reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness · pdf fileccc 1081-4159 edge related to ... nagy,...

Theoretical and Review Articles

Reading Vocabulary Knowledge and Deafness

Peter V. PaulOhio State University

With respect to reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness,this article addresses two broad questions: (1) Why is vocabu-lary knowledge related to reading comprehension ability? (2)How is reading vocabulary (i.e., word meanings) acquired?The article argues that the answers to these questions are bestaddressed by a vocabulary acquisition model labeled theknowledge model. In essence, this model asserts that bothbreadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge are critical. It isnecessary to teach vocabulary, especially to poor readers, whoare not likely to derive many word meanings from the use ofcontext during natural or deliberate reading situations. Onthe basis of theoretical and research syntheses, the articleoffers implications for vocabulary instruction for deaf chil-dren and adolescents.

The low English reading achievement level of deaf stu-dents (i.e., with severe to profound hearing losses) hasbeen well documented in the research and scholarly lit-erature (e.g., see research syntheses in King & Quigley,1985; Paul & Quigley, 1994; Paul, forthcoming). It issuspected that these low levels are attributed to severallanguage variables, one of which is reading vocabularyknowledge (Davey & King, 1990; LaSasso & Davey,1987; Paul & Gustafson, 1991; Paul & O'Rourke, 1988).Although it is generally accepted that good readershave large reading vocabularies, there is much debateon two broad questions: (1) Why is vocabulary knowl-

Correspondence chould be tent to Peter V. Paul, Ohio State University,Department of Educational Services and Research, 356 Arps Hall,1945 N. High Soeet, Columbia, OH 43210 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Copyright © 19% Oxford University Press. CCC 1081-4159

edge related to reading comprehension? (2) How isreading vocabulary (i.e., word meanings) acquired?

This article addresses these two questions relativeto both hearing and deaf children and adolescents. Al-though each question, by itself, has been the focus ofmuch research activity (at least for students with nor-mal hearing), there is a need to synthesize these broadresearch activities, especially for understanding andimproving the reading vocabulary knowledge of deafchildren and adolescents. The intent here is to showthat the knowledge model of vocabulary acquisition ismost tenable for understanding and increasing thereading vocabulary knowledge of students, which, inturn, should lead to an improvement of their readingcomprehension ability.

With respect to vocabulary instruction, a synthesisof current theory and research does not support thebulk of practices used with both hearing (e.g., Beck &McKeown, 1991; Nagy, 1988) and deaf students (e.g.,Conway, 1990; Dolman, 1992; Paul, 1989; Paul & Gus-tafson, 1991). In many instances, teachers might pro-vide the students with a list of words and require themto pronounce or sign the words and to use them inshort sentences. The assumption is that the studentsneed to know the word and its meaning only as it isused in a particular story. "Knowing a word" meansbeing able to pronounce or sign the word and to use itin a short sentence. Nevertheless, these proceduresyield only a "partial" knowledge of words (Nagy, 1988).Very little time is spent on discussing words and their

by guest on September 14, 2016

http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/

4 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:1 Winter 1996

meanings in depth. For example, there might be littleor no discussion about the additional meanings of aword, its relations to other words, or its metaphoricalor figurative usage. From another perspective, teachersinfluenced by a pure whole-language philosophy mightspend little or no time on vocabulary instruction. Spe-cifically, they do not present or discuss vocabularywords prior to a reading activity (e.g., for deaf students,see Dolman, 1992).

These prevalent approaches above ignore the mer-its of starting with what students know about the targetwords and using this information to expand students'overall vocabulary knowledge and understanding ofother concepts in the reading materials. In other words,in order to deal with unknown information, studentsshould be encouraged as much as possible to discussand relate this difficult information to what they al-ready know (e.g., Nagy, 1988; Pearson, 1984,1985). Anin-depth discussion of words (both known and un-known) and related concepts is important for helpingmany poor readers and some good readers activate, en-rich, and apply relevant prior knowledge before andduring reading to maximize their understanding of thetext. Often overlooked is the fact that an in-depth dis-cussion of words provides more than just an under-standing of the words themselves.

The plan for this article is as follows. First, relativeto the first question, there is a brief discussion of thethree major vocabulary acquisition theories. Next, arepresentative sample of research on vocabulary is syn-thesized, especially in relation to vocabulary instruc-tion and the use of context in deriving word meanings.The research on vocabulary instruction provides addi-tional insights into the first question. With respect tothe second question, the research on the use of contextcues addresses when and why direct vocabulary in-struction is important for students. Finally, based onthe theoretical and research syntheses, I present impli-cations for vocabulary instruction for deaf childrenand adolescents.

Vocabulary Knowledge andReading Comprehension

There is no general consensus on why vocabularyknowledge is important for reading comprehension(see research reviews in Anderson & Freebody, 1979,

1985; Paul, forthcoming; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).Only a few experimental studies have been conductedon the effects of vocabulary instruction on readingcomprehension (for hearing students, see reviews inBeck & McKeown, 1991; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; fordeaf students, see Paul, 1984, forthcoming; Paul &O'Rourke, 1988). It should be kept in mind that theeffect of vocabulary instruction is also complicated byon-going debates concerning the answers to questionssuch as these: What is a word? What is a meaning?What does it mean to know a meaning? What does itmean to know a word? (Anderson & Nagy, 1991;Beck & McKeown, 1991).

Beck and McKeown (1991) offer an interestingperspective on the question of what it means to knowa word:

The question of what it means to know a worddraws two kinds of responses: One pertains to howinformation about word meanings is represented inmemory. The other response involves the extent ordimension of knowledge that people may haveabout individual words, (p. 791)

The latter response has been the focus of the work ofBeck and McKeown (1991) and is of relevance here be-cause of the implications for understanding the notionand value of vocabulary instruction and its importancefor developing reading ability.

Three basic models have been proffered to explainthe relationship between word knowledge and readingability: instrumentalist, aptitude, and knowledge (An-derson & Freebody, 1985; Mezynski, 1983). Under-lying these three positions is an access condition,which is critical for all vocabulary models (Mezynski,1983). The access condition refers to the word identi-fication skill of readers, which, albeit important forreading -vocabulary knowledge, is beyond the scope ofthis article.

The salient tenet of the instrumentalist model isthat individuals who are good readers possess large vo-cabularies. This is evident by the relationship betweenhigh vocabulary scores and high reading comprehen-sion scores on standardized tests. This model suggestsa causal relationship between word knowledge andreading ability. That is, the more words an individualknows, the easier it is for that person to comprehendreading materials. Within this framework, a great deal



ownloaded from


Reading Vocabulary and Deafness 5

of emphasis is placed on the direct instruction of andexposure to as many words as possible. Instrumentalistshave not adequately explained how and why the vocab-ulary knowledge is acquired; they have only empha-sized the effects of such knowledge on reading abilityas determined by the scores on standardized tests.

Proponents of the second model, the aptitude posi-tion, argue that individuals with large vocabularies pos-sess excellent mental agility, and this, in turn, facilitatesthe comprehension of reading materials. The influenceof this model can be seen in what used to be a commonpractice: the use of vocabulary tests as measures of in-telligence (Anderson & Freebody, 1979, 1985). Becauseaptitude proponents are likely to favor the effects ofheredity, they do not place much stock in vocabularyinstruction as a tool for improving reading comprehen-sion ability. Anderson and Freebody (1985) provide agood description of this position with reference to theresults of a standardized vocabulary test:

The essential claim of the aptitude hypothesis isthat persons with large vocabularies are better atdiscourse comprehension because they possesssuperior mental agility. A large vocabulary is notconceived to be involved in a direct way in bet-ter text understanding in this model. Rathervocabulary test performance is merely anotherreflection of verbal ability and it is verbal abilitythat mainly determines whether text will be under-stood, (p. 346)

The third position, the knowledge model, has beeninfluenced by a group of reading theories known asschema-interactive theories (Anderson & Freebody,1985; Paul, forthcoming; Paul & O'Rourke, 1988).This model attempts to address both of Beck andMcKeown's notions about words: representation in themind and extent of knowledge about words. The basictenets of this model are that (1) knowledge is struc-tured or integrated and consists of conceptual sets ofinterrelationships, not of isolated or independent listsof facts, and (2) understanding of new information isdependent upon the relation of this new informationto old information, that is, what is already known bythe reader.

To illustrate these points, consider a reader whoencounters a simple word such as cat. The reader is notlikely to think about the dictionary definition of this

word. To come to an understanding of this word as itis used in a story, a reader will retrieve some or all con-ceptual associations (i.e., interrelated knowledge struc-tures) this word has for the concept (or object) cat.

Conceptual associations include aspects such as ex-amples (i.e., Siamese, Persian, or pet names—Buster,Allegro), class (e.g., feline, mammals), characteristics(e.g., having fur and four legs), and properties (e.g.,meows, ingests oxygen and food).

The notion of conceptual associations, or interre-lated knowledge structures, especially as used in in-structional situations involving multiple exposures andmeaningful interactions, has been employed in severalmodels of language and text processing (e.g., Just &Carpenter, 1987; Nelson, 1991; Sharkey, 1990). Con-ceptual, or interrelated knowledge, associations havealso been known by several labels in the theoretical andresearch literature: beta structure, plan, schema, frame, and

script (e.g., Bobrow & Collins, 1975; Rumelhart, 1980;Schank & Abelson, 1977). Returning to the exampleabove, the concept of cat becomes instantiated or repre-sented through the reader's retrieval and application ofthe interrelated associations of knowledge links (e.g.,meanings, nuances, and related concepts). This repre-sentation is a reflection of the reader's personal andworld experiences (real or imaginary) with the "word"(i.e., object, picture, etc) in conjunction with his or herinterpretation of the use of this word in a particular^context.

Within a knowledge model, vocabulary knowledgeis viewed as the integration of conceptual or inter-related associations of a particular word, which is in-terpreted as an in-depth knowledge of the word.According to the model, an extensive and in-depthknowledge of words is critical for and reflective of read-ing comprehension ability. One way to characterize thisextensive and in-depth knowledge of words is to dis-cuss readers' "ownership" of words or a movement to-ward ownership (Pearson, 1984, 1985). Ownership is alifelong activity and refers to readers' attempts to de-velop a deep working knowledge of words. As readersmove toward ownership, they acquire a number ofmeanings, concepts, nuances, examples, uses, and asso-ciations related to individual words. It is this totality ofknowledge that plays a critical role in the comprehen-sion of written texts. Thus, it is not only the individualmeanings of words that are important but also the en-



ownloaded from



tire "conceptual framework" surrounding the wordsand their meanings. For example, if readers know thephrase squeeze play, it is also likely that they know manyconcepts about the game of baseball.

As mentioned previously, these conceptual frame-works are also known as prior or background knowl-edge of readers (e.g., see Anderson & Pearson, 1984).There is substantial research showing that prior knowl-edge of a topic, particularly an extensive knowledge ofkey vocabulary words, is a better predictor of text com-prehension than is • any other measure of readingachievement (Johnston, 1984; Johnston & Pearson,1982; see also review in Pearson, 1985). It can be ar-gued that prior knowledge and vocabulary develop-ment go hand in hand. Readers' vocabulary knowledgeserves as a means for labeling ideas (or knowledgestructures, or schemata) that already exist in theirminds. In any case, one of the most important implica-tions of the knowledge model is that "knowledge" ofwords refers to more than just "partial" knowledge ofsingle, individual meanings.

Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension:Hearing Students

Relative to hearing students, there have been severalexperimental investigations on the effects of familiarand unfamiliar text vocabulary on reading comprehen-sion. If text word knowledge is critical for text com-prehension, at least two hypotheses can be tested(Anderson & Freebody, 1979, 1985). One, texts shouldeither be easier or more difficult to understand basedon the substitutions of easier or more difficult words.Two, teaching students about the more difficult,unfamiliar vocabulary words should enhance text com-prehension. In these studies, easy words were operation-ally defined as those of high frequency levels whereasdifficult words were those of low frequency levels.

In general, the early studies on direct text vocabu-lary instruction showed that there are positive effectson increasing word knowledge and this, in turn, en-hances sentence comprehension (e.g., Pany, 1978).However, the effect of vocabulary instruction on con-nected discourse (i.e., story comprehension) wasequivocal. A few researchers reported beneficial effectsof instruction on text comprehension (e.g., Kameenui,

Carnine, & Freschi, 1982; Marks, Doctorow, & Witt-rock, 1974). On the contrary, much of the researchseems to indicate little or no substantial improvement(Pany & Jenkins, 1978; Pany, Jenkins & Schreck, 1982;Tuinman & Brady, 1974).

More recently, there have been a number of investi-gations that have documented the effects of direct textvocabulary instruction on both sentential and textcomprehension (Baumann, 1986; McKeown, Beck,Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; McKeown, Beck, Oman-son, & Pople, 1985; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wixson,1986; see also the reviews in Beck & McKeown, 1991;Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986; Nagy, 1988). Researchershave suggested several factors that might have contrib-uted to the discrepant findings between the early andlater studies. Some of these factors include proportionof words taught, number of times the words are en-countered in passages (e.g., word frequency), degreeof word difficulty, depth of word knowledge (e.g.,multimeaning words), passage length, and method ofinstruction (Beck & McKeown, 1991; McKeown,1985; Wixson, 1986). In addition, two of the strongestfactors influencing the discrepancy were word fre-quency and depth of word knowledge. With respect tothese two major factors, it has been argued that the re-search on vocabulary knowledge and reading compre-hension can best be explained within a knowledgeframework, which, as discussed previously, avers theimportance of both breadth and depth of vocabularyknowledge for reading comprehension ability (e.g., seediscussion in Pearson, 1994, 1995; Paul, forthcoming;Paul & O'Rourke, 1988).

An in-depth knowledge of words (i.e., both breadthand depth) might be related to the type of vocabularyinstruction employed. For example, a major reasonwhy text vocabulary instruction in the studies dis-cussed above failed to demonstrate measurable gains inreading comprehension is that this instruction did notlead to a sufficient depth of vocabulary knowledge. Atbest, students only obtain a partial knowledge of wordsbecause of the use of methods such as definitions, withsome combination of looking words up, writing themdown, memorizing them, and using them in sentences.Another common method, known as context cue analy-sis, involves inferring the meaning of a new word fromthe context. That is, words were often situated in con-



ownloaded from



trived (or naturally occurring) sentences, and studentswere expected to derive the meaning by analyzing thecontext surrounding the word (i.e., the rest of the sen-tence).

Several of the studies discussed above, which showbenefits of text vocabulary instruction, promote anin-depth knowledge of words based on instructionalmethods influenced by the knowledge model, for ex-ample, semantic maps, semantic feature analyses, wordmaps, and other semantic elaboration techniques (seeexamples in sources such as Heimlich & Pittelman,1986; Johnson & Pearson, 1984; Nagy, 1988). I arguethat the instructional use of semantic elaboration tech-niques is effective because these techniques reflect howknowledge is organized in the mind, according to thebasic tenets of the knowledge model. As discussed pre-viously, word concepts might be arranged in memoryin categorical structures that are hierarchical in nature.Deep knowledge of words also represents knowledge ofother related concepts, many of which might be associ-ated with the topic of a reading passage. Relative tohearing children, there are a number of studies thathave documented the superiority of semantic elabora-tion techniques, particularly semantic mapping, overany other vocabulary instructional technique (e.g., seeresearch reviews in Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986; John-son, Toms-Bronowski, & Pittelman, 1982; Nagy, 1988).

Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension:

Deaf Students

Similar findings can be found in the few research stud-ies on text vocabulary knowledge and deaf students.Based on the results of standardized reading tests, sev-eral researchers have documented a correlational re-lationship between text vocabulary knowledge andreading comprehension. A typical task for assessingtext vocabulary knowledge in diese studies involvesitems in which target words are presented in sentences,and students are required to select the correct meaning(usually a synonym or short phrase) from a list of alter-natives (i.e., responses). For example, in an investi-gation that is representative of this pattern, Balow,Fulton, and Peploe (1971) studied students who werebetween 13 and 21 years old and whose hearing lossesranged from 40 dB to 100 dB or greater (i.e., based on

a pure-tone average of the better unaided ear). Thefindings reveal both low text vocabulary scores and lowreading achievement scores on the MetropolitanAchievement Test. Balow et al. suggested that a corre-lational relationship existed between these two areas.That is, the researchers observed that students who ob-tained low scores on the Vocabulary subtest alsoobtained low scores relative to an overall reading com-prehension level.

In another representative study, Quigley, Stein-kamp, Power, and Jones (1978) documented the resultsof the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT), normed onhearing students. The subjects in this study were stu-dents with profound hearing losses between the ages of10 to 18 years, inclusive. On the Word Meaning subtest(i.e., text vocabulary knowledge), the authors reportedthat the gain score for the nine-year period (10 to theend of 18 years) was 1.1 grade. The SAT reading gradeequivalent of the oldest students was 3.6. Despite theadaptations and norms developed for the StanfordAchievement Test-Hearing Impaired Version (SAT-HI), these low text vocabulary scores (based on die vo-cabulary subtests) and low reading achievement scores(overall reading scores) have persisted into the 1970s,1980s, and 1990s (e.g., Allen, 1986; CADS, 1991;King & Quigley, 1985; Paul & Quigley, 1994; Trybus &Karchmer, 1977). These results continue to show astrong correlation between vocabulary knowledge andreading comprehension.

Similar to the studies on hearing students, re-searchers on deaf students have also been interested inwhether direct text vocabulary instruction leads to im-proved reading comprehension on both the sententialand text (i.e., connected discourse) level. Compared tothe research on hearing students, there are few studiesin this area. In one early representative study, Letour-neau (1972) evaluated the effects of two instructionalmethods for teaching words with multiple meanings.Eighty students, with at least a 70 dB loss in the betterunaided ear and in grades four through six, served assubjects. The students were selected from one oralschool and three schools that used simultaneous com-munication (i.e., speaking and signing simultaneously).Students and instructors were randomly assigned toone of six experimental or control groups. Students inthe experimental groups were provided with specific



ownloaded from



instructions and exercises on the words with multiplemeanings that appeared in their reading selections. In-structions included discussing the various meanings ofwords and using them in different sentences. In ad-dition, the students had a number of exposures tothe words in the exercises. Students in the controlgroup also read the same materials' containing thesemultimeaning words; however, they were not providedwith any special instructions or exercises.

Letourneau (1972) reported that instruction ofmultimeaning words had a positive effect on the stu-dents' ability to comprehend the passages (i.e., con-nected discourse) containing the words. The beneficialeffects, however, were dependent upon the need for nu-merous experiences and exercises in dealing with themultimeaning words. This focus on multimeaningwords, in conjunction with the type of instruction em-ployed, supports the importance of depth of vocabu-lary knowledge, as indicated by the knowledge model.

On the contrary, in a later representative study, nopositive effects of text vocabulary instruction on sen-tential text comprehension were found. Robbins andHatcher (1981) administered reading comprehensiontests to 36 students whose hearing losses ranged fromsevere to profound (better unaided ear) and whose agesranged from 9 to 12 years. One half of the studentswere placed in an experimental group, in which theyreceived vocabulary training. In retrospect, this train-ing could be labeled as the definition-and-sentence ap-proach or the definition-and-contextual approach(Nagy, 1988; Paul & Gustafson, 1991; see also, the dis-cussion in the Implications section of this article). Inthis approach, the focus was on single meanings ofwords. The authors concluded that the reading com-prehension scores of the experimental group did notimprove with training. No specific reason for this lackof improvement was proffered.

The discrepancy between these two representativestudies has been addressed by a more recent study. Forexample, LaSasso and Davey (1987) argued that thefindings of the Robbins and Hatcher (1981) study weredue to a small sample size and to the task of readingcomprehension used—that is, "single, unrelated sen-tences" (p. 212). These researchers examined the rela-tion between text vocabulary knowledge and readingcomprehension in students with a profound hearing

loss (85 dB or greater in the better unaided ear) andbetween the ages of 10 and 18 years, inclusive. Themeasures used were the Vocabulary subtest of theGates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, 1972 edition, andthe reading comprehension subtests of the SAT, the1973 norms. The tasks included a cloze procedure andfour question-answering conditions—multiple choice,free response, look back condition (i.e., subjects couldread the passage as often as necessary), and no lookback condition (i.e., subjects could not read the passagemore than once).

The researchers documented a strong correlationbetween text word knowledge (i.e., breadth of knowl-edge) and reading comprehension. Similar to the find-ing for hearing students, it was shown that vocabularyknowledge was a strong predictor of reading compre-hension ability. One of LaSasso and Davey's (1987)conclusions was:

Practitioners should be aware that there appears tobe more of a relationship between lexical knowl-edge and reading comprehension for hearing-impaired students than previously empiricallyestablished. Although this relationship has yet tobe established as causal, practitioners should notignore the lexical abilities of their students, (p. 218)

The findings of LaSasso and Davey have been sup-ported and elaborated upon by the work of Paul andhis collaborators (Paul, 1984, 1987, 1989; Paul & Gus-tafson, 1991; see also reviews in Paul & Quigley, 1994;Paul, forthcoming; for related research on hearing chil-dren, see Paul, Stallman, & O'Rourke, 1990). Forexample, Paul and Gustafson (1991) examined bothhearing (aged 8 to 10 years, inclusive) and deaf stu-dents' (90 dB or more in the better unaided ear andaged 10 to 18 years, inclusive) comprehension of 45words with multiple meanings on a picture vocabularytest. On this test, each item contained one target wordand five possible responses (i.e., contextual illustra-tions, or pictures). Subjects were required to select thebest answers) that illustrated the meaning(s) of thetarget word. Similar to previous studies (eg., Letour-neau, 1972; MacGinitie, 1969), Paul and Gustafson se-lected high-frequency, multimeaning words, that is,words that were within the 10,000th frequency level(Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971). These high-



ownloaded from



frequency multimeaning words were considered im-portant because of their prevalence in commonly usedreading materials for both young hearing and deaf stu-dents (eg., see discussions in Johnson, Moe, & Bau-mann, 1983; Paul, 1984). Examples of the selectedwords included ball, change, fountain, quarter, and weave.

Paul and Gustafson were interested in the perfor-mances of both hearing and deaf students on selectingone meaning and two meanings of the same words.They were also interested in whether text vocabularyknowledge (i.e., knowledge of single or multiple mean-ings) increased with age and was related to readingcomprehension ability (i.e., scores on standardizedachievement tests). As expected, the hearing subjectsperformed significantly better than the deaf subjects onselecting one meaning and two meanings of the samewords. In addition, both groups selected the primarymeanings more often than the secondary meanings.Surprisingly, the scores of the subjects on selecting twomeanings of words did not improve with age. Finally,Paul and Gustafson documented a strong correlationbetween both breadth and depth of vocabulary knowl-edge (scores on the picture vocabulary test) and read-ing comprehension (overall reading scores from thestandardized achievement test). Because of the preva-lence of multimeaning words in reading materials (e.g.,Dale & O'Rourke, 1986; Johnson, Moe, & Baumann,1983; Searls & Klesius, 1984), the researchers arguedfor direct instruction of common multimeaning wordswithin a knowledge framework (see the discussion inthe Implications section of this article).

Acquisition of Word Meanings: Instruction

versus Context

Prior to discussing the debate on instruction versuscontext, it is necessary to identify two broad types oflearning from contexts: deliberate and incidental (Jen-kins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984; Nagy, Herman, & Ander-son, 1985). Deliberate learning refers to the situationin which an individual is asked to read a passage andderive the meanings of certain words, presumably un-familiar words. Incidental learning refers to the naturalsituation of reading, in which an individual is acquiringmeanings of words. There is some contentious debateon the relative merits of different types of vocabulary

instruction (eg., definition plus context vs. semanticelaboration techniques) and the two different types oflearning from context.

It is becoming evident that text vocabulary learningis so complex that neither instruction (including se-mantic elaboration techniques) nor context can ac-count for what readers know about words and how theyacquire this knowledge (Beck & McKeown, 1991; Paul,forthcoming; Paul & O'Rourke, 1988). There is somespeculation that scholars have underestimated the con-tributions of oral and speaking contexts (i.e., via theconversational form of a language) to the growth ofword knowledge. There have been several studies onhearing students' learning of words during reading(i.e., context), either via incidental learning (e.g., Her-man, Anderson, Pearson, & Nagy, 1987; Nagy, Ander-son, & Herman, 1987; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson,1985) or deliberate learning (e.g., Beck, McKeown, &McCaslin, 1983; Schatz & Baldwin, 1986). Only a fewsuch studies exist for deaf students (eg., deVilliers &Pomerantz, 1992; MacGinitie, 1969).

Acquisition of Word Meanings: Hearing Students

There is some evidence that incidental learning ofwords from context is more effective than any type oftext vocabulary instruction (e.g., Nagy & Anderson,1984; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). Vocabularyinstruction is said to account for only a small portionof words good readers learn from grades 3 through 12.Even poor readers are able to learn words from context.For both good and poor readers, the learning is said tooccur in small increments.

The distinction between good and poor readers,however, is a critical one and has been clarified in a line

• of research on deliberate learning. If learning fromcontext does occur, it is more evident for good readersrather than for poor readers, who are not likely to en-gage in wide reading, a condition necessary for thebeneficial effects of context. In addition, it is not easyto learn difficult words from natural reading becausemuch of the context does not provide sufficient infor-mation on the meanings of the words (Beck &McKeown, 1991; Graves, 1986; Graves & Slater, 1987;Schatz & Baldwin, 1986).

The problem with natural contexts becomes even



ownloaded from



more apparent for words with multiple meanings. Aword might be difficult if a secondary or less commonmeaning is encountered in reading materials. For ex-ample, in a classic study using hearing students in thirdand fourth grades as subjects, Mason, Kniseley, andKendall (1979) explored the effects of multimeaningwords on reading comprehension on a sentential level.For each of the 20 words selected, two sentences werecreated, one supporting the primary meaning and theother, the secondary meaning. Results indicated thatthe subjects selected the primary meanings more oftenthan the secondary meanings. The subjects could notselect the correct secondary meanings of words even insentences providing adequate contextual information.The authors concluded that the subjects either did notknow the secondary meaning or they did not paysufficient attention to context. The findings of thisstudy indicated that some hearing children seem tohave problems selecting the most appropriate meaningsof multimeaning words on a sentential level. In essence,the findings of Mason et al. (1979) have been supportedby more recent studies on hearing students (e.g.,Graves, 1980, 1986; Graves & Slater, 1987; Graves,Slater, & Cooke, 1980; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; see re-views in Beck & McKeown, 1991; Paul, forthcoming).

Acquisition of Word Meanings: Deaf Students

Not surprisingly, the use of context cues has presentedpervasive problems for deaf students, many of whomare poor readers. In an early study on deliberate learn-ing, MacGinitie (1969) evaluated the effects of contexton both deaf and hearing students. The deaf subjects,selected from oral programs, ranged in ages from 9 to20 years, and the mean dB level of the entire group was88 dB in the better unaided ear. Examples of four testitems were as follows:

(1) BEAR forest wild paw animal(2) BEAR forest wild paw carry

(3) BEAR burden weight land carry(4) BEAR burden weight land animal

In these examples, the two common meanings of bear

are "animal" and "carry." MacGinitie hypothesizedthat the students might most likely recognize "carry"as one meaning in a supportive context, as in Item 3rather than Item 2. The context of the second item

should persuade the students to select a meaning thatis different from the present one.

Thus, the researcher compared the number of cor-rect responses to items with misleading contexts to thenurrtber of correct responses to items with supportivecontexts. MacGinitie reported that context (mis-leading or beneficial) had no effect on the performanceof the deaf subjects. On the other hand, the scores ofthe hearing students were depressed by the misleadingcontexts. The implication is that the deaf studentsmight not have had the ability to use context cueseffectively.

In a more recent study, deVilliers and Pomerantz(1992) examined students whose unaided hearing losswas prelingual and ranged-from 71 to 120 dB (betterear average). The ages of the subjects ranged from 10years, 11 months, to 18 years, 7 months. The research-ers conducted two studies relative to the school level ofthe students. In Study 1, the students were selectedfrom an upper level (i.e., high school) of an oral school.In Study 2, the oral students were from a middle levelof the oral school, and the total-communication (i.e.,Signed English) students were selected from a schoolfor the deaf. The reading comprehension (SAT-HI)grade level of the upper school students ranged from2.8 to 12.4 (mean = 5.7). The reading grade level ofthe oral middle school students ranged from 1.6 to 3.9(mean = 2.8), whereas the reading grade level of thetotal-communication middle school students variedfrom 2.2 to 4.8 (mean = 3.1).

DeVilliers and Pomerantz studied the abilities ofthe students to derive both lexical (i.e., meaning) andsyntactic (i.e., form class) information for unknownwords embedded in short passages reflective of threetypes of context: lean, rich, and explicit. The lean con-textual condition provided very little informationabout the word whereas the rich contextual conditionprovided a great deal of information. The explicit con-textual condition provided "a clear contrast or equiva-lence statement" (p. 414). Examples of these conditionsfor the middle school group were as follows:

Study 2—Middle School—EerieLean

The boy painted a picture of an eerie house in his

art class. He took it home to show his mother and

father.



ownloaded from



Rich

The old house on the hill was an eerie place. It wasdark and it had broken windows, and it looked like

ghosts lived in it.Explicit

In the daytime the woods look safe and friendly, but

at night they can be an eerie place. The trees look

strange and scary in the dark. (p. 415)

The results indicated that students with hearinglosses could use the highly informative contexts (i.e.,rich or explicit) to derive a partial meaning of thewords. This ability was strongly related to their readingcomprehension level; that is, good readers performedsignificantly better than poor readers. It was observedthat poor readers had difficulty with the explicit con-textual condition. The researchers hypothesized thatthis might be due either to their inability to use thesyntactical information in the sentences or to the useof an inadequate reading strategy (e.g., location of a keyword or phrase). It should be noted that both good andpoor readers had difficulty inferring syntactic informa-tion about the words (e.g., form class or correct syntac-tic usage).

DeVilliers and Pomerantz, like the researchers dis-cussed previously who studied poor readers who canhear, remarked that:

many hearing-impaired students are caught in a vi-cious circle: their impoverished vocabularies limittheir reading comprehension, and poor readingstrategies and skills limit their ability to acquireadequate vocabulary knowledge from context,(p. 428)

In sum, some hearing and many deaf students havedifficulty inferring meanings of words from context, ei-ther in an incidental or deliberate learning situation.For good readers and for some poor readers, it appearsthat the use of context cues is most effective or facilita-tive when the target words are redundant with therest of the passage (i.e., in context-rich or -explicit en-vironments) and when these words contribute littleinformation to the story. One of the most effectivecompensatory strategies is to read extensively andwidely, something poor readers do not attempt eitherinside or outside the school setting. In addition, the in-adequate ability to use context cues reflects difficulty in

other1 written language variables, notably, orthography,morphophonology, syntax, and breadth and depth ofvocabulary knowledge (for deaf students, see researchsummaries in Hanson, 1989, 1991; Leybaert, 1993;Paul, forthcoming; Paul & Quigley, 1994).

The issue of use of context and text vocabularyinstruction should not be construed as an either-orissue. Context skills can be most effective when theyare combined with direct text vocabulary instructionand classroom discussions of words, word meanings,and related concepts (for hearing students, see Car-nine, Kameenui, & Coyle, 1983-1984; Carroll & Drum,1983; Jenkins, Pany, & Schreck, 1978; Stahl, 1986).The types of direct text vocabulary instruction thatseem to be most effective are those that emphasize se-mantic elaboration and fit, as discussed in the nextsection.

Implications

Based on the syntheses of the research on the relation-ship between text vocabulary knowledge and readingcomprehension level and that on the acquisition ofword meanings from context, it must be concluded thattext vocabulary instruction, at least, is necessary forpoor readers, which includes many deaf readers. Thisdoes not mean, of course, that deaf students do notneed instruction in other areas of reading. However,-one of the most important goals of instruction is to en-able deaf and poor readers who can hear to become in-dependent word learners.

It should be emphasized that text vocabulary in-struction for deaf and other students needs to moveaway from the traditional approaches, for example,definition or definition-and-contextual (or -sentence)approaches (e.g., see discussions in Nagy, 1988; Paul,1989; Paul & Gustafson, 1991; Paul, forthcoming). Intraditional definition-and-contextual approaches, theteacher might have a list of words that are importantfor students to "know the meanings of" prior to a lan-guage or reading lesson. After practice with pro-nouncing and signing the words and learning theparticular, common meanings, students might be re-quired to use the words in sentences. For example, thestudent might write "very sad" as a meaning for theword tragic and create a sentence such as the following:"This is a tragic event."



ownloaded from


12 JouraaJ of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:1 Winter 1996

Pearson (1984) and others (e.g., Nagy, 1988; Paul,1989) have argued that the preceding example indicatesonly that students can repeat a particular definitionand are probably guessing that tragic can supplant very

sad in sentences such as: This is a story; Susanis a girl. Obviously, supplanting tragic for very

sad is not appropriate for all sentences. More im-portant, students have not really moved toward owner-ship of the word and are likely to be confused by thefollowing example (Nagy, 1988, p. 5): "Too bad! Thetragic poet is ill again. It must be a bad fever this time,for they're trying smoke fumes instead of medicine."The focus on single meanings in traditional text vocab-ulary lessons does not facilitate the development ofdepth of vocabulary knowledge. In addition, as arguedpreviously, these approaches do not have substantialtheoretical or research support.

The use of traditional vocabulary approaches withdeaf students has also been noted and criticized byConway(1990):

Traditional programs of learning definitions forlists of words should give way to learning words insemantically rich contexts. The contexts-can serveas bridges to old information and as foundationsfor developing further conceptual interrelation-ships. . . . Such rich contexts should also includeuse of semantic mapping . . . and adaptations ofnetworking strategies, (p. 346)

Conway's remarks are based on the major tenets of theknowledge model, as discussed previously.

Similar remarks have been echoed by Paul andGustafson(1991):

Vocabulary instruction should help broaden anddeepen students' understanding of a word and itsconceptual framework by (a) relating the word tostudents' previous experiences, (b) providing nu-merous opportunities for encountering the word sothat the word and its meanings become easily ac-cessible during reading of texts and (c) creating nu-merous opportunities for students to use the wordmeaningfully. The three terms associated withthese concepts are, respectively, integration, repeti-

tion, and meaningful use. . . . (p. 59)

The word integration refers to the use of "networkingstrategies" (Conway, 1990) such as semantic maps,

word maps,'and semantic features analyses. Numerousexamples of these techniques can be found in severalsources (Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986; Johnson & Pear-son, 1984; Nagy, 1988). Repetition and meaningful userefer to the encounters of words in deliberate and natu-ral learning contextual situations. However, to max-imize the benefits of context, deaf students will needinstruction in other aspects of the reading process, aswell as in reading vocabulary knowledge.

Conclusion

In this article, I argue that the knowledge model offersthe most plausible explanation for understanding therelationship between vocabulary knowledge and read-ing comprehension and, in part, how reading vocabu-lary word meanings are acquired. The knowledgemodel avers that both breadth and depth of vocabularyknowledge are important for reading comprehension.It is critical to underscore the facilitative effects ofdepth of vocabulary knowledge, which, in effect, refersto the storehouse of knowledge pertaining to words andtheir meanings. This storehouse represents organized,interrelated information, which includes meanings,nuances, figurative usages, and related concepts.

I also argue that, for some hearing students and formost deaf students, it is important to "teach" vocab-ulary. To develop depth of vocabulary knowledge,teachers should avoid the use of traditional definition-and-contextual approaches and focus on approachesthat can be labeled semantic elaboration. Semanticelaboration approaches enable readers to move towardownership of a word. According to Pearson (1984),these approaches

emphasize where a word fits in children's semanticrepertoire rather than what it means or how it isused in sentences. That's what it means to own aword—to know what it is like and how it is differ-ent from other words that a child already knows,(p. 16)

References

Allen, T. (1986). A study of the achievement patterns of hearing-impaired students: 1974-1983. In M. Karchmer & A. Schit-droth (Eds.), The uhool-aged hearing-impaired population ofthe United States (pp. 161-206). San Diego, CA: College-Hill.



ownloaded from



Anderson, R., & Freebody, P. (1979). Vocabulary knowledge(Tech. Rep. No. 135). Urbana: University of Illinois, Centerfor the Study of Reading.

Anderson, R., & Freebody, P. (1985). Vocabulary knowledge. InH. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and pro-cesses of reading (3rd. ed.) (pp. 343-371). Newark, DE: Inter-national Reading Association.

Anderson, R., & Nagy, W. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr,M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbookof reading research (2nd ed.) (pp. 690-724). White Plains,NY: Longman.

Anderson, R., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic viewof basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pear-son, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research (pp. 255-291). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Balow, B., Fulton, H., & Peploe, E. (1971). Reading comprehen-sion skills among hearing impaired adolescents. Volta Re-view. 73, 113-119.

Baumann, J. (1986). Teaching third-grade students to compre-hend anaphoric relationships: The application of a direct in-struction model. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 70—90.

Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabularyacquisition. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosendial, & P. D.Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2nd ed.)(pp. 789-814). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Beck, I., McKeown, M., & McCaslin, E. (1983). Vocabulary de-velopment: All contexts are not created equal. The Elemen-tary School Journal, 83, 177-181.

Bobrow, D, & Collins, A. (Eds.). (1975). Representation and under-standing: Studies in cognitive science. New York: AcademicPress.

CADS. (1991). Center for Assessment and Demographic Stud-ies. Stanford achievement test, eighth edition: Hearing-impairednorms booklet. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University, Gal-laudet Research Institute, Center for Assessment and De-mographic Studies.

Carnine, D , Kameenui, E, & Coyle, G. (1983-1984). Utilizationof contextual words. Reading Research Quarterly, 19,188-204.

Carroll, B, & Drum, P. (1983). Definitional gains for explicit andimplicit context clues. In J. Niles & L. Harris (Eds.),Searches for meaning in reading/language processing and in-struction. Thirty-second yearbook of the National Reading Con-ference (pp. 158-162). Rochester, NY: National ReadingConference.

Carroll, J., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American heri-tage word frequency book. New York: American Heritage.

Conway, D. (1990). Semantic relationships in the word meaningsof hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 92, 339—349.

Dale, E., & CRourke, J. (1986). Vocabulary building: A processapproach. Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser.

Davey, B., & King, S. (1990). Acquisition of word meanings fromcontext by deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 135,m-VA.

deVilliers, P., & Pomerantz, S. (1992). Hearing-impaired stu-dents learning new words from written context. Applied Psy-cholinguistics, 13, 409-431.

Dolman, D. (1992). Some concerns about using whole languageapproaches with deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf137. 278-282.

Graves, M. (1980, April). A quantitative and qualitative study ofstudents' vocabularies. Paper presented at the meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Boston.

Graves, M. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction. InE. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 13, 91-128.

Graves, M., & Slater, W. (1987, April). The development of readingvocabularies in rural dtsadvantaged students, inner-city disad-vantaged students, and middle-class suburban students. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Washington, D C

Graves, M., Slater, W, & Cooke, C (1980, December). Skill withpolysemous words: A measurement of the depth of children's wordknowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Na-tional Reading Conference, San Diego. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. 198 513).

Hanson, V. (1989). Phonology and reading: Evidence from pro-foundly deaf readers. In D. Shankweiler & I. Liberman(Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the readingpuzzle (pp. 69—89). Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.

Hanson, V. (1991). Phonological processing without sound. InS. Brady & D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes inliteracy: A tribute to Isabel!e Y. Liberman (pp. 153-161)"Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heimlich, J., & Pittelman, S. (1986). Semantic mapping: Class-room applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Asso-ciation.

Herman, P., Anderson, R., Pearson, P. D , & Nagy, W. (1987).Incidental acquisition of word meaning from expositionswith varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 263-284.

Jenkins, J., Pany, D , & Schreck, J. (1978). Vocabulary and readingcomprehension: Instructional effects (Tech. Rep. No. 100). Ur-bana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 160 999).-

Jenkins, J., Stein M.,& Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabularythrough reading. American Educational Research Journal,21, 767-787.

Johnson, D., Moe, A., & Baumann, J. (1983). The Ginn wordbookfor teachers: A basic lexicon. Lexington, MA: Ginn.

Johnson, D , & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Johnson, D , Toms-Bronowski, S., & Pittelman, S. (1982). Vo-cabulary development. In R. E. Kretschmer (Ed), Readingand the heanng-impaired individual. Volta Review, 84 (5), pp.11-24.

Johnston, P. (1984). Background knowledge and reading com-prehension test bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19,219-239.

Johnston, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). Prior knowledge of connec-tivity and the assessment of reading comprehension (Tech. Rep.No. 245). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for theStudy of Reading.

Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1987). The psychology of reading andlanguage comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kameenui, E., Carnine, D , & Freschi, R. (1982). Effects of textconstruction and instructional procedures for teaching wordmeanings on comprehension and recall. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 17, 367-388.



ownloaded from



King, C , & Quigley, S. (1985). Reading anddeafiuss. Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

LaSasso, C , & Davey, B. (1987). The relationship between lexi-cal knowledge and reading comprehension for prelingually,profoundly hearing-impaired students. Volta Review, 89,211-220.

Letourneau, N. (1972). The effect of multiple meanings of words inthe reading comprehension of intermediate grade deaf children:A comparison of two methods of teaching multiple meaningsof words and their effect on reading comprehension. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, New York University, NewYork.

Leybaert, J. (1993). Reading in the deaf: The roles of phonologi-cal codes. In M. Marschark & M. D. Clark (Eds.), Psycholog-ical perspectives on deafness (pp. 269-309). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

MacGinitie, W. (1969). Flexibility in dealing with alternativemeaning words. In J. Rosenstein & W. MacGinitie (Eds.),Verbal behavior of the deaf child: Studies of word meanings andassociations (pp. 45—55). New York: Teachers College.

Marks, C , Doctorow, M., & Wittrock, M. (1974). Word fre-quency and reading comprehension. Journal of EducationalResearch, 67, 259-262.

Mason, J., Kniseley, E., & Kendall, J. (1979). Effects of polyse-mous words on sentence comprehension. Reading ResearchQuarterly, IS, 49-65.

McKeown, M. (1985). The acquisition of word meaning fromcontext by children of high and low ability. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 20, 482-496.

McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., & Perfetti, C. (1983).The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on readingcomprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior,15, 3-18.

McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., & Pople, M. (1985).Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary in-struction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Re-search Quarterly, 20, 522-535.

Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition ofknowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading com-prehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253-279.

Nagy, W. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading compre-hension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. (1984). How many words are there inprinted school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19,304-330.

Nagy, W., Anderson, R., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning wordmeanings from context during normal reading. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.

Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning wordsfrom context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.

Nelson, K. (1991). Varied domains of development: A tale ofLAD, MAD, SAD, and RARE and surprising events in ourRELMS. In F. Kessel, M. Bornstein, & A. Sameroff (Eds.),Contemporary constructions of the child: Essays in honor of Wil-liam Kesen (pp. 123-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pany, D. (1978). The effects of vocabulary instruction on knowledgeof word meanings and reading comprehension of remedial readers.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,Champaign.

Pany, D., & Jenkins, J. (1978). Learning word meanings: A com-parison of instructional procedures and effects en measuresof reading comprehension with learning disabled students.Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 21—32.

Pany, D., Jenkins, J., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruc-tion: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehen-sion. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 202-214.

Paul, P. (1984). The comprehension of multimeaning words fromselected frequency levels by deaf and hearing subjects. Un-published doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,Champaign.

Paul, P. (1987, October). Deaf children's comprehension ofmultimeaning words: Research and implications. Paper pre-sented at the Indiana Association for Children and Adultswith Learning Disabilities, Indianapolis, IN. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service ED 301 983).

Paul, P. (1989). Depth of vocabulary knowledge and reading: Im-plications for hearing impaired and learning disabled stu-dents. Academic Therapy, 25, 13—24.

Paul, P. (in press). Literacy and deafness: The development of read-ing, writing, and literate thought. Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.

Paul, P., & Gustafson, G. (1991). Comprehension of high-frequency multimeaning words by students with hearingimpairment. Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 12(4), 52-62.

Paul, P.,&O'Rourke,J. (1988). Multimeaning words and readingcomprehension: Implications for special education students.Remedial and Special,Education (RASE), 9 (3), 42-52.

Paul, P., & Quigley, S. (1994). Language and deafness (2nd ed.).San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.

Paul, P., Stalhnan, A., & O'Rourke, J. (1990). Using three test for-mats to assess good and poor readers' word knowledge (Tech.Rep. No. 509). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois,Center for the Study of Reading.

Pearson, P. D. (1984). Reading comprehension instruction: Six nec-essary changes (Reading Educ Rep. No. 54). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study ofReading.

Pearson, P. D. (1985). The comprehension revolution: A twenty-year history of process and practice related to reading comprehen-sion (Reading Educ Rep. No. 57). Urbana: University ofIllinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

Quigley, S., Steinkamp, M., Power, D , & Jones, B. (1978). Testof Syntactic Abilities. Beaverton, OR: Dormac

Robbins, N., & Hatcher, C (1981). The effects of syntax on thereading comprehension of hearing-impaired children. VoltaReview, 83, 105-115.

Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cogni-tion. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoreticalissues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psy-chology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp.33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and under-standing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schatz, E-, & Baldwin, R. (1986). Context clues are unreliablepredictors of word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly,21, 439-453.

Searls, E., & Klesius, K. (1984). 99 multiple meaning words for



ownloaded from



primary students and ways to teach them. Reading Psychol-ogy: An International Quarterly, 5, 55—63.

Sharkey, N. (1990). A connectionist model of text comprehen-sion. In D. Balota, G. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 487-514). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Stahl, S. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruc-tion. Journal of Reading, 29, 662-668.

Stahl, S., & Fairbanks, M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary in-struction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educa-tional Research, 56,72-110.

Trybus, R., & Karchmer, M. (1977). School achievement scores

of hearing impaired children: National daca on achievementstatus and growth patterns. American Annals of the Deaf,122, 62-69.

Tuinman, J., & Brady, M.. (1974). How does vocabulary accountfor variance on reading comprehension tests? A preliminaryinstructional analysis. In P. Nacke (Ed.), Interaction: Re-search and practice for college-adult reading. Twenty-thirdyearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 176—184). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.

Wixson, K, (1986). Vocabulary instruction and children's com-prehension of basal stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,317-329.



ownloaded from


reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness · pdf fileccc 1081-4159 edge related to ... nagy,...

Documents