ com- 10 minutes to preteaching each word’s meaning.
prehension of that passage. Below we describe and Preteaching methods included providing definitions,
compare some of the characteristics of these effective use of the word in context, and/or brief discussions
studies and then consider what we might learn from the about each word. For example, Pany et al. taught 12 tar-
four outlier studies that did not have effects. get words to fourth-graders by having the instructor
Kame’enui, E.J., Carnine, D.W., & Freschi, R. (1982). Effects of text Brief <1a Yes
construction and instructional procedures for teaching word meanings on
comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(3), 367–388.
Reinking, D., & Rickman, S.S. (1990). The effects of computer-mediated texts Brief <1a Yes
on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of intermediate-grade readers.
Journal of Literacy Research, 22(4), 395–411.
Türk, E., & Erçetin, G. (2014). Effects of interactive versus simultaneous display Brief <1a Yes
of multimedia glosses on L2 reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 1–25.
Stahl, S. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading comprehension. Brief 2–3 Yes
Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(4), 33–47.
Greene Brabham, E., & Lynch-Brown, C. (2002). Effects of teachers’ reading- Brief 4.5 Yes
aloud styles on vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students in the
early elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 465–473.
Wixson, K.K. (1986). Vocabulary instruction and children’s comprehension of Brief 6 Yes
basal stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 317–329.
Pany, D., Jenkins, J.R., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on Brief 2–10 Yes
word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(3),
202–215.
Carney, J.J., Anderson, D., Blackburn, C., & Blessing, D. (1984). Preteaching Brief 10 Yes
vocabulary and the comprehension of social studies materials by elementary
school children. Social Education, 48(3), 195–196.
Bos, C.S., Anders, P.L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L.E. (1989). The effects of an Brief 10 Yes
interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and
content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 22(6), 384–390.
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & Pople, M.T. (1985). Some effects Brief 15 Yes
of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use
of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522–535.
Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2006). Teaching new words to children with poor Brief 15 Yes
existing vocabulary knowledge: A controlled evaluation of the definition
and context methods. International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders, 41(3), 335–354.
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction Brief 20 Yes
on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning
disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 31–42.
Medo, M.A., & Ryder, R.J. (1993). The effects of vocabulary instruction on Brief Could not Yes
readers’ ability to make causal connections. Literacy Research and Instruction, calculateb
33(2), 119–134.
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning Brief Could not Yes
strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students calculateb
with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability Development and
Education, 39(3), 225–238.
Apthorp, H., Randel, B., Cherasaro, T., Clark, T., McKeown, M., & Beck, I. Long-term 6–17 Yes
(2012). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary program on word knowledge and
passage comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(2),
160–188.
(continued)
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 211
TABLE 2
Studies of Direct Teaching on Comprehension of Passages With Embedded Taught Words (continued)
Minutes of
Duration of instruction Effects on
Study intervention per word comprehension
Beck, I.L., Perfetti, C.A., & McKeown, M.G. (1982). Effects of long-term Long-term 22 Yes
vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521.
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & Perfetti, C.A. (1983). The effects Long-term 22 Yes
of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication.
Journal of Literacy Research, 15(1), 3–18.
Lesaux, N.K., Kieffer, M.J., Kelley, J.G., & Harris, J.R. (2014). Effects of Long-term 59 Yes
academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence
from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6),
1159–1194.
McKeown, M.G., & Beck, I.L. (2014). Effects of vocabulary instruction on Brief Could not No
measures of language processing: Comparing two approaches. Early Childhood calculateb
Research Quarterly, 29(4), 520–530.
Seifert, K., & Espin, C. (2012). Improving reading of science text for secondary Brief 12 No
students with learning disabilities: Effects of text reading, vocabulary learning,
and combined approaches to instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4),
236–247.
Tuinman, J.J., & Brady, M.E. (1974). How does vocabulary account for variance Brief 10 No
on reading comprehension tests? A preliminary instructional analysis. In P.L.
Nacke (Ed.), 23rd yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 176–184).
Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
Coyne, M.D., McCoach, D.B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y.C., Long-term 20 No
& Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended instruction in kindergarten: Investigating
transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 93–120.
Time not provided in the report, but we were able to estimate based on the procedures provided. bTime not provided in the report, and we were
a
show students the printed words, read the words aloud, from the briefer direct teaching studies in several
provide a synonym, and then state a sample sentence important respects. First, overall duration of these stud-
containing the words. Although the intervention was ies was substantially greater, as was the number of min-
brief in duration (a total of 60–120 minutes to learn this utes devoted to the instruction of each word (i.e., often
information to criterion), the students performed better upward of 20 minutes per word). Second, the time lapse
on comprehension questions assessing parts of the pas- between instruction and assessment was longer. In
sage containing the taught words compared with sec- these studies, the comprehension assessment was typi-
tions that contained untaught control words. cally administered at the end of a months-long pro-
Therefore, despite substantial recent attention to gram. Third, the nature of the instruction was different
longer term and more robust instruction of word mean- in that these interventions included a broad range of
ings, taken together, these studies suggest that even instructional activities to support learning word mean-
brief interventions that provide information about word ings. Activities included introducing words during
meanings had positive impacts on comprehension. reading using contextual and definitional information,
applying word meanings through various word games
and activities, exploring relationships among words,
Longer Term and More Time-Intensive and extension activities at home.
Direct Instruction of Word Meanings These studies of programs of vocabulary develop-
Four studies that showed effects on taught-word com- ment also included multiple encounters with each word
prehension passages compared with a no- treatment over time. For example, Lesaux et al. (2014) involved
control were long-term (i.e., typically lasting five or six more than 2,000 linguistically diverse sixth- grade
months) programs of vocabulary development (Apthorp students in a 20-week intervention, involving 45 min-
et al., 2012; Beck, Perfetti, &McKeown, 1982; Lesaux, utes of intensive vocabulary instruction each day on a
Kieffer, Kelley, & Harris, 2014; McKeown, Beck, total of 70 target words (for an average of almost 60
Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983). This set of studies differed minutes of instruction per word). Students were exposed
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 213
TABLE 3
Studies Comparing Multiple Methods for Direct Teaching of Word Meanings on Taught-Word Comprehension
Outcomes
Active
Study Vocabulary interventions processing
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction • Definition No
on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning • Semantic mappinga Yes
disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 31–42. • Semantic feature analysisa Yes
• Semantic/syntactic feature Yes
analysisa
Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning • Definition No
strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students • Interactive strategies (semantic Yes
with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability Development feature analysis, semantic
and Education, 39(3), 225–238. mapping)a
Bos, C.S., Anders, P.L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L.E. (1989). The effects of an • Dictionary No
interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and • Semantic feature analysisa Yes
content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22(6), 384–390.
Greene Brabham, E., & Lynch-Brown, C. (2002). Effects of teachers’ • Exposure to words in read-aloud No
reading-aloud styles on vocabulary acquisition and comprehension of students • Performance (word meanings Yes
in the early elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), discussed after reading)a
465–473. • Interactional (word meanings Yes
discussed during reading)a
Hawkins, R.O., Musti-Rao, S., Hale, A.D., McGuire, S., & Hailley, J. (2010). • Exposure to words in silent reading No
Examining listening previewing as a classwide strategy to promote reading • Listening preview (exposure to No
comprehension and vocabulary. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 903–916. words as teacher reads text aloud)
• Listening preview plus vocabulary No
preview (teacher provides
definition plus example sentences)a
Kame’enui, E.J., Carnine, D.W., & Freschi, R. (1982). Effects of text • Exposure to words in easy No
construction and instructional procedures for teaching word meanings on vocabulary passage
comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(3), 367–388. • Exposure to words in difficult No
vocabulary passage
• Exposure to words in difficult No
vocabulary passages with additional
information about vocabulary
meanings contained in text
• Exposure to difficult vocabulary Yes
passage plus vocabulary traininga
• Exposure to difficult vocabulary Yes
with vocabulary integration training
(vocabulary reviewed during
reading)a
McKeown, M.G., & Beck, I.L. (2014). Effects of vocabulary instruction • Repeated read-alouds with teacher Yes (less)
on measures of language processing: Comparing two approaches. Early providing child-friendly definitions,
Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 520–530. matching words to definitions
• Interactive: Read-alouds plus child- Yes (more)
friendly definitions focused on a
variety of contexts; in follow-up,
students respond to situations
focused on usage of word in
different contexts
• Read-aloud only No
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & Perfetti, C.A. (1983). The • Some instruction on word meanings Yes
effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A • Many opportunities to learn word Yes
replication. Journal of Literacy Research, 15(1), 3–18. meaningsa
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & Pople, M.T. (1985). Some • Traditional (definitions) No
effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the • Rich (explored various aspects of Yes
knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522–535. word meanings)a
• Extended rich (rich plus out-of- Yes
school activity)a
Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2006). Teaching new words to children with poor • Dictionary No
existing vocabulary knowledge: A controlled evaluation of the definition • Context (made semantic map)a Yes
and context methods. International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders, 41(3), 335–354.
(continued)
(1990) compared several instructional conditions that study these words at a deep level scored better on a taught-
promoted active processing, all were equally effective in word comprehension task than students who received
promoting passage comprehension compared with a more traditional (i.e., teacher- directed) vocabulary
definition-only approach. instruction. Levin, Levin, Glasman, and Nordwall (1992)
When taken in conjunction with the earlier analy- found that students who were taught to use a mnemonic
ses in this review, studies comparing different instruc- keyword to support word learning scored better on
tional treatments suggested that more attention to taught-word comprehension than students who learned a
active processing has a stronger impact on comprehen- definition and students who engaged in free study of
sion of passages containing the taught words compared vocabulary words. In both studies, providing students
with more receptive approaches, such as exposure dur- with strategies to support their word learning had added
ing reading, brief definitions, or a dictionary method. benefits for taught-word comprehension.
However, given the broad range of methods and differ-
ing amounts of instructional time spent per word in the Direct Teaching Studies That Did Not
active-processing interventions, it is difficult to deter- Impact Taught-Word Comprehension
mine which methods might be most effective and
Four outlier studies did not find a significant positive
whether there are instructional benefits to more time
effect for vocabulary instruction on taught-word pas-
and focus per word.
sages (Coyne et al., 2010; McKeown & Beck, 2014;
Seifert & Espin, 2012; Tuinman & Brady, 1974).
Studies That Combined Direct Teaching Although there were only three studies in our analysis
and Strategy Instruction that included kindergartners, two of these (Coyne et al.,
Two taught-word comprehension studies combined direct 2010; McKeown & Beck, 2014) were included in this no-
teaching of word meanings with instruction on strategies effects group. In Coyne et al.’s study, kindergartners
to support independent vocabulary learning. Dole, Sloan, participated in a program in which they were taught 54
and Trathen (1995) found that 10th-grade students who Tier 2 words (high-utility general academic words) over
were taught how to select vocabulary to learn and how to 18 weeks. Treatment students made gains on knowledge
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 215
of the taught vocabulary words compared with a one study compared direct teaching with strategy
business- as-
usual control group but did not signifi- instruction. Although the studies varied in the details
cantly outperform the control on the taught-word lis- of their instructional methods, only four of the 16 stud-
tening comprehension measure. Researchers found a ies (two direct teaching studies and two strategy
significant interaction such that treatment students instruction studies) found effects for at least one condi-
with higher pretest vocabulary scores made greater tion on the generalized comprehension measure. Next,
gains on listening comprehension. In McKeown and we describe some characteristics of studies that were
Beck’s study, kindergartners learned 30 Tier 2 words in not effective and then consider what we might learn
one of two treatment conditions (more and less interac- from the four outlier studies with significant, positive
tive word learning) or a read-a loud comparison group. effects on generalized comprehension.
Although both treatment groups learned more word
meanings compared with the control group, there were Studies of Direct Teaching
no differences compared with the read- a loud-only of Word Meanings
group on the listening comprehension measure.
Nine of the generalized comprehension studies used
In Seifert and Espin’s (2012) study, 10th-grade stu-
multifaceted interventions to directly teach word mean-
dents identified as having learning disabilities received
ings (Apthorp, 2006; Apthorp et al., 2012; Beck et al.,
two hours of vocabulary instruction focused on 10 words
1982; Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010; Lesaux
from a science text. This vocabulary intervention involved
et al., 2014; McKeown et al., 1985; Nash & Snowling,
direct teaching of a definition, providing students with
2006; Nelson & Stage, 2007; Simmons et al., 2010). Most
contextual information, and posing two probing ques-
of these studies selected words from academic word
tions to practice applying the word. Although there were
lists or words judged to be high-utility academic words,
no significant differences across treatments on the
and used multiple, active methods for supporting stu-
taught-word comprehension measure, the researchers
dents’ learning of the meanings of the words, including
suggested that with a small sample (N = 20), outlier scores
associating a word with a definition or synonym, learn-
may have impacted these findings. Without the outliers,
ing the word across multiple contexts, creating contexts
findings trended toward the treatment condition. In
for words, comparing and contrasting words to discover
Tuinman and Brady’s (1974) study, students in grades 4–6
relationships, sentence generation tasks, classification
used self-guided vocabulary-learning materials to study
tasks, oral and written production tasks, gamelike tasks
sets of words. Comprehension was then tested on pas-
completed under timed conditions, tasks that take
sages that included the taught words and passages that
advantage of the semantic or affective relationships
did not. Although students learned the words that were
between the target words and previously acquired
taught, they demonstrated no differences in comprehen-
vocabulary, tasks that ask students to engage with the
sion across the two types of passages.
target word outside of class, morphological analysis of
Therefore, in two studies that did not demonstrate
words, and tasks that connect word meanings to prior
statistically significant findings (Coyne et al., 2010;
knowledge. As shown in Table 4, these interventions
Seifert & Espin, 2012), results on taught-word compre-
were generally time- intensive, allowing six to 26
hension still trended toward the treatment aligning
instructional minutes per taught word.
with the overall pattern of results across studies. Also,
Two studies focused primarily on multifaceted word
two of these studies involved kindergartners and listen-
teaching but also included some morphology (i.e., strat-
ing comprehension measures (Coyne et al., 2010;
egy) instruction (Lesaux et al., 2010, 2014). In the 2010
McKeown & Beck, 2014), suggesting that young learn-
study, Lesaux and colleagues provided sixth-grade stu-
ers may require alternative vocabulary instruction
dents who were mostly from language-minority back-
methods or more sensitive comprehension measures.
grounds with multifaceted vocabulary instruction of 72
word meanings and lessons on morphology and using
Studies With Generalized context cues. Although the researchers found effects on
Comprehension Measures other measures (e.g., students learned taught words and
A second set of vocabulary intervention studies improved in their morphological knowledge), neither
included measures of generalized comprehension (i.e., the 2010 study nor the 2014 study, which employed a
taught words were not embedded in the comprehension similar intervention, documented significant gains on a
passage). We found a total of 16 studies in this category.1 standardized general comprehension measure. Notably,
Of these, seven studies focused only on direct teaching both studies included more instructional time per word
of word meanings, six studies focused primarily on than any other study in our sample.
strategy instruction, two studies combined direct teach- Of the nine studies, only two found generalized com-
ing of word meanings with strategy instruction, and prehension effects compared with a no-treatment control
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & Pople, M.T. (1985). Some effects • Multifaceted Brief 15
of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and
use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522–535.
Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2006). Teaching new words to children with poor • Dictionary Long-term 15
existing vocabulary knowledge: A controlled evaluation of the definition
and context methods. International Journal of Language & Communication • Context (semantic
Disorders, 41(3), 335–354. map)
Nelson, J.R., & Stage, S.A. (2007). Fostering the development of vocabulary • Multifaceteda Long-term 15
knowledge and reading comprehension though contextually-based multiple
meaning vocabulary instruction. Education & Treatment of Children, 30(1),
1–22.
Apthorp, H., Randel, B., Cherasaro, T., Clark, T., McKeown, M., & Beck, I. • Multifaceted Long-term 6–17
(2012). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary program on word knowledge and
passage comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
5(2), 160–188.
Beck, I.L., Perfetti, C.A., & McKeown, M.G. (1982). Effects of long-term • Multifaceteda Long-term 22
vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521.
Simmons, D., Hairrell, A., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., Larsen, R., Wilson, V., … • Multifaceted Long-term 26
Byrns, G. (2010). A comparison of multiple strategy methods: Effects on fourth-
grade students’ general and content-specific reading comprehension and • Comprehension
vocabulary development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, strategies
3(2), 121–156.
Lesaux, N.K., Kieffer, M.J., Faller, S.E., & Kelley, J.G. (2010). The • Primarily Long-term 45
effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary multifaceted, with
intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading some morphology
Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228. (strategy)
instruction
Lesaux, N.K., Kieffer, M.J., Kelley, J.G., & Harris, J.R. (2014). Effects of • Primarily Long-term 59
academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence multifaceted, with
from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), some morphology
1159–1194. (strategy)
instruction
a
Significant differences compared with no-treatment control on generalized comprehension measure.
(Beck et al., 1982; Nelson & Stage, 2007). In Beck et al.’s studies have not been able to replicate the significant,
study, 23 fourth-grade students from low-income fami- positive generalized comprehension effects.
lies in one classroom received instruction on 104 words In the second study with positive effects for general-
that were drawn from fourth-grade curricular materials ized comprehension (Nelson & Stage, 2007), 283 stu-
and grouped for instruction in semantic categories (e.g., dents in grades 3 and 5 were taught 36 target words and
people, what you can do with your arms, moods). three related words to represent additional word mean-
Instruction included defining tasks, sentence generation ings for a total of 144 words (e.g., for the word accident,
tasks, classification tasks, oral and written production students also learned fluke, mishap, and by chance).
tasks, and tasks designed to form associations across tar- Word selection methods differed from any other study
get words. The treatment group outperformed the no- that we reviewed. Words were initially selected from
treatment, matched pretest control (i.e., other students in The Living Word Vocabulary list (Dale & O’Rouke,
the same school) on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills reading 1981) if they had two to four mutually exclusive mean-
subtest. Although this is a promising finding, researchers ings and if fourth to sixth graders were likely to struggle
who employed similar interventions in five more recent with them (i.e., familiarity scores were not available for
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 217
the word list for grade 3). The authors then used The analysis showed a statistically significant impact on stu-
Educator’s Word Frequency Guide (Zeno, Ivens, Millard, dents’ generalized comprehension compared with no
& Duvvuri, 1995) to ensure that the final selected words intervention at all.
were in the 1,000 most frequent words and were widely
used words in texts for grades 3–6. To learn the words,
students examined and discussed sentences that used Studies of Strategy Instruction
the words in context. They also learned the history of Seven generalized comprehension studies focused on
each target word, created word-meaning maps, prac- vocabulary strategy instruction—supporting students
ticed multiple meanings for each target word, and wrote in learning to determine the meanings of unknown
short stories using the target words. Therefore, this words—rather than direct instruction of particular
study differed substantially from others in this category words. See Table 5 for results of these studies. Of these
in both its selection of words and some aspects of the studies, five showed no effects on generalized compre-
instruction, such as a focus on polysemy (i.e., many hension measures relative to comparison groups, one
possible meanings for a word). Third-grade students had effects on generalized comprehension, and one
with low and average-to-high initial vocabulary and eliminated differences between students in a Title I
comprehension made greater gains than control stu- school compared with above-average readers in a more
dents on the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Test compre- advantaged school.
hension scale. Fifth graders with low initial vocabulary All five strategy studies with no effects on general-
and comprehension had similar results; however, there ized comprehension involved instruction in one or two
were no significant differences for fifth graders who word-solving strategies. Two of the studies involved a
started with average-to-high pretest scores. treatment focused on using context clues to determine
Together, these studies provide little support for the word meanings (Hafner, 1965; Tomesen & Aarnoutse,
efficacy of long- term, multifaceted interventions for 1998). Other instructional interventions included mor-
improving generalized comprehension. Despite sub- phology and context clues instruction (Baumann et al.,
stantial instructional attention to direct teaching of 2002) and semantic ambiguity training (Zipke, Ehri, &
word meanings, only two of the nine studies in this Cairns, 2009).
TABLE 5
Studies of Strategy Instruction on Generalized Comprehension Outcomes
Study Description of strategy instruction
Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Boland, E.M., Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui, E.J. • Morphemic/context clues
(2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context • Direct instruction of content vocabulary
on fifth-grade students’ ability to derive and infer word meanings. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 447–494
Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C.A., Kame’enui, E.J., & • Morphemic
Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade • Context cues
students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 150–176.
• Morphemic-context
Hafner, L.E. (1965). A one-month experiment in teaching context aids in fifth • Context clues
grade. The Journal of Educational Research, 58(10), 472–474. • No-treatment control
Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effects of comprehensive vocabulary • Comprehensive vocabulary developmenta
instruction on Title I students’ metacognitive word-learning skills and reading • No treatment (above-average readers)a
comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 163–200.
Sampson, M.R., Valmont, W.J., & Van Allen, R. (1982). The effects of • Cloze exercisesb
instructional cloze on the comprehension, vocabulary, and divergent production • No treatment
of third-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(3), 389–399.
Tomesen, M., & Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Effects of an instructional programme for • Context cluesb
deriving word meanings. Educational Studies, 24(1), 107–128. • No treatment
Zipke, M., Ehri, L.C., & Cairns, H.S. (2009). Using semantic ambiguity instruction • Metalinguistic ambiguity instruction (analyzed
to improve third graders’ metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension: multiple meanings of words and sentences)
An experimental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 300–321. • Unrelated instructional control (read and
discussed books)
a
In this study, the goal of this intervention was for Title I students to catch up to readers in an above-average school; therefore, no differences at
posttest was an important finding. bSignificant differences compared with other conditions on the comprehension measure.
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 219
receiving this instruction (e.g., Carney et al., 1984). Further complicating this issue is the ambiguity
Likewise, using technology to give students access to around retention. Within the studies of long- term
glosses (i.e., to provide basic information about word vocabulary programs involving multifaceted instruc-
meanings) while reading online boosted comprehension tion, taught-word comprehension posttests were often
and may be an efficient and practical strategy for sup- administered at the end of months-long interventions,
porting students’ reading (e.g., Türk & Erçetin, 2014). whereas in many of the shorter interventions, compre-
Text comprehension depends in part on understand- hension assessments were administered shortly after
ing the meanings of the words in the text and on integrat- students learned the meanings of words that would
ing their meanings into the development of a mental appear in the assessment passages. In general, both
model of the text (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). Therefore, it is types of studies positively impacted taught-word com-
not surprising that even a small amount of information prehension, but it may be that the more intensive
about the meaning of unfamiliar words in a text—and instructional methods support sustained impacts of the
particularly about the specific meanings intended in the vocabulary intervention on comprehension. Three
text—might give students a boost in their comprehension studies by Bos and colleagues (Bos & Anders, 1990,
of a text containing the taught words. In light of this find- 1992; Bos et al., 1989) tested this question empirically
ing, it is particularly concerning that studies have repeat- by administering follow-up comprehension measures
edly documented little vocabulary instruction in schools four to six weeks later. All three found that all active-
(Carlisle, Kelcey, & Berebitsky, 2013; Scott, Jamieson- processing conditions continued to have an advantage
Noel, & Asselin, 2003; Wright & Neuman, 2014). over conditions without active processing; yet, no dif-
ferences among active- processing conditions were
found. Therefore, future research must determine how
Theme 2: Active Processing Matters, much attention to active processing is sufficient to sup-
but How Much Active Processing port comprehension of texts that will be read immedi-
Is Enough? ately compared with texts that students will encounter
Although brief attention to word meanings boosted in the future.
comprehension compared with no vocabulary support at Stahl (1990) argued that there are certain reader-
all, most of the studies included in this analysis showed and text-based factors that may require more extensive
that active processing of word meanings during instruc- vocabulary instruction to support comprehension of a
tion has a greater impact on comprehension than more passage with new vocabulary: if the concept repre-
passive approaches, such as being told the definitions of sented by the new word is not known by the student, if
words. After almost 30 additional years of vocabulary the proposition that the word is in is relatively impor-
research, this finding also affirms Stahl and Fairbanks’s tant for comprehension of the entire passage, and if
(1986) conclusions on depth of processing and aligns the context is nondirective or misdirective (i.e., mak-
with Mezynski’s (1983) speed-of-access hypothesis and ing it difficult to figure out the word from context). In
cognitive- processing theories (Bransford, Brown, & other cases, such as if the concept is familiar, if the
Cocking, 1999), which focus on the active mental manip- word is relatively unimportant to the overall meaning
ulation of word meanings to improve access to these of the passage, or if the context is directive, Stahl sug-
meanings from memory. gested that extensive instruction may not be needed.
Yet, there continue to be challenges in interpreting Yet, only one study (Wixson, 1986) examined word
these findings in practice given the wide array of learning with attention to any of these nuances. In
instructional approaches. Some studies involving mul- particular, Wixson found that teaching students the
tifaceted instruction spent a substantial amount of meanings of words that were central to a story
instructional time on each word, using numerous, improved students’ comprehension of more central
intensive instructional methods, whereas other studies ideas in the text. This suggests that if the goal is to
addressed active processing by including brief semantic improve comprehension of a particular text, investing
mapping or asking students to briefly discuss a word or instructional time in words that are closest to the key
write a sentence to apply a word’s meaning. Due to the ideas and themes might have the greatest payoff in
broad range of instructional methods that showed posi- terms of comprehension. However, in the current
tive effects and the variability in the outcome measures review, most studies taught general academic words
used to test these effects and comparison treatments, it without regard to the difficulty of the concepts or the
is difficult to determine whether more extensive atten- role of the words in the passages. Also, in most cases,
tion to active processing (i.e., longer duration, more all words within a program received a similar instruc-
instructional time dedicated to each word) supports tional treatment. Instructional time is precious, and
comprehension of taught- word passages more effec- therefore future research must seek to understand the
tively than interventions of more modest intensity. amount and type of instruction that should be
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 221
develop. Yet, based on current evidence, it seems critical word meanings may promote improved comprehension
to consider whether these time-intensive interventions in texts containing that word, which in turn allows for
will provide an appropriate return on the instructional incidental vocabulary learning. According to Nagy’s
investment. When interventions spend anywhere from (2005) reciprocal model of the relationship between
15 minutes to almost an hour to teach an individual vocabulary and comprehension, strong comprehenders
word, using hundreds of instructional hours over a are likely to gain new vocabulary incidentally as they
school year, and fail to positively impact generalized read. There is also empirical evidence for the idea that
comprehension, questions arise about whether there text comprehension is a platform for learning new
might be a better use for this precious instructional words (Barnes, Ginther, & Cochran, 1989; Diakidoy,
time. Future research should consider the trade-offs of 1998). For example, Diakidoy found that sixth-grade
devoting so much time to vocabulary instruction rela- students who had higher comprehension of a social
tive to other approaches to supporting students’ studies text acquired more knowledge of low-frequency,
comprehension. target vocabulary word meanings from context than
Two studies were able to document impacts of direct did students with poor comprehension of the text, inde-
teaching of word meanings on generalized comprehen- pendent of the students’ breadth of prior word knowl-
sion. It is worth considering how these studies are dis- edge. Therefore, supporting students’ vocabulary by
tinct, particularly because several newer studies in this teaching a set of target words may, in turn, boost com-
review that employed similar instructional methods as prehension of a text containing those words enough to
Beck et al. (1982) have been unable to replicate that enable students to learn untaught words in the text inci-
study’s positive findings on generalized comprehen- dentally as they read. These incidentally learned words,
sion. As we look at this study and at Nelson and Stage’s in turn, may support future comprehension of texts
(2007) study, which also found positive generalized containing those words. Additional research is needed
comprehension effects, several features stand out. First, to investigate these complexities.
in both cases, the researchers focused on words that Some have argued that the “generalized comprehen-
were both unknown and expected to appear in texts sion” construct should not be used in education because
that students were likely to read in that school year, comprehension is genre-specific (Duke & Roberts, 2010),
rather than selecting a set of general academic words. discipline-or content-specific (Shanahan, Shanahan, &
For example, Nelson and Stage focused on identifying Misischia, 2011), or even topic-or domain- specific
challenging words that students were likely to encoun- (Hirsch, 2003; Recht & Leslie, 1988). As such, teaching
ter in grade-level texts, and Beck et al. selected words specific word meanings with the goal of improving com-
from curricular reading materials. Second, in both prehension of all texts may be an unrealistic goal. Yet, if
cases, words were grouped in semantically related sets words represent broader conceptual knowledge (i.e., the
(i.e., semantic categories in Beck et al.’s study, sets of knowledge hypothesis; Anderson & Freebody, 1981), it is
four related words in Nelson and Stage’s study). An possible that this conceptual knowledge might transfer
additional, unique feature of Nelson and Stage’s inter- to texts that require a similar knowledge base. Although
vention is its focus on teaching polysemy. Researchers we found studies that taught words during content area
have found that polysemy is a likely cause of challenges instruction and included passage comprehension mea-
for readers, particularly in discipline- specific texts sures (e.g., Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pearson, &
where words have particular or uncommon meanings Goldschmidt, 2012), we could not disentangle vocabu-
(Cervetti, Hiebert, Pearson, & McClung, 2015). Yet, this lary instruction from content area (i.e., knowledge-
was the only study in which the word selection and building) instructional methods in these studies and,
instructional methods specifically targeted this issue, therefore, could not include them in this analysis. Thus,
and therefore additional studies focused on polysemy the relationships among knowledge building, vocabu-
are needed. Together, these findings point to the need lary instruction, and text comprehension need further
for further research on more targeted word selection study.
strategies that carefully consider the ways that vocabu-
lary in texts that students are likely to read might pose
particular challenges to text comprehension.
Theme 4: No Evidence That Teaching
Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) hypothesized that any One or Two Strategies Supports
positive effects of vocabulary teaching on generalized Generalized Comprehension
comprehension measures may not be due to the words Interventions that taught one or two strategies for figuring
that were directly taught but rather to other incidental out the meanings of unknown words (e.g., morphological
effects of vocabulary instruction, such as greater inter- or context clues) did not show results on generalized com-
est in and attention to other words while students are prehension measures, even compared with no-treatment
reading. Another possibility is that direct teaching of controls. Although students typically learned the strategy
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 223
*Apthorp, H., Randel, B., Cherasaro, T., Clark, T., McKeown, M., & poverty elementary schools. American Educational Research
Beck, I. (2012). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary program on Journal, 50(6), 1360–1391. doi:10.3102/0002831213492844
word knowledge and passage comprehension. Journal of Research *Carney, J.J., Anderson, D., Blackburn, C., & Blessing, D. (1984).
on Educational Effectiveness, 5(2), 160–188. doi:10.1080/19345747 Preteaching vocabulary and the comprehension of social studies
.2012.660240 materials by elementary school children. Social Education, 48(3),
Barnes, J.A., Ginther, D.W., & Cochran, S.W. (1989). Schema and 195–196.
purpose in reading comprehension and learning vocabulary Catts, H.W., Adlof, S.M., & Weismer, S.E. (2006). Language deficits
from context. Reading Research and Instruction, 28(2), 16–28. in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading.
Baumann, J.F. (2005). Vocabulary–comprehension relationships. In Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–
B. Maloch, J.V. Hoffman, D.L. Schallert, C.M. Fairbanks, & 293. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
J. Worthy (Eds.), 54th yearbook of the National Reading Cervetti, G.N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P.D., & Goldschmidt,
Conference (pp. 117–131). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading P.G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and
Conference. literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in
*Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Boland, E.M., Olejnik, S., & Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658. doi:10.1002/tea.21015
Kame’enui, E.J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction Cervetti, G.N., Hiebert, E.H., Pearson, P.D., & McClung, N.A.
in morphology and context on fifth-grade students’ ability to (2015). Factors that influence the difficulty of science words.
derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal of Literacy Research, 47(2), 153–185. doi:10.1177/10862
Journal, 40(2), 447–494. doi:10.3102/00028312040002447 96X15615363
*Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C.A., Christian, K., Morrison, F.J., Frazier, J.A., & Massetti, G. (2000).
Kame’enui, E.J., & Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic and Specificity in the nature and timing of cognitive growth in kin-
contextual analysis to fifth- grade students. Reading Research dergarten and first grade. Journal of Cognition and Development,
Quarterly, 37(2), 150–176. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.2.3 1(4), 429–448. doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0104_04
Baumann, J.F., Kame’enui, E.J., & Ash, G.E. (2003). Research on Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly,
vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. 34(2), 213–238. doi:10.2307/3587951
Squire, & J.M. Jenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching *Coyne, M.D., McCoach, D.B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Ruby,
the language arts (pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. M., Crevecoeur, Y.C., & Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects.
acquisition. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 93–120.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 789– doi:10.1080/19345741003592410
814). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crevecoeur, Y.C., Coyne, M.D., & McCoach, D.B. (2014). English
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2007). Increasing young low-income language learners and English-only learners’ response to direct
children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused
vocabulary instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30(1), 51–
instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271.
78. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.758943
doi:10.1086/511706
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to
acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10
life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford.
years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. doi:10.1037/
*Beck, I.L., Perfetti, C.A., & McKeown, M.G. (1982). Effects of long-
0012-1649.33.6.934
term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading com-
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary: A
prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521.
national vocabulary inventory. Chicago, IL: World Book-
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506
Childcraft International.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building
Diakidoy, I.N. (1998). The role of reading comprehension in word
meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(1), 44–62. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44 meaning acquisition during reading. European Journal of
Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Fisher, P.J. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In Psychology of Education, 13(2), 131–154. doi:10.1007/BF03173086
M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), *Dole, J.A., Sloan, C., & Trathen, W. (1995). Teaching vocabulary
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 503–523). Mahwah, NJ: within the context of literature. Journal of Reading, 38(6),
Erlbaum. 452–460.
*Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary Duke, N.K., & Roberts, K.L. (2010). The genre-specific nature of
instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehen- reading comprehension. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman
sion of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability (Eds.), The international handbook of English, language and liter-
Quarterly, 13(1), 31–42. doi:10.2307/1510390 acy teaching (pp. 501–520). New York, NY: Guilford.
*Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and Elleman, A.M., Lindo, E.J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D.L. (2009). The
learning strategies to promote text comprehension and content impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension
learning for students with learning disabilities. International of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on
Journal of Disability Development and Education, 39(3), 225–238. EducationalEffectiveness,2(1),1–44.doi:10.1080/19345740802539200
doi:10.1080/0156655920390305 Ford-Connors, E., & Paratore, J.R. (2015). Vocabulary instruction in
*Bos, C.S., Anders, P.L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L.E. (1989). The effects of fifth grade and beyond: Sources of word learning and productive
an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading com- contexts for development. Review of Educational Research, 85(1),
prehension and content area learning for students with learning 50–91. doi:10.3102/0034654314540943
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(6), 384–390. Graves, M.F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction.
doi:10.1177/002221948902200611 New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999). How people Graves, M.F. (2015). Building a vocabulary program that really
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: could make a significant contribution to students becoming col-
National Academy Press. lege and career ready. In P.D. Pearson & E.H. Hiebert (Eds.),
Carlisle, J.F., Kelcey, B., & Berebitsky, D. (2013). Teachers’ support of Research-based practices for Common Core literacy (pp. 123–142).
students’ vocabulary learning during literacy instruction in high New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
A Systematic Review of the Research on Vocabulary Instruction That Impacts Text Comprehension | 225
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some conse-
reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22– quences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.
37. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.827687 Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading compre-
Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa hension and academic vocabulary for English language learners
Monica, CA: RAND. through science content: A formative experiment. Reading
Recht, D.R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good Psychology, 32(2), 113–157. doi:10.1080/02702711003604468
and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Thorndike, E.L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes
Psychology, 80(1), 16–20. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16 in paragraph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(6),
*Reinking, D., & Rickman, S.S. (1990). The effects of computer- 323–332. doi:10.1037/h0075325
mediated texts on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of *Tomesen, M., & Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Effects of an instructional
intermediate-grade readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 22(4), programme for deriving word meanings. Educational Studies,
395–411. doi:10.1080/10862969009547720 24(1), 107–128. doi:10.1080/0305569980240108
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D.V.M. (2007). Vocabulary is *Tuinman, J.J., & Brady, M.E. (1974). How does vocabulary account
important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of for variance on reading comprehension tests? A preliminary
Reading, 11(3), 235–257. doi:10.1080/10888430701344306 instructional analysis. In P.L. Nacke (Ed.), 23rd yearbook of the
*Sampson, M.R., Valmont, W.J., & Van Allen, R. (1982). The effects National Reading Conference (pp. 176–184). Clemson, SC:
of instructional cloze on the comprehension, vocabulary, and National Reading Conference.
divergent production of third-grade students. Reading Research *Türk, E., & Erçetin, G. (2014). Effects of interactive versus simulta-
Quarterly, 17(3), 389–399. doi:10.2307/747526 neous display of multimedia glosses on L2 reading comprehen-
Scott, J.A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary sion and incidental vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted
instruction throughout the day in 23 Canadian upper-elementary Language Learning, 27(1), 1–25. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.6923
classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 269–286. 84
doi:10.1086/499726 *Wixson, K.K. (1986). Vocabulary instruction and children’s com-
*Seifert, K., & Espin, C. (2012). Improving reading of science text prehension of basal stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3),
for secondary students with learning disabilities: Effects of text 317–329. doi:10.2307/747712
reading, vocabulary learning, and combined approaches to Wright, T.S., & Gotwals, A.W. (in press). Supporting kindergart-
instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 236–247. ners’ science talk in the context of an integrated science and dis-
doi:10.1177/0731948712444275 ciplinary literacy curriculum. The Elementary School Journal.
Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood Wright, T.S., & Neuman, S.B. (2014). Paucity and disparity in kin-
giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. dergarten oral vocabulary instruction. Journal of Literacy
In D.K. Dickinson & S.B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early liter- Research, 46(3), 330–357. doi:10.1177/1086296X14551474
acy research (Vol. 2, pp. 173–182). New York, NY: Guilford. Zeno, W.M., Ivens, S.H., Millard, R.T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert educator’s word frequency guide. New York, NY: Touchstone
readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Applied Science.
Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 393–429. doi:10.1177/ *Zipke, M., Ehri, L.C., & Cairns, H.S. (2009). Using semantic ambigu-
1086296X11424071 ity instruction to improve third graders’ metalinguistic awareness
Silverman, R. (2007). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary and reading comprehension: An experimental study. Reading
instruction during read-a louds in kindergarten. The Elementary Research Quarterly, 44(3), 300–321. doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.3.4
School Journal, 108(2), 97–113. doi:10.1086/525549
*Simmons, D., Hairrell, A., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., Larsen, R., Submitted January 14, 2016
Wilson, V., … Byrns, G. (2010). A comparison of multiple strat- Final revision received July 7, 2016
egy methods: Effects on fourth- grade students’ general and Accepted July 12, 2016
content-specific reading comprehension and vocabulary devel-
opment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), TANYA S. WRIGHT (corresponding author) is an assistant
121–156. doi:10.1080/19345741003596890 professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan
*Stahl, S. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading compre- State University, East Lansing, USA; e-mail tswright@msu.edu.
hension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(4), 33–47.
Stahl, S. (1990). Beyond the instrumentalist hypothesis: Some rela- GINA N. CERVETTI is an associate professor in the School of
tionships between word meanings and comprehension (Technical Education at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; e-mail
Report No. 505). Urbana: Center of the Study of Reading, cervetti@umich.edu.
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Stahl, S.A., & Fairbanks, M.M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary
instruction: A model-based meta-a nalysis. Review of Educational
Research, 56(1), 72–110. doi:10.3102/00346543056001072 Supporting Information
Stahl, S.A., Hare, V.C., Sinatra, R., & Gregory, J.F. (1991). Defining Additional supporting information may be found in the
the role of prior knowledge and vocabulary in reading compre-
hension: The retiring of number 41. Journal of Reading Behavior,
online version of this article:
23(4), 487–508. • Appendix: Descriptions of the Included Studies