University of Iowa

Masthead Logo Iowa Research Online

Theses and Dissertations

Spring 2015

Lexical semantic richness : effect on reading

comprehension and on readers' hypotheses about
the meanings of novel words
Dawna Margaret Duff
University of Iowa

Copyright 2015 Dawna Margaret Duff

This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1591

Recommended Citation
Duff, Dawna Margaret. "Lexical semantic richness : effect on reading comprehension and on readers' hypotheses about the meanings
of novel words." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.6nx7mch1

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd

Part of the Speech Pathology and Audiology Commons

 LEXICAL SEMANTIC RICHNESS: EFFECT ON READING COMPREHENSION
AND ON READERS’ HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE MEANINGS OF NOVEL WORDS

by

Dawna Margaret Duff

A thesis submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy degree in
Speech and Hearing Science
in the Graduate College
of
The University of
Iowa

May 2015

Thesis Supervisor: Professor Emeritus J.B. Tomblin

 Copyright by
DAWNA MARGARET DUFF
2015
All Rights Reserved
 Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

PH.D. THESIS

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Dawna Margaret Duff

has been approved by the Examining Committee for the

thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Speech and Hearing Science at the May 2015
graduation.

Thesis Committee:
J.B. Tomblin, Thesis Supervisor

Melissa Duff

Karla McGregor

Amanda Owen Van Horne

Larissa Samuelson
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The words “Doctor of Philosophy” have their roots in the words “to teach” and

“to love wisdom”. I am grateful to all who have supported me as I have pursued this

Ph.D., and endeavored to grow in my ability to do both.

I am especially grateful to my advisor, Dr. Bruce Tomblin. His openness to

scientific questions of all kinds has given me the freedom to develop my own research

interests, and his combination of impressive expertise, humility, and generous

mentorship has given me a rich apprenticeship in the world of research.

I am grateful for the mentorship of Dr. Nancy Jackson. Her expertise in reading,

her commitment to academic and intellectual rigor, and her generosity with advice and

support were significant in shaping this research project. Her death has been a sad loss

for me. Dr. Jackson’s thinking and advice will continue to shape my own research.

Each of the members of my dissertation committee have offered unique guidance

to me, and I am grateful. I have been fortunate indeed to be surrounded by incredible

scientists during my doctorate.

I am thankful to those who collected, entered, and coded data, including

Jacqueline Reinert, Erin Holzer, Jill Aunan, Nichole Eden, and Marcia St. Clair, and for

the support of all in the Child Language Research Center Lab, especially Marlea

O’Brien.

I am grateful to the participants in this study, and their families, for their time and

willingness to be part of this research.

Finally, I thank my husband Gary, whose love and consistent support have been

essential to me on this journey.

ii
 ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study investigates one possible reason for individual differences in

vocabulary learning from written context. A Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) model is

used to motivate the prediction of a causal relationship between semantic knowledge for

words in a text and the quality of their hypotheses about the semantics of novel words, an

effect mediated by reading comprehension. The purpose of this study was to test this

prediction behaviorally, using a within subject repeated measures design to control for

other variables affecting semantic word learning.

Methods: Participants in 6th grades (n=23) were given training to increase

semantic knowledge of words from one of two texts, counterbalanced across participants.

After training, participants read untreated and treated texts, which contained six nonword

forms. Measures were taken of reading comprehension (RC) and the quality of the

readers’ hypotheses about the semantics of the novel words (HSNW). Text difficulty and

semantic informativeness of the texts about nonwords were controlled.

Results: All participants had increases in semantic knowledge of taught words

after intervention. For the group as a whole, RC scores were significantly higher in the

treated than untreated condition, but HSNW scores were not significantly higher in the

treated than untreated condition. Reading comprehension ability was a significant

moderator of the effect of treatment on HSNW. A subgroup of participants with lower

scores on a standardized reading comprehension measure (n=6) had significantly higher

HSNW and RC scores in the treated than untreated condition. Participants with higher

standardized reading comprehension scores (n=17) showed no effect of treatment on

either RC or HSNW. Difference scores for RC and difference scores for HSNW were
iii
strongly related, indicating that within subjects, there is a relationship between RC and

HSNW.

Conclusions: The results indicate that for a subgroup of readers with weaker

reading comprehension, intervention to enhance lexical semantic richness had a

substantial and significant effect on both their reading comprehension and on the quality

of hypotheses that they generated about the meanings of novel words. Neither effect was

found for a subgroup of readers with stronger initial reading comprehension. Clinical and

educational implications are discussed.

iv
 PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Reading comprehension and vocabulary are important academic outcomes. Between

individuals, vocabulary skill is closely related to reading comprehension skill. This study

investigated a possible reason for this relationship, namely that rich knowledge of word

meaning could lead to better reading comprehension, which could lead to better

inferences about the meaning of new words. This was investigated with an intervention

with sixth graders that increased their knowledge of the meanings of a set of words.

Participants then read one text that contained many of the taught words, and one text that

did not. The study looked at the effect of the intervention on participants’ reading

comprehension, and their definitions of new words in the texts.

The intervention resulted in increases in knowledge of the taught words, and in

comprehension of texts containing the taught words. For the group as a whole, it did not

result in significant improvements in the quality of definitions that participants generated

for new words embedded in the texts. However, the effect of the intervention depended

on the initial skill level of the participants. For participants who had lower reading

comprehension skills initially, the intervention to increase knowledge of the meaning of

words had a large effect on both reading comprehension and definitions of the meanings

of novel words. This was not true for those who had higher reading comprehension

initially.

The research has implications for teaching and clinical practice, suggesting that

direct vocabulary instruction can result in benefits to learning of untaught words for some

readers.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1 STUDY RATIONALE AND DESIGN........................................................1
Word Learning Through Reading Text ............................................................................1
Text Based Word Learning and Models of Reading Comprehension..............................4
Latent Semantic Analysis ................................................................................................6
Previous Empirical Studies...............................................................................................8
Research Questions...........................................................................................................8
Study Design...................................................................................................................10
Analysis ..........................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................13
Historical Accounts of the Relationship Between Individual Differences in Reading
and Vocabulary...............................................................................................................13
Latent Semantic Analysis ...............................................................................................19
Word Learning While Reading Text ..............................................................................23
Vocabulary Intervention .................................................................................................27
Effects of Vocabulary Intervention on Reading Comprehension...................................29
CHAPTER 3 METHODS.................................................................................................31
Participants .....................................................................................................................31
Stimuli and Materials......................................................................................................33
Procedures ......................................................................................................................44
CHAPTER 4 EFFECT OF INTERVENTION ON LEXICAL SEMANTIC
KNOWLEDGE..................................................................................................................48
Results ............................................................................................................................48
Discussion.......................................................................................................................52
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: READING COMPREHENSION .........54
Results ............................................................................................................................54
Discussion.......................................................................................................................62
CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE
SEMANTICS OF NOVEL WORDS ................................................................................69
Results ............................................................................................................................69
Discussion.......................................................................................................................73

vi
CHAPTER 7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN
TREATMENT EFFECTS ON HSNW..............................................................................77
Results ............................................................................................................................78
Discussion.......................................................................................................................82
CHAPTER 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: READING COMPREHENSION AS
AN INTERVENING VARIABLE ....................................................................................86
Results ............................................................................................................................87
Discussion.......................................................................................................................88
CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ............................................90
Summary of Results........................................................................................................90
Discussion.......................................................................................................................91
Contribution to the Literature .........................................................................................93
Future Directions ............................................................................................................95
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................98
APPENDIX A: LEXICAL DECISION TASK ...............................................................108
APPENDIX B: WORDS TARGETED DURING VOCABULARY
INTERVENTION............................................................................................................110
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF CONTEXT TEST QUESTIONS FOR TAUGHT
WORDS...........................................................................................................................111
APPENDIX D: SCORING CRITERIA FOR DEFINITIONS OF TAUGHT
WORDS...........................................................................................................................112
APPENDIX E: EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTION ACTIVITIES ...............................118
APPENDIX F: DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES USED DURING TEXT
DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................121
APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF VARIABLES AFFECTING TEXT
DIFFICULTY..................................................................................................................123
APPENDIX H: STIMULI PRESENTED TO PARTICIPANTS FOR READING
COMPREHENSION AND HSNW TASKS, AND MEANINGS OF
NONWORDS ..................................................................................................................124
APPENDIX I: SCORING CRITERIA FOR DEFINITIONS OF NOVEL
WORDS...........................................................................................................................126
APPENDIX J: EXAMPLES OF CONTEXT TEST QUESTIONS FOR NOVEL
WORDS...........................................................................................................................128

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Participant Scores on Standardized Measures of Reading and Vocabulary……32

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics, t-test Results, and Cohen’s dRM for Context Test
Questions, Definition Scores, and Total Semantic Scores……………………………….49

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics, t-test Results and and Cohen’s dRM for Reading
Comprehension Questions, Story Retell Measures, and Reading Comprehension
Composite Scores………………………………………………………………………...56

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics, t-test Results and and Cohen’s dRM for Reading
Comprehension Composite Scores in the High GORT and Low GORT groups.….……60

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics and t-test Results for Context Test Questions, HSNW
Definition Scores, and Total HSNW Scores….………………………………………….70

Table 6: ANOVA Table for Regression of HSNW Definitions Difference Scores on

Total Reading Comprehension Score……………………………………………………78

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics, Paired one tailed t-test Results, and Cohen’s d, for
HSNW Definition Scores: High and low GORT groups...………………………………80

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Model of the relationship between richness of lexical semantics for words in
a text and the quality of hypotheses about the semantics of novel words………………...3

Figure 2: Reading Systems Framework (from Perfetti and Stafura, 2014)……………….5

Figure 3: Total Semantic Knowledge Score for Taught Words: Pre and Post
Intervention………………………………………………………………………………50

Figure 4: Context Test Question Scores for Taught Words: Pre and Post Intervention…50

Figure 5: Definition Scores for Taught Words: Pre and Post Intervention………………51

Figure 6 : Initial Total Semantic Scores, and Gains in Total Semantic Scores (Post
Minus Pre)……………………………………………………………………………….52

Figure 7: Reading Comprehension Composite Difference Scores………………………57

Figure 8: Story Retell Difference Scores………………………………………………...57

Figure 9: Reading Comprehension Question Difference scores…………………………58

Figure 10: Reading Comprehension Composite Scores in the Untreated and Treated
Conditions………………………………………………………………………………..58

Figure 11: Reading Comprehension Composite Difference Score (Treated Minus

Untreated) for Low GORT subgroup…………………………………………………….61

Figure 12: Reading Comprehension Composite Difference Score (Treated Minus

Untreated) for High GORT subgroup……………………………………………………61

Figure 13: HSNW Composite Difference scores (Treated Minus Untreated)…………...71

Figure 14: Context Test Questions Difference Scores (Treated Minus Untreated)……..72

Figure 15: HSNW Definition Difference Scores (Treated Minus Untreated)…………...72

Figure 16: HSNW Definition Scores in the Treated and Untreated

Conditions…………………………………………………………………….………….73

Figure 17: HSNW Definitions Difference Scores and GORT Standard Scores…………79

Figure 18: HSNW Definition Difference Scores (Treated Minus Untreated) for
Participants with Low GORT scores…………………………………………………….81
ix
Figure 19: HSNW Definition Difference Scores (Treated Minus Untreated) for
Participants with High GORT scores…………………………………………………….81

Figure 20: Reading Comprehension Composite Difference Scores and HSNW

Definitions Difference Scores……………………………………………………………88

Figure 21: Model of the relationship between richness of lexical semantics for words
in a text and the quality of hypotheses about the semantics of novel words…………….92

x
 CHAPTER 1

STUDY RATIONALE AND DESIGN

This study tests the hypothesis that semantic word learning when reading text is
dependent on an individual’s text comprehension. The quality of that comprehension
will be specific to a given reader and a given passage. Further, my hypothesis is that the
reader’s text comprehension will be dependent on the richness of the reader’s lexical
semantics for “known” words in the text.

Word Learning Through Reading Text

Reading novel words in text is presumed to be the mechanism for acquisition of

most vocabulary for older children, adolescents, and adults (Cunningham, 2005; Nagy,
Herman, & Anderson, 1985). In part, this presumption is made because the amount of
direct teaching of vocabulary that occurs in school contexts accounts for only a small
fraction of the number of words which high school graduates use and understand (Nagy
& Anderson, 1984). Vocabulary also can potentially grow during this period via exposure
to oral language, but low frequency words are much more common in text (Cunningham,
2005), and there are therefore many more opportunities for new vocabulary items to enter
the lexicon via written language, than oral language. This observation has served as the
basis for a Matthew Effect for vocabulary, which proposes that children who read more
in the higher grades will have higher vocabulary growth rates (Stanovich, 1986). In fact,
there is evidence that skill in word reading, considered as an indicator variable for
amount of reading experience, does affect the rate of vocabulary growth, even when
controlling for preliterate vocabulary levels (Duff, Tomblin, & Catts, in press).
Oral and written language differ with respect to what kind of information is
available for semantic word learning. The challenge for the word learner, classically
expressed by Quine (1960), is to determine what meaning to associate with a new word

1
form. This is true regardless of whether the novel word is heard or read. However, in
early oral word learning, novel words typically refer to a concrete physical referent that is
present at the time when word learning occurs, and word learning is supported by non-
linguistic cues such as gesture, prosody, and eye gaze (e.g. Gogate, Walker-Andrews, &
Bahrick, 2001). In contrast, written language tends to lack the physical context and the
nonverbal cues that are typically present in oral language communication, and this means
that the reader is heavily dependent on linguistic context when determining the meaning
of a word (Shefelbine, 1990). These differences are not only a function of modality, but
also of development: the type of language learned by older children and adults is less
concrete than word learning for early language users. Hence, oral and written word
learning contexts require theoretical accounts with different emphases. Theories of early
word learning emphasize the importance of the child’s understanding of nonverbal cues
about the speaker’s intent (social pragmatic theory), the learner’s ability to exploit
temporal contiguities or statistical regularities between the spoken word and the physical
referents (associationism), or constraints that help children determine the physical
referent (constraints theory). When most or all of the cues to meaning are linguistic,
then a somewhat different account is required.
This study aims to test the hypothesis that semantic word learning when reading
text depends on an individual’s text comprehension, which will be specific to a given
reader with a given text. I also hypothesize that the reader’s comprehension of a text will
depend on the richness of a reader’s lexical semantics for words in the text that are not
novel (“known” words). Understanding of a word’s semantics is not binary (“known” or
“not known”), but exists along a continuum. It is proposed that a reader with rich lexical
semantics for all the words in a text will have better comprehension of the passage as a
whole than a reader with a more shallow understanding of the individual words.
Naturally, other factors will also affect both reading comprehension and word learning.
My aim in this study, however, is to test the idea that the richness of lexical semantics
that a reader has for words in a given text will be one factor that affects novel word
learning.

2
 These proposed relationships between lexical semantic richness, reading
comprehension, and the quality of hypotheses about the semantics of novel words are
presented in Figure 1. The reader will note that two variables in this model relate to
lexical semantics: lexical semantic richness, and hypotheses about the semantics of novel
words. However, the first relates to words that are known or partially known, and the
second pertains to novel words. This study relates the process of generating initial
hypotheses about their meanings, which is essential to semantic word learning, but is
naturally only the first step in that ongoing process.

Figure 1: Model of the relationship between richness of lexical

semantics for words in a text and the quality of hypotheses
about the semantics of novel words

An additional aim of the proposed study is to examine the effectiveness of one

possible strategy for improving word learning through text, namely increasing the
richness of a reader’s semantic representation for words in a text that the reader is already
familiar with (the words that are ‘known’ to some extent). Because so much new
vocabulary is learned from reading text, differences in how well readers learn new words
while reading text are likely to be important to the development of individual differences
3
in vocabulary over time. This is especially important because of the possibility of a self
reinforcing system in which poor language and reading limit new word learning which
then leads to further weak language skills (Stanovich, 1986). One might expect that
children with reading or language difficulties would encounter difficulties in learning
new words through reading text, since the success of the word learning hinges on the
generation of a semantic interpretation from the written text. Having a rich vocabulary is
certainly a desirable academic outcome (e.g. Dollinger, 2008), therefore any intervention
to optimize the process of acquiring new words through learning text could be valuable
for children who struggle to learn new words.

Text Based Word Learning and Models of Reading Comprehension

In general terms, word learning while reading consists of mapping semantic,

orthographic and phonological representations for words. According to the Lexical
Quality Hypothesis (Perfetti & Hart, 2001), the reader has well specified representations
of orthographic and phonological forms, and flexible semantic representations for a given
word during skilled reading (Perfetti, 2007). On initial exposure to the word, the word
learner needs to associate the orthographic form of the novel word with an initial
semantic representation. Readers also activate a phonological representation on reading,
created by means of the orthographic phonological correspondence. This could also be
associated with the semantic representation. Hence, there are three elements that need to
be mapped during word learning: phonological, orthographic, and semantic. The focus of
this study is on the reader’s semantic representation for the novel word.
My hypothesis is that semantic word learning when reading text is dependent on
an individual’s text comprehension, or understanding of the passage being read. This
hypothesis begs the question of what variables affect a reader’s comprehension of a given
text. There are several frameworks for understanding individual differences in reading
comprehension. One such model is the Reading Systems Framework, which has recently
been proposed by Perfetti and Stafura (2014). It outlines interactions between multiple
processes during reading. According to the Reading Systems Framework, reading

4
processes such as decoding, word identification, meaning retrieval, inferencing and
comprehension monitoring interact. The model is shown diagrammatically in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Reading Systems Framework (from Perfetti and

Stafura, 2014)
24 PERFETTI AND STAFURA
Downloaded by [University of Iowa Libraries] at 20:44 17 March 2015

FIGURE 1 The Reading Systems Framework. Note. The components of

reading within a language-cognitive architecture from visual processing
through higher level comprehension. The key elements are knowledge
sources, basic cognitive and language processes, and interactions among
A critical point from this model is that the reader’s comprehension of a text is
them. The framework allows the development of specific models (e.g.,
word identification models, models of inferences) and allows hypotheses
partly based on the lexical semantics for words in the text. In fact, Perfetti and Stafura about both the development of reading expertise and reading weaknesses.
A particular point of focus is the lexicon, which is a central connection
point between the word identification system and the comprehension
(2014) note that word meanings are both the output of word identification processes, and system. Based on Perfetti (1999).

the input to comprehension processes. Therefore, they argue, lexical semantic knowledge
THE READING SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK
has a central role in reading processes. It is notable that their model shows arrows in both
A general framework of reading systems must reflect reading more fully by adding word-
directionslevel
between
processescomprehension and thethat
to the higher level processes lexicon. Hence,
are the focus it includes
of comprehension both lexical
research.
Figure 1 presents a variation of such a framework, derived from a “blueprint” of the reader
knowledge(Perfetti,
as an1999)
input
and to
usedcomprehension processes,(Perfetti,
to frame problems in comprehension but also shows
Landi, the2005).
& Oakhill, learning of new
This Reading Systems Framework makes the following claims about reading:
words based on inferences from readers’ comprehension of text.
1. Three classes of knowledge sources are used in reading: linguistic knowledge, ortho-
The Reading Systemsand
graphic knowledge, Framework is presented
general knowledge (knowledgehere
about in
thepart
world,toincluding
emphasize that there
knowledge of text forms, e.g., text genres).
are multiple components and processes involved in comprehension of text, and text
comprehension is actually the product of interactions among numerous language
processes. This implies that there are multiple ways for individual differences to arise
within the model beyond lexical semantics: sensitivity to text structure, for example, or

5
differences in skill with syntactic processing. An attempt will be made to control for
these variables using a within subjects design.

Latent Semantic Analysis

Hence, the Reading Systems Framework motivates the general claim that lexical
semantics and reading comprehension are in a close, and bidirectional, relationship.
Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) is a theoretical model that provides a possible
mechanism for this to occur. LSA is a theoretical model of the nature of word and text
meaning, which also makes predictions about meaning acquisition (Landauer, 2007;
Landauer & Duamis, 1997). In LSA, a word’s meaning is represented in its relationship
to all other word meanings within a high dimensional semantic space (Landauer, 1998).
In computational models of this space, large amounts of printed text become input to a
model that first calculates correlational information (how often words occur in the same
meaningful contexts such as sentences or paragraphs versus how often they occur in
different contexts), and then fits all the separate relations into a common semantic space
with a specified number of dimensions (Landauer, 1998; Landauer & Duamis, 1997).
Word meaning is modeled mathematically as a point or vector in this multidimensional
space, and word similarity is measured as the cosine of the angle between two vectors in
the multidimensional space (Landauer, 1998, 2007). The meaning of a text is also
represented as a point within a multidimensional semantic space, where the passage
meaning is derived from a linear equation so that the representation of the passage is
composed of the representations of all of the words it contains (Landauer, 2007).
Naturally, however, some words will be closer in meaning to the text as a whole
(mathematically), reflecting the relative importance of some words over others in a given
text. This relationship between passage meaning and word meaning motivates one part of
the hypothesis of the current study, namely that a reader’s comprehension of a given text
will be a function of the richness of the reader’s lexical semantics for the individual
words in that passage.

6
 With respect to word learning, new words in LSA models are assigned a location
in the multidimensional semantic space that corresponds to the meaning of the paragraph.
This motivates the second part of the hypothesis of the current study, namely that word
learning will be a function of a reader’s comprehension of a given text. Within LSA, the
meaning a word has (modeled as the number of semantic neighbors a word has in the
semantic space, and the similarity of those neighbors) is dependent not only on the
number and kind of exposures that a reader has had to that given word, but also the extent
of previous experience with other words. This is because previous language experience
affects the semantic space into which the new word is embedded. In fact, Landauer and
colleagues estimate (based on computational models) that how many times a given reader
encounters a given word accounts for only about half the variance in how well the reader
knows that word (Landauer, Kireyev, & Panaccione, 2011).
In effect, LSA provides an account of individual differences in word learning
based on the role of language experience. This is in contrast to accounts that emphasize
(presumably) stable intraindividual differences. For example, Bloom (2002) states that
“the right explanation for how people learn word meanings from nonsyntactic context
will not emerge from an analysis of capacities such as theory of mind, the ability to form
concepts, and an understanding of syntax- although such capacities have to be there for
these inferences to be made. It will instead emerge from a theory of problem solving in
general” (p. 194). In a similar argument, Sternberg (1987) proposes that individual
differences in ability to learn vocabulary from context relate to individual differences in
intelligence. Specifically, he states that much of intelligence consists of the ability to
learn from context, and he argues that learning vocabulary from context is a specific
instance of that general skill. Another example would come from Cain, Oakhill and
Bryant (2004), who found a relationship between word learning in a discourse context
and performance on measures of working memory.

7
Previous Empirical Studies

Although not theoretically motivated by LSA, other researchers have also

proposed that depth of knowledge of other words in a text should affect a reader’s ability
to learn new words in that text (Shefelbine, 1990), and that the ability to learn new words
through text is a function of reading comprehension (Diakidoy, 1998). The current study
has two important features that adds to this literature.
Firstly, unlike Shefelbine (1990), the current study includes an experimental
manipulation to increase reading comprehension of given passages, which potentially
allows conclusions to be drawn about causation. Diakidoy (1998) did employ an
experimental manipulation, but the intervention was not extensive enough to affect
reading comprehension of the passages. The intervention in the current study is more
intensive than in Diakidoy (1998).
Secondly, the current study attempts to control for intraindividual factors that
might be potential confounds. A reader's knowledge of individual words is manipulable
with short term intervention, but variables such as intelligence or working memory not
expected to be significantly altered by this particular intervention. This is of theoretical
interest because it allows a contrast between an experience based account (LSA) and
accounts that emphasize stable intraindividual differences. It also has clinical and
educational implications, since the intent in both clinical and educational practice is to
target skills that are both manipulable, and affect desired outcomes.

Research Questions

The design of this study is within subjects, repeated measures. Because the
proposed model involves causality, the study is an intervention study. The intervention
targets richness of lexical semantics. Research questions address components in the
model presented in Figure 1, namely text comprehension, and hypotheses about the
semantics of novel words. In addition, data will be collected to ensure that the
intervention to increase semantic richness based on Rich Vocabulary Intervention did

8
indeed result in measurable increases in semantic knowledge of taught words. This would
be expected, based on other studies that have shown an effect of Rich Vocabulary
Instruction (Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, & Hulme, 2010; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, &
Pople, 1985).

Question One

The first question asks whether intervention to increase semantic richness results
in increases in reading comprehension of a written text containing those words. The
hypothesis is that this intervention will result in increased semantic knowledge for
targeted words. Meta-analyses of previous studies concluded that there is evidence for
such an effect (Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).

Question Two

The second question asks if the richness of a reader’s lexical semantics (for
“known” words in a text) is a causal factor that affects the quality of the reader’s
hypotheses about the semantics of novel words, when the novel words are encountered in
text. The hypothesis, based on the theoretical model proposed earlier, is that the richness
of a given reader’s semantic representations will affect the reading comprehension of that
text, and reading comprehension will affect the quality of the reader’s hypotheses about
the semantics of novel words. Therefore, richness of a reader’s lexical semantics will be
a causal factor affecting the hypotheses about the semantics of novel words in a given
text.

Question Three

The third question asks if individual differences in initial reading comprehension

skill affect the amount of change in quality of the hypotheses about the semantics of
novel words, as a result of the lexical semantics intervention. The hypothesis is that

9
participants with higher initial reading comprehension ability will show greater gains in
word learning. This is based on other evidence that higher skill participants have
increased rates of word learning through reading text (McKeown, 1985; Shefelbine,
1990).

Question Four

The fourth question asks: if there is an effect of the richness of a reader’s lexical
semantics on the quality of hypotheses about the semantics of novel words, is this effect
mediated by reading comprehension? The hypothesis is that the effect of varying
richness of lexical semantics on the quality of hypotheses about the semantics of novel
words will be mediated by reading comprehension.

Study Design

The study design was repeated measures, with each participant tested in two
conditions (treated and untreated). The conditions were crossed between participants, so
each participant would serve as his/her own control.
The participants in the study were children in sixth grade. Participants with a
range of language comprehension scores were recruited. Children with low word
recognition scores were excluded because poor word recognition could affect reading
comprehension independent of the variable of interest.
Participants received intervention designed to improve the richness of semantic
knowledge for words from one of two lists. They completed measures of semantic
knowledge for targeted words before and after intervention, to ensure that the
intervention was effective. They then read two texts, one of which was loaded with
words that had been targeted in intervention, and one of which did not contain targeted
words. The two texts were counterbalanced across participants. All texts also contained
novel words (nonwords). After reading each text, measures were taken of reading

10
comprehension, and of the quality of the participant’s hypotheses about the semantics of
the novel words.
During the intervention phase, children spent approximately 5 sessions
developing a richer understanding of the semantics of 19 words. The target words were
selected from one of two lists, each corresponding to the lexical items found in one of the
two texts. Robust vocabulary instruction (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002, 2008) was
the basis for instruction. This approach has been empirically shown to be effective in
increasing both vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (Beck, McKeown, &
Omanson, 1987; Clarke et al., 2010). The semantic enrichment activities were done
orally, to prevent improvements in orthographic recognition that could potentially
confound the results. In a final session, participants read the two texts, and measures were
taken of reading comprehension and of the quality of their hypotheses about novel words
in the text.

Analysis

The prediction regarding intervention was that readers would have significantly
higher Total Semantic Knowledge scores for taught words post-intervention than pre-
intervention. The Total Semantic Knowledge score was a composite of a score on a
definition task, and context test questions, which use yes/no questions on a continuum of
difficulty (Kilian, Nagy, Pearson, Anderson, & Garcia, 1995; Stallman, Pearson, Nagy,
Anderson, & Garcia, 1995). The null hypothesis was that Total Semantic Knowledge
scores for taught words would be the same before and after intervention, and the
alternative hypothesis was that the Total Semantic Knowledge scores would be higher
after intervention. A paired, one tailed t-test was used to test the hypothesis.
The prediction for question one was that readers would have significantly higher
Reading Comprehension composite (RC) scores in the treated condition (where
participants were taught more about words in the text) than in an untreated condition
(where participants did not receive this intervention). The Reading Comprehension
composite consisted of the average of ratings for the story retell, and comprehension

11
question scores. The null hypothesis was that Reading Comprehension composite scores
(RC) would be the same in treated and untreated conditions, and the alternative
hypothesis was that Reading Comprehension composite scores would be higher for the
treated condition. A paired, one-tailed t-test of RC scores was used to test the hypothesis.
The prediction for question two was that readers would have significantly higher
Hypotheses of the Semantics of Novel Word (HSNW) composite scores in a treated
condition than in an untreated condition. HSNW composite scores were obtained by
taking the average of scores for the definitions of the novel words, and context test
questions about the meanings of novel words. The null hypothesis was that the HSNW
scores would be the same between treated and untreated conditions, and the alternative
hypothesis was that word learning scores would be higher for the treated condition. A
paired, one-tailed t-test was used to test the hypothesis.
The analysis for questions three and four was an analysis of covariance model in
which quality of hypotheses about the semantics of novel words was predicted from
measures of semantic richness for other words in the text. Mediation and moderation
analyses for within subjects designs has been outlined by Judd and colleagues (Judd,
Kenny, & McClelland, 2001).
The prediction for question three is that reading comprehension in the treated
condition will be a significant moderator variable in an analysis of covariance model in
which the difference in HSNW scores between treated and untreated conditions is the
dependent variable, and reading comprehension scores on the untreated passages are the
moderator variable. If so, this would mean that the level of reading comprehension in the
untreated condition affects the size of the treatment effect on hypotheses about the
semantics of novel words (Judd et al., 2001).
The prediction for question four was that in a mediation analysis in which the
difference in word learning scores between treated and untreated conditions was the
dependent variable, and reading comprehension scores on the tested paragraphs
represented the mediation variable, reading comprehension will be a statistically
significant mediation variable (Judd et al., 2001).

12
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will review literature related to the current study. Specifically, it will expand
on previous research related to the following topics: historical accounts of the
relationship between individual differences in reading and vocabulary, latent semantic
analysis, word reading while learning text, and empirical evidence regarding the effects
of vocabulary intervention on word knowledge and on reading comprehension.

Historical Accounts of the Relationship Between Individual Differences in Reading

and Vocabulary

It is well established that scores on reading comprehension measures are strongly

correlated with scores on vocabulary measures (e.g. Anderson & Freebody, 1981).
Several accounts have been proposed for these high correlations. Anderson and Freebody
(Anderson & Freebody, 1981) initially proposed three hypotheses: the instrumental,
knowledge, and verbal aptitude hypotheses. Two additional hypotheses, namely the
access hypothesis (Mezynski, 1983) and the reciprocal hypothesis (Stanovich, 1986),
have since been proposed, and have been included in more recent discussions of this
question (Elleman et al., 2009; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). These will each be discussed in
turn.

Instrumental Hypothesis

According to the instrumental hypothesis, it is necessary to have lexical entries

for most of the words in a given text in order to have adequate comprehension of that text
(Anderson & Freebody, 1981). As Nagy (2005) points out, there is clear validity to this
hypothesis. However this may not be the only reason for the vocabulary- reading
comprehension relationship. For example, Elleman and colleagues (2009) report that

13
while vocabulary instruction increases both knowledge of taught vocabulary, and reading
comprehension scores, the correlations between vocabulary and reading comprehension
growth are not as high as one would expect based on the instrumentalist hypothesis alone.
It should be noted that according to the instrumentalist hypothesis, individuals
who know “more of the words” in a text will understand that text better (Anderson &
Freebody, 1981, p. 80 emphasis added). This initial framing of the hypothesis then
concerns number of words in a text that are known. In contrast, the current study
manipulated richness of lexical semantic knowledge for those words. Familiarity with all
of the words in the experimental paragraphs was controlled by ensuring that participants
could identify all words in the untreated texts as being words. If they did not recognize
them as words, they were told a brief definition of the words. Hence, the current study
does not speak to this narrow interpretation of the instrumentalist hypothesis.

Aptitude Hypothesis

According to Anderson and Freebody’s (1981) second hypothesis, the aptitude

hypothesis, underlying aptitude may account for high co-occurrences of reading
comprehension and vocabulary scores. Anderson and Freebody used the phrase ‘mental
agility’ to describe a variable that might underly both vocabulary development and
reading comprehension. Other more specific candidates for this verbal ability have been
proposed. For example, Sternberg (1987) suggested that intelligence, and in particular the
ability to make inferences from context, could account for the high co-occurrences of
both reading comprehension and vocabulary. Nagy (2005) proposed that metalinguistic
skill might underly performance on both measures. Cain, Oakhill, and Lemmon (2004)
discuss evidence that working memory is related both to reading comprehension and
inferencing about the meaning of new words presented in text.
The current study used a within subjects design, which allowed for control of any
stable aptitude factors.

14
 Knowledge Hypothesis

According to the knowledge hypothesis, higher vocabulary scores are merely

indicative of increased background knowledge, and it is this background knowledge that
contributes to reading comprehension (Anderson & Freebody, 1981). The knowledge
hypothesis emphasizes conceptual understanding, which Anderson and Freebody
distinguish from the meanings of individual words that are included in a given text. It is
not clear from Anderson and Freebody’s description (1981) whether they would consider
‘conceptual knowledge’ and ‘lexical semantic knowledge’ to be the same construct.
However, it seems that it would be challenging to distinguish between the two in a
measurable and psychologically meaningful way, and it is plausible to include lexical
semantic knowledge in the knowledge hypothesis. There is certainly evidence that
comprehension skill relates to lexical semantic knowledge. For example, Petersen and
Elbro (2009) reported that performance on an odd-one-out semantics task made an
independent contribution to reading comprehension, even after controlling for vocabulary
breadth (number of words in a reader’s lexicon). Further, poor comprehenders show
evidence of reduced lexical semantic knowledge as measured by priming (Nation &
Snowling, 1999), category judgment (Cain, Tring, & Guillaume, 2009), and false
recollection tasks (Weekes, Hamilton, Oakhill, & Holliday, 2008).
It is important to note that vocabulary depth (depth of knowledge about the
meaning of words) and breadth (number of words known) are not unrelated concepts. In
fact, it has been argued (McGregor, Oleson, Bahnsen, & Duff, 2013; Vermeer, 2001) that
vocabulary breadth (number of words known) and depth (richness of semantic
representations) reflect the same phenomenon measured in different ways.
In the current study, lexical semantic knowledge (vocabulary depth) is
manipulated. To the extent that lexical semantic knowledge is considered to be
congruent with “knowledge” in the knowledge hypothesis, the current study could be
considered a test of this hypothesis.

15
 Access Hypothesis

In their review of hypotheses regarding reading comprehension and vocabulary

relationships, Stahl and Nagy (2006) discuss the proposal by Mezyinski (1983) that
automaticity of word knowledge, especially automaticity of accessing word meaning, is
important in text comprehension. Automaticity, classically described by Laberge and
Samuels (1974), is considered to occur when word recognition occurs without attention,
which frees up processing resources for semantic processing. However, there are
different ways to conceive of what it means to “access word meaning” automatically, and
some emphasize visual and orthographic processing only, whereas others emphasize
semantic comprehension processes as well (Samuels, 2006). Two different mechanisms
might account for increased automaticity of lexical semantic access. The first account is
that better comprehenders have increased automaticity of word recognition, freeing up
cognitive resources for the semantic aspects of text comprehension. The second account
is that better comprehenders have more enriched semantic representations, which results
in more automatic semantic access. To support this second possibility, there is evidence
that speed of semantic access on a variety of tasks is related to reading comprehension
skill (Oakhill, McCarthy, Cain, & Nightingale, 2009). These two mechanisms that might
increase lexical semantic access during reading are naturally not mutually exclusive, and
either one or both could operate within a given individual.
In the current study, the intervention would not be expected to affect speed and
accuracy of orthographic word recognition. This is because participants were not exposed
to the written form of the targeted words during the intervention. Therefore, this variable
was controlled. However, increased semantic knowledge as a result of the intervention
could lead to more automatic semantic access to those words.

Reciprocal Hypothesis

A final hypothesis is that the relationship between vocabulary and reading

comprehension is bidirectional. In this model, sometimes called the “Matthew effect”,

16
individual differences in vocabulary skill affects reading comprehension, and reading
skill affects the amount of new word learning that occurs while reading text (Stanovich,
1986). This results in a cyclical process, in which individual differences increase over
time. Hence, it is the only account in this discussion that considers how reading
comprehension and vocabulary interact developmentally. The “Matthew Effect” was
originally proposed as a way of accounting for the trajectory of scientific research careers
(Merton, 1968). It refers to a biblical text, which refers to the ‘rich’ getting ‘richer’ and
the ‘poor’ getting ‘poorer’.
The widely cited paper by Stanovich (1986) actually contains multiple predictions
about cognitive and language relationships for which there might be cumulative
advantages and disadvantages, a point that Stanovich emphasizes in his later writing
(Stanovich, 2000). Of concern in this discussion is the specific prediction that there may
be a Matthew effect for reading skill and vocabulary, such that growth rates in
vocabulary differ across reading skill level, even while absolute vocabulary skill levels
increase for all. This part of the review will focus on evidence for increasing individual
differences in vocabulary, and five key studies related to this question will be discussed.
Aarnoutse and van Leeuwe (2000) questioned the existence of a Matthew effect
for reading and vocabulary, based on their report that poor readers showed larger effect
sizes in vocabulary growth than did good readers in early elementary grades. This study
measured vocabulary with a written measure, so vocabulary and written language skills
may have been confounded. In contrast, Kempe, Eriksson-Gustavsson, and Samuelsson
(2011) reported evidence of a Matthew effect on the growth of vocabulary in first to third
grades, as measured orally using the WISC-III. Both of these studies looked for a
Matthew effect in early elementary grades. However, children in early elementary school
are not yet routinely encountering words in text that they don’t already know. For
example, Biemiller (2005) reports that, from 3rd grade onward, 95% of children could
read more words than they could explain, but that this was not true in earlier grades.
Therefore, a Matthew effect for vocabulary may not be expected at the developmental
time point that Aarnouste and van Leeuwe and Kempe and colleagues studied.

17
 Three studies have examined evidence for a Matthew effect for vocabulary and
reading in older children. Cain and Oakhill (Cain & Oakhill, 2011) investigated rates of
vocabulary growth for children between the ages of 8 and 16, and reported that readers
with poor reading comprehension skills showed lower rates of vocabulary growth than
those with good comprehension. They concluded that there was a Matthew effect for
reading skill on vocabulary. Stothard, Snowling, Bishop, Chipchase, and Kaplan (1998)
reported a decrease in scores on the British Vocabulary Scale between ages 8 and 15 for
children who had been classified as having persistent specific language impairment and
general delay, but not for children whose language was within the expected range, or for
children whose early language concerns had resolved by age 5. A recent study (Duff,
Tomblin, & Catts, in press) found that word reading skill in fourth grade was related to
the rate of vocabulary growth between fourth and tenth grades. Unlike previous studies,
developmental scaling (which equated item difficulty across ages) was used. Also unique
to this study was control for the rate of vocabulary learning prior to literacy instruction.
This is important because factors that influence word learning before reading are likely to
still exert an influence on vocabulary development after reading begins.
Stanovich’s (1986) proposal about reading and vocabulary considered reading in a
broad sense. However, there is more than one way in which the cyclical relationships
described by Stanovich might occur. Firstly, an increased volume of reading experience
might lead to more opportunities for word learning. This the premise of the Duff,
Tomblin, and Catts study (in press), which used word reading as an indicator variable for
amount of reading experience. Alternatively, children might vary in the amount of benefit
that they derive from the experience of encountering new words in text. This would
seems to be the mechanism investigated by Cain and Oakhill (2011) and Stothard and
colleagues (1998). These studies used language and reading comprehension as predictor
variables. Naturally, these two mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the high
co-occurrence of word reading and language disorders (Catts, Adlof, & Ellis Weismer,
2006) suggests that it is very likely that both mechanisms could be operative for many
students.

18
 The current study concerns the second mechanism of the reciprocal hypothesis,
namely factors that affect the amount of learning that individuals do when they encounter
new words in text. Specifically, it looks at the effect of lexical semantic knowledge on
both reading comprehension, and inferencing about the meanings of novel words.

Latent Semantic Analysis

As outlined in the first chapter, LSA is a model that would predict a close
relationship between lexical semantic knowledge and reading comprehension, as well as
between reading comprehension and novel word learning. This chapter will include a
more indepth discussion of how LSA models word meaning, text meaning, novel word
meanings, and the relationship between previous word exposure and novel word learning.

Word Meaning

The meaning of a word is represented in LSA with respect to its relationship to all
other word meanings within a high dimensional semantic space (Landauer, 1998).
Computational models use both correlational data about how often words occur in the
same meaningful contexts such as sentences or paragraphs versus how often they occur in
different contexts, and a process called singular value decomposition. Singular value
decomposition fits all the separate relations into a common semantic space with a
specified number of dimensions (Landauer, 1998; Landauer & Duamis, 1997). The
number of dimensions in the high dimensional space is critical, and it has been reported
that using between 100 and 1000 dimensions produces the best match to human data
(Landauer, 1998, 2007). As discussed earlier, word meaning in this model is considered
to be a point or vector in this multidimensional space, and word similarity is measured as
the cosine of the angle between two vectors in the multidimensional space (Landauer,
1998, 2007). As a result, words with similar meaning are closer in this semantic space
than are words with dissimilar meanings (Landauer, 2007). In fact, any word’s meaning
is defined in terms of its relationship to other words. As an illustration, the word

19
“physician” is given relatively high LSA similarities to “patients” (0.82) “physicians”
(0.82), “patient” (0.80), “surgery”(0.74) “nurse” (0.74), “medications” (0.72) and
“surgical” (0.72) but relatively weak associations with words such as “aseptic” and
“hypotension” (0.50 each), and very weak associations with words such as “libel”,
“arachnoid”, and “supine” (0.25 each) (Landauer, Kintsch, & Laham, 2015).

Text Meaning

The meaning of a text is derived from a linear equation so that the representation
of the passage is composed of the representations of all of the words it contains
(Landauer, 2007). Hence, text meaning is also represented as a point within the
multidimensional semantic space. Modeling of text meaning by LSA has been used to
mark essays by comparing the students’ answers to a model, with reliability similar to
human judgments of the essay quality (Landauer, 1998). Similarly, an LSA model
trained on an introductory psychology textbook is able to correctly identify correct
answers on a multiple choice test at a level only somewhat poorer than university
students taking the course, and well enough to ‘pass’ the exam (Landauer, 1998).

Novel Word Learning

Within LSA, novel words are initially assigned the location in the
multidimensional space that corresponds to the meaning of the text. Landauer (2007)
states that “the LSA prediction is that vocabulary should grow in each individual by
embedding words both old and new in a large, common, and increasingly stable semantic
space” (p. 25). Earlier work with LSA indicated that the model could simulate changes
in word knowledge with experience. For example, Landauer (2007) reports that in an
unpublished simulation, early word knowledge was characterized by many neighbours of
modest similarity. These words were “fuzzily defined” because of the “sparseness of
possible embeddings” (p. 23). The quality of word representation and paragraph
representation grow in a “mutually reinforcing iterative process” (Landauer, 2007, p. 47)

20
that results in incremental word meaning growth. With more experience (more text
inputed to the model), each word had a smaller number of more tightly clustered
neighbours, and the simulation with the most experience had largest number of
neighbours, not all of which were close neighbours.

Relationship between Previous Word Exposure and Novel Word Learning

It is notable that within LSA, “the solution for any one word may depend on the
solution of many other words; indeed, changing any one could, in principle, change every
other” (Landauer, 2007, p. 33). Hence, within an LSA model, both exposure to target
words and exposure to linguistic contexts in which the target word did not occur,
contributed to word learning of the target word. In terms of the computer simulation, the
model that has had more text exposure requires fewer recomputations of the singular
value decomposition with more new input, and can instead generate appropriate
meanings by placing the new word at the average point of all the paragraphs in which
they occur, a process that Landauer terms being “folded in” (Landauer, 2007). Indeed,
simulations of vocabulary development with LSA have found that some of the words that
the LSA model “learned” (i.e. newly correct responses on multiple choice vocabulary
tests) were words that the simulation had not been recently exposed to (Landauer, 2007).
In fact, in an LSA simulation of a schoolaged child reading new text, most new word
learning was accounted for by this type of indirect learning (Landauer & Dumais, 1997).
Using the optimum number of dimensions in the model seems to be what allows
the computational model to acquire knowledge through indirect induction, i.e. by
exposure to text not containing words used in the tests of the model. For example, LSA
was used to simulate student performance on Test of English as a Foreign Language
exam, and got ‘grades’ similar to that of applicants to US colleges who were not native
speakers of English, if the number of dimensions in the semantic space was
approximately 300 (Landauer & Duamis, 1997). When the simulation used either three
dimensions, or had no dimensionality reduction (a potentially infinite number of
dimensions), then accuracy fell from about 65% to 13%, or 16% respectively (Landauer

21
& Dumais, 1997). The argument (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) is that there is a difference
between words that rarely co-occur because their meanings are unrelated, and words that
rarely co-occur because they are synonymous (and use of one word in a given context
means that the other doesn’t need to be used). This difference can be captured by
considering mutual co-occurrences, since nearly synonymous words will occur in similar
contexts, but unrelated words will not. Using a small number of dimensions could result
in important information being lost about word relationships (just as a map of three points
in a three dimensional space would lose important information if it were fit into a one
dimensional line). Using too many dimensions could fail to take advantage of other
regularities in the input, such as where a word does not occur (just as a map of three
points in a three dimensional space would be made less clear if it was plotted in more
than three dimensions). This prediction from the computational model is consistent with
empirical findings that interventions designed to increase vocabulary have a “slight but
significant general facilitative effect on reading comprehension of passages in
standardized tests not designed to contain taught words” (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986, p. 94).
The LSA model predicts the rate of acquisition of new words accelerating as a
function of the number of words previously encountered. For example, a simulated 50-
year old reader would learn a new word in two exposures, but a simulated 20 year old
took eight exposures (Landauer, 2007). Similarly, if the model was exposed to a new
word after first encountering 64,000 paragraphs (none of which contained the new word),
the new word was learned more than twice as fast as the same model which had only
been exposed to 16,000 paragraphs (Landauer et al., 2011).
More recently, the developers of LSA have developed a metric called Word
Maturity, which provides a measure of how close a given word’s representation is to the
adult representation, given different levels of text experience (Landauer et al., 2011). This
provides a way of tracking developmental changes in lexical representation with
increasing amounts of language exposure (Landauer et al., 2011). The Word Maturity
metric can generate a ‘word maturity curve’ for each word, in which the closeness of a
word’s meaning to the adult meaning is plotted against the amount of previous text
exposure. The shape and slope of these word maturity curves differ across words

22
(Biemiller, Rosenstein, Sparks, Landauer, & Folz, 2014). Finally, a metric called Time
To Maturity (TTM) uses the word maturity curves to establish the amount of time
(modeled as cumulative text exposure) that would be needed to acquire a moderate level
of word knowledge per exposure. Predictions from this model about order of acquisition
of words are strongly correlated to behavioural data about the order of word acquisition
(Biemiller et al., 2014).

Word Learning While Reading Text

In general, effect sizes are small in studies of incidental word learning while
reading text. Swanborn and de Glopper (1999) concluded that students learn about 15%
of words encountered while reading. Nonetheless, as discussed earlier, reading novel
words in text is presumed to be the most frequent way in which new words are learned,
for older children and adults (Nagy et al., 1985). Hence, variables that affect this process
could be expected to be important in the rate of long-term vocabulary growth. The
literature on variables that affect incidental word learning while reading text will be
reviewed here.

Text Variables

There are a number of text variables that affect learning about the meanings of
novel words. First, contexts which are more constraining (give more semantic cues) result
in better word learning on behavioral measures (Bolger, Balsas, Landen, & Perfetti, 2008;
Frishkoff, Perfetti, & Collins-Thompson, 2010) and on ERP measures both immediately
after exposure, and two days after training (Frishkoff et al., 2010). Swanborn and de
Glopper (2002) refer to these as “considerate texts”. Further, contexts that provided a
synonym are more likely to result in learning than contexts which provided more indirect
information (Carnine, Kameenui, & Coyle, 1984), and learning is slowed by misleading
semantic contexts (Frishkoff, Collins-Thompson, Perfetti, & Callan, 2008). Texts that
contain explanations of key concepts and the relationships between them, result in more

23
word learning, than texts with similar content but without such explanations (Herman,
Anderson, Pearson, & Nagy, 1987). Providing multiple semantic contexts results in
higher levels of incidental word learning than a single context, even if that one context is
repeated on multiple trials (Bolger et al., 2008).

Task Variables

In addition to variables related to the text, there are task variables that are related
to the measured amount of learning for novel words in text. A meta analysis indicated
that assessment tasks that are sensitive to partial word knowledge (such as sequenced
multiple choice questions) result in higher levels of incidental word learning than
assessment tasks that do not (such as definitions coded in a correct/ incorrect format)
(Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). This is unsurprising, given the incremental nature of
word learning, especially in this incidental way. Instructions given to students regarding
the purpose of reading (e.g. “free reading”, “learning as much about the topic as possible”
and “text comprehension”) also have an effect on the rate of incidental word learning,
although this interacts with participant skill level. In contrast, Kilian, Nagy, Pearson,
Anderson, & Garcia (1995) reported that drawing attention to difficult words in the text
did not have an impact on measures of vocabulary learning, although it had a negative
impact on reading comprehension. Frishkoff, Perfetti, and Collins-Thompson (2010)
asked adult participants to provide a synonym after each presentation of a novel word,
and proposed that the relatively high levels of word learning in their study might be
attributed to this task demand, which promoted deeper and more active processing of
meaning.

Reader Variables

Reader variables also affect the amount of word learning from text. In general,
the ability to derive meanings from text increases through the elementary grades
(Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). This review will also consider three other types of

24
reader ability: vocabulary, reading comprehension, general cognitive measures, and
diagnostic status.
In terms of vocabulary, McKeown (1985) showed in an early study that higher
ability students (defined by vocabulary scores on the Stanford Achievement Test) derived
more of the meaning of novel words, than did lower ability students. Similarly,
Shelefbine (1990) concluded that students with low vocabulary scores learned less about
new words, both proportionately and absolutely, than students with higher vocabulary
scores.
With respect to reading comprehension, Swanborn and de Glopper’s (1999) meta-
analysis concluded that readers with higher comprehension skill are more likely to
successfully derive word meaning from context. More recently, Cain, Oakhill, and Elbro
(2003) concluded that children with weak reading comprehension encountered more
difficulty determining the meaning of novel words, relative to their peers with stronger
comprehension. Perfetti, Wlotko and Hart (2005) extended these findings to include both
behavioral and ERP measures. All of these studies used comparisons between
individuals, rather than measures of reading comprehension and word learning within
individuals.
In terms of domain general cognitive processes, Cain, Oakhill, and Lemmon
(2004) investigated individual differences in inferring word meanings from context, and
concluded that working memory capacity, but not short term memory or memory for
literal text content, were related to this skill. Shefelbine (1990) reported that analytic
reasoning, as measured by Raven’s Progressive Matrices task, was not related to skill in
word learning from context.
Finally, Steele and Watkins (2010) reported that children with a diagnosis of
language learning disability learned less about words in context than same age peers.
Steele (2105) reported that children with a language learning disability had similar
performance to their vocabulary matched peers.

25
 Interactions Between Variables

Finally, there are some variables that have been reported to interact with one
another to affect a reader’s success in learning new words from text. For example,
Swanborn and de Glopper (1999) report that the percentage of known words accounts for
variance in incidental word learning. For example, in a text with 1 unknown word per
150 words, the probability of learning a word is about 0.3, but this drops to 0.07 if the
text contains 1 unknown word per 75 words. The ratio of known to unknown words is
clearly a function of not just the text, but the reader’s vocabulary. Shefelbine (1990)
proposes that this is one important reason why low vocabulary readers are at a
disadvantage in terms of learning new words. Cain, Oakhill and Lemmon (2004) and
Cain, Oakhill and Elbro (2003) reported that poor comprehenders were negatively
affected by a condition in which context clues were not adjacent to the novel word.
However, readers with strong comprehension were not affected by this manipulation.
Presumably, weak comprehenders were adversely affected by the high processing
demands of the non-adjacent condition. Steele (2015) reports that increased number of
exposures to the word was helpful to the semantic word learning of participants with
LLD, but not their age-matched peers.A final example of how reader skill level may
interact with other factors comes from the study by Swanborn and de Glopper (2002).
They found that average-ability readers learned the most words in the “learn about the
topic” condition. However, low ability readers learned more in the “free reading”
condition, with no gains by being asked to read to find out more about the topic or being
told that the purpose of reading was text comprehension.
Hence, word learning through reading text is a complex process. Its’ success is
likely to be affected by a wide range of variables, both internal and external to the reader.
Those variables also interact with one another, and this yields a complex picture of the
ways in which reader and text variables interact. In the current study, reader variables
other than vocabulary knowledge are controlled by use of a within subjects design, and
text variables are also controlled as far as possible.

26
Vocabulary Intervention

In general, there are three different approaches in the literature for increasing
word knowledge (McGregor & Duff, 2014). One approach is to increase exposure to a
wide variety of words to enhance opportunities for incidental learning. A second is to
directly teach vocabulary meanings. A third approach is metalinguistic, explicitly
teaching morphological or context based strategies to infer word meaning. The relative
value of these approaches has been debated. Some researchers have argued that direct
vocabulary instruction is needed in order to improve student outcomes, especially in the
area of reading comprehension (e.g., Beck et al., 2002, 2008; Biemiller, 2010a). Beck and
colleagues (Beck et al., 2002, 2008) argue that written contexts are highly variable in
terms of semantic informativeness, and that further, struggling readers often do not
engage in enough wide reading to provide a range of vocabulary exposure. Finally, there
is evidence that weak readers may derive less from context than strong readers do
(McKeown, 1985; Ricketts, Bishop, & Nation, 2008; Shefelbine, 1990). All these might
argue against relying on incidental word learning to increase word knowledge. However,
others advocated an intervention emphasis on increasing incidental vocabulary learning
(Nagy, 2010; Nagy & Herman, 1987). They have argued that the intensity of vocabulary
training required to affect comprehension, combined with the large number of words
which could be taught, means that a direct approach to vocabulary development is
impractical or impossible. These critiques of direct intervention have motivated proposals
about which words would be optimally targeted by direct instruction (Beck et al., 2002,
2008; Biemiller, 2005, 2010b; McKeown & Beck, 1988), and research about ways to
increase the number of words taught (Biemiller & Boote, 2006).
The intervention in this study is a direct vocabulary instruction, and this review
will consider the body of research on this topic. In particular, the discussion will include
the characteristics of instruction that is effective in promoting greater semantic
knowledge of taught words, and approaches to selecting vocabulary for intervention.
There is ample evidence that direct vocabulary instruction with school age
children results in increases in semantic knowledge of words (Apthorp, 2006; Apthorp et

27
al., 2012; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Lawrence, Capotosto, Branum-Martin, White, &
Snow, 2012; Lesaux, Kieffer, Kelley, & Harris, 2014; Loftus, Coyne, McCoach, Zipoli,
& Pullen, 2010; Lovelace & Stewart, 2009; McKeown & Beck, 2014; McKeown et al.,
1985; Pullen, Tuckwiller, Konold, Maynard, & Coyne, 2010; Zipoli, Coyne, & McCoach,
2011). In particular, the following characteristics of instruction have been identified as
resulting in greater gains in word knowledge: providing examples of the word’s use in
multiple contexts (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Bolger, Balass, Landen, & Perfetti, 2008;
McKeown et al., 1985), multiple exposures to the word (Biemiller & Boote, 2006;
McKeown et al., 1985), activities that require greater depth of processing about the word
meaning (Beck et al., 1987; McKeown & Beck, 2014; Zipoli et al., 2011), and extension
activities outside the classroom (McKeown et al., 1985). Robust vocabulary instruction
(Beck et al., 2002, 2008) is an approach that incorporates these elements. There is
evidence for the effectiveness of this approach in increasing semantic knowledge of
taught words, both from the developers of Robust Vocabulary Instruction and their
colleagues (Apthorp et al., 2012; Beck et al., 1987; McKeown & Beck, 2014), and from
other researchers who have used methods related to robust vocabulary instruction
(Apthorp, 2006; Clarke et al., 2010). Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) describe three
key features to this approach: frequent encounters with target words, richness of
instruction, and extension of word use beyond the classroom. Richness of instruction is
provided by introducing the word in a discourse context, providing other examples and a
definition that is “student friendly”, then a series of activities that promote depth of
processing. Such activities may be in a variety of formats, including semantic judgments
about situations or sentences that include one or more target words, sentence completion
tasks, and generation of examples of target word use.
One issue in the area of direct vocabulary intervention is selecting words for
intervention (McGregor & Duff, 2014). A common approach comes from Beck and
McKeown (Beck et al., 2002, 2008). They describe words in three “tiers”: tier one words
are high frequency, and characteristic of oral language (words such as “clock” or
“happy”), tier three words are characteristic of literate language but highly domain
specific (such as “photosynthesis” or “lathe”), and two words are characteristic of literate

28
language, but are domain general (such as “cautiously” or “especially”). Their
recommendation is to target tier two words in order to support comprehension across
multiple texts, prioritizing words that relate to familiar concepts.
An alternative approach is to consider order of acquisition. Biemiller and Slonim
(2001) present evidence that word meanings are learned in roughly the same sequence by
children with different amounts of advantage in their language background (native and
non native speakers, low and high SES). Based on this evidence, and data about how
many children at various grade levels know specific words, Biemiller (2010b) has
developed ratings for a large number of English word meanings, indicating their
appropriateness for instruction in primary or middle school children.

Effects of Vocabulary Intervention on Reading Comprehension

A meta-analysis by Elleman and colleagues (2009) considered the evidence that

vocabulary intervention could impact reading comprehension. Some important findings
from that study will be reported here. They concluded that receiving vocabulary
intervention resulted in increases in reading comprehension, where the outcome measures
were aligned to the treatment. The effect size for standardized comprehension measures
was not significantly different from zero. However, the effect size for custom-designed
measures that had been aligned to treatment, was 0.50. The effect size for reading
comprehension benefits of vocabulary intervention was substantially larger for students
with reading difficulties (those who had a reading disability, or were at risk of one). This
occurred despite the fact that vocabulary gains were similar in the two groups. Finally,
the effect of intervention on vocabulary was only moderately related to the effect of
intervention on reading comprehension, with r=0.43.
Effects of vocabulary treatment on reading comprehension have also been found
in other studies since that meta-analysis. For example, Apthorp, Randel, Cherasaro,
Clark, McKeown, and Beck (2012) implemented a large scale study involving vocabulary
intervention with more than 16,000 students. They found that the intervention had effects
on knowledge of taught words, and comprehension of passages containing taught words,

29
but not on comprehension of unrelated texts. Other studies have looked at the effect of
vocabulary instruction on the comprehension of readers with weak comprehension. A
very important study by Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, and Hulme (2010) implemented
three interventions for poor comprehenders: one focused on metacognitive strategies, one
on oral language development (including vocabulary, narratives, and figurative
language), and one combined treatment group. All three of their three interventions
resulted in improvements in reading comprehension for poor comprehenders, however
the largest gains were maid by the oral language group. Further, vocabulary was a
mediator of the gains in reading comprehension, suggesting a causal role for vocabulary
in reading comprehension difficulties of poor comprehenders.
In addition to this study that looked at poor comprehenders in particular, a number
of intervention studies have investigated the effect of vocabulary intervention on readers
with other risk factors for reading. For example, a large scale study of academic
vocabulary instruction found increases in comprehension of passages containing taught
words, with effect sizes that were larger for linguistically disadvantaged readers (those
with low vocabulary knowledge, or bilingual readers who had not yet attained high levels
of English proficiency) (Lesaux, Kieffer, Kelley, & Harris, 2014). Similarly, students in
a very low performing school were given vocabulary instruction, and the investigators
reported gains in reading comprehension using an experimenter designed measure
(Lubliner & Smetana, 2015). Each of these findings are consistent with the conclusion of
Elleman and colleagues (2009), namely that readers who have a disability, or who are at
risk for reading comprehension difficulties, are especially likely to benefit from
vocabulary intervention to improve reading comprehension. Vocabulary instruction can
be considered a promising approach for reading interventions with these populations
(Duff & Clarke, 2011).

30
 CHAPTER 3

METHODS

This chapter will describe the methods used for the study, describing participants,
methods and analysis.

Participants

Participants were initially recruited through after school programs, with particular
efforts to recruit in programs serving children from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Eight participants were recruited in this way. A recruitment email was then sent to
members of the University of Iowa community, and this resulted in the recruitment of a
further 15 participants, for a total of n=23. All recruitment, consent, and study
procedures were approved by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board.
Selection criteria were as follows: enrolled in sixth grade, English as a first or
main language, no uncorrected visual impairment or hearing loss, no diagnosis of
dyslexia, developmental delay, or autism spectrum disorder. Parents were asked in
screening questions if their children met these selection criteria. The rationale for
selecting participants in this grade range was to ensure that word reading skill didn’t
serve as the primary limitation to participants’ reading comprehension. The contribution
of word reading to reading comprehension decreases over reading development, and after
grade four, there is a lower correlation between decoding scores and reading
comprehension scores (Francis, Fletcher, Catts, & Tomblin, 2005). Therefore, by sixth
grade, one would expect that word reading would not be the primary limiting factor in
reading comprehension for most students (those who are typical readers or poor
comprehenders). Both fifth and sixth graders were recruited for a pilot study, but pilot
data suggested that the stimuli might be better suited to the older participants.

31
 All participants were tested in the winter and spring of their sixth grade year.
Ages at the start of the study ranged between 11-01 years and 12-08 years (M=11-10,
SD=0-5). Table 1 summarizes the background measures for participants in the study.

Table 1: Participant Scores on Standardized Measures of Reading and Vocabulary

Measure Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Raw Scores Standard Scores, Age
Norms
WRMT Word Attack (n=23) 32.1 (5.6) 100.7(9.3)
Mean=100, SD=15
WRMT Word Identification (n=23) 82.9 (7.9) 106.8 (10.7)
Mean=100, SD=15
GORT Passage Comprehension Score (n=23) 39.0 (10.8) 12.5 (4.09)
Mean=10, SD= 3
PPVT (n=21) 186.5 (14.7) 115.4(11.8)
Mean=100, SD=15

The goal was to recruit twenty participants. More than twenty participants were
recruited to account for participants who might not qualify, or might choose to withdraw.
However, all participants who completed the consent/ assent procedure qualified, and no
participants withdrew from the study. Therefore, the sample size (n=23) was slightly
larger than targeted.
With respect to word reading skills, the scores on word attack and word
identification subtests of the WRMT were similar to the population norms. One
participant had a score on the WI subtest that was just below 1 SD below the mean
(SS=74), indicating a weakness in reading nonwords. However, that same participant had
a word identification score that was within one standard deviation from the mean (SS=83,
indicating skills in the typical range for reading of real words. Data from this participant
were included in analysis.

32
 Despite efforts to recruit participants from a variety of backgrounds, the recruited
sample was biased towards participants with high levels of reading comprehension and
receptive vocabulary skill, as measured by the PPVT and GORT.

Stimuli and Materials

Standardized Assessments

During an initial visit, each participant completed the following standardized

measures: Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised (WRMT-R) Word Identification
(WI) subtest (Woodcock, 1987), Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests- Revised (WRMT-R)
Word Attack (WA) subtest (Woodcock, 1987), and Gray Oral Reading Tests, 3rd edition
(GORT-3), Comprehension Score. In addition, participants completed the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test-4 Form A (Dunn & Dunn, 2007) during visit 3. Stimuli were
presented to participants on a computer screen, using stimuli provided by the
manufacturer.
The purpose of administration of these standardized measures was to aid with
interpretation of findings about individual differences in responses to the experimental
intervention. These tasks are all well established standardized measures designed to
measure word reading skills (WRMT-R), reading comprehension (GORT-3), and
receptive vocabulary (PPVT-R). The GORT-3 was selected because unlike some
measures of reading comprehension, it loads more heavily on listening comprehension
than decoding (Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008). The task in the GORT-3,
responding to multiple choice questions after reading a text, is also different from the
experimental tasks. Further, stimuli from the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) were
used to develop experimental stimuli for this study, meaning that this test would not have
been appropriate as a general measure of reading comprehension.

33
 Experimenter Designed Lexical Decision Task

An experimenter designed lexical decision task was administered during session

one. The purpose of this task was to ensure that participants had at least some familiarity
with all the words in both conditions so that any differences between conditions could be
attributed to richness of lexical semantic knowledge, rather than proportion of known
words. Since participants would get extensive exposure to words in the treated condition,
each participant completed only the version in the untreated condition. During the lexical
decision task, participants were asked to judge if phonological forms that they heard were
real words or not. Half of the words/ phrases were training items that were untreated for
that participant, and half of the words/phrases were nonwords selected to have similar
phonological properties. Specifically, each nonword was matched to a real word for
number of syllables, and nonwords were selected to have the highest wordlikeness rating
(Stiles, D., personal communication, Sept. 12, 2012). Words and nonwords were
presented in random order. If participants incorrectly identified a real word/ phrase as a
nonword, they were informed at the end of the task that it was a real word, and a brief
definition was read to them. Hence, we can be assured that participants had at least a very
low level of word knowledge (recognition of the word forms as words) for all words in
the untreated condition. Stimuli for this task are presented in Appendix A.

Selection of Words Taught During Intervention

Two sets of lexical items were selected, one from each of the two paragraphs used
at the end of the experiment (“Anthony” and “Carnegie”). Words to be taught during
intervention were selected from the two texts on the basis of two criteria: how important
they were to the meaning of the text, and whether they had semantics that were
sufficiently complex to allow meaningful semantic instruction for children of this age.
Nearly every word in each of the two texts was considered according to those criteria.
The following categories of words were excluded from this analysis: grammatical words

34
(determiners, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, negatives, the word ‘to’), high
frequency verbs (to be, to do, modal/ auxiliary verbs), proper nouns (names of people,
locations, companies), numerals. Compound nouns (e.g. “United States”, “North
American”) were considered as a single unit. In some cases, a short phrase was used
rather than a word because the meaning of the phrase was significantly different than the
meaning of individual words (e.g. “in doing so”, “fight the charges”). All remaining
words in the paragraphs were analyzed as described below.
LSA term to document comparison measures were generated for each word, as an
initial indicator of how important the word was to the meaning of the text. Analysis was
done with LSA computational procedures (Dennis, 2011), which compare the meaning of
a word to the meaning of the original text as a whole, in the multidimensional LSA space.
Similarity scores fall between -1 to 1.
Two methods were used to establish each word’s potential for meaningful
instruction: the “Words Worth Teaching” (WWT) norms (Biemiller, 2010b), and the
“tier two” approach (Beck et al., 2002). The “Words Worth Teaching” norms are based
on the work of Biemiller and Slonim (2001), who present evidence that word meanings
are learned in roughly the same sequence by children with different amounts of
advantage in their language background (native and non native speakers, low and high
SES). Based on this evidence, and data about how many children at various grade levels
know specific words, Biemiller (2010b) has developed ratings for a large number of
English word meanings, indicating their appropriateness for instruction in primary or
middle school children. Words are rated as follows: “E” (easy even for primary
students), “T2” (priority for direct instruction in primary grades), “L2” (low priority for
direct instruction in primary grades), “T6” (priority for direct instruction in upper
elementary grades), “L6” (low priority for direct instruction in upper elementary grades),
and “D” (difficult for elementary students at any level). The coding system applies to
word meanings, so homographs may have different ratings for each meaning. For this
study, the rating for each word in the paragraphs was determined. Not all words in this
study were included in the “Words Worth Teaching” (WWT) norms, and these were
categorized as “N” (no rating available). For these items, a measure of appropriateness

35
for instruction was taken from the work of Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002, 2008).
They describe words in three “tiers”: tier one words are higher frequency, and
characteristic of oral language (words such as “clock” or “happy”), tier three words are
characteristic of literate language but highly domain specific (such as “photosynthesis” or
“lathe”). Tier two words are characteristic of literate language, but are domain general
(such as “cautiously” or “especially”). In this study, each word was rated by the
experimenter and another speech language pathologist, according to the criteria outlined
by Beck and colleagues (2002). There were a small number of items on which a
difference was meaningful to the criteria for lexical selection (below), and these were
resolved by consensus.
Words were initially included in the pool of possible target words if they were
rated as “T6” in the WWT norms (appropriate to teach by grade six), or were rated as
“D” in the WWT norms (difficult words), or rated as “N” in the WWT norms but had a
rating of “tier 2” or “tier 3” (not rated in WWT, but appropriate for teaching). The
rationale for this step was to ensure that words selected were appropriate for instruction at
this age. Both domain specific words (“tier 3”) and domain general words (“tier 2”) were
included, because both were expected to contribute to passage comprehension.
All words on this initial list were then placed in rank order by their LSA similarity
score, and words with a rating of 0.1 or above were included in the final list. The
rationale for this step was to ensure that words selected were important to the meaning of
the text, since better understanding of words that are only peripherally related to the text
meaning would not be expected to substantially affect comprehension of that text. A
small number of words that were judged by the experimenter to be important to the text’s
meaning were also included. These included words whose core meaning was
straightforward, but where more detailed understanding of the words would support text
comprehension (e.g. “iron” and “steel” for the text about Carnegie, and “a cause” for the
text about Anthony). The words “Scottish”, “messenger boy” (for the paragraph about
Carnegie) and “still” (for the paragraph about Anthony), were removed because their
contribution to the meaning of the text was not judged to be important to the texts’
macrostructure. Words targeted during intervention are listed in Appendix B.

36
 Measures of Lexical Semantic Knowledge of Words Taught during Intervention

In order to measure depth of semantic knowledge along a continuum, two

measures of semantic knowledge were taken. These measures were selected because they
were at opposite ends of the knowledge continuum (requiring very low and very high
levels of lexical semantic knowledge), and because they were parallel to tasks used for
the measurement of the readers’ hypotheses about the semantics of novel words. A pilot
study included additional tasks (using the word in a sentence, generating a synonym), but
data from that pilot study indicated that definitions and context test questions were
adequate to measure participant knowledge of the taught words.
Context test questions were based on previously published studies of this method
of vocabulary assessment (Kilian et al., 1995; Stallman et al., 1995) and consisted of five
questions about the word, to which the participants responded “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t
know”. They were presented in order of most to least informative, in order to minimize
cueing of future responses. Scoring of context test questions was done as per Stallman
and colleagues (Stallman et al., 1995), with “don’t know” responses given a score of
zero, correct responses a score of 1, and incorrect responses a score of -1. Five context
test questions were administered per word, and so each word had a possible range of
scores from -5 to 5.
To develop the context test questions, semantic qualitites of the words were
determined by consulting dictionaries and visual thesaurus. Questions were designed so
that correct responses were balanced between yes and no responses. Examples of context
test questions are presented in Appendix C.
Scoring of definitions was modeled after McGregor, Berns, Owen, Michels, Duff,
Bahnsen, & Lloyd (2012). Definitions were assigned to a five point scale between 0 and
4, which was based on key semantic elements. Again, key semantic elements were
derived from dictionary definitions. The coding system was designed to measure
knowledge of the meaning of the word as it was used in the final text, and as taught in the
intervention, not other possible meanings. For example, the word ‘scale’ can refer to a

37
measurement instrument, or relative size or extent, but only the second meaning was
relevant to the final text. Criteria for coding are found in Appendix D.
Coding was done by the main experimenter. Reliability was checked by having a
second rater (a speech language pathologist familiar with language research) code a
random sample corresponding to 10% of total utterances. Given that ratings involved
judgments about semantics, ratings were considered to be in agreement if the scores were
+/-1 on the five point scale. Inter-rater reliability was 94.7%.

Intervention Materials

Five sessions of 60 minutes each were allocated primarily to intervention

activities. Intervention activities were based on strategies and intervention principles that
have been reported to be successful in other reports of vocabulary learning. Some of
these principles include: repeated exposures to the word and it’s meaning, instruction
with multiple and varied cues to word meaning, exposure to the word in multiple
contexts, opportunities for deep processing, drawing attention to word use outside the
instructional context, and presenting the word initially in context (McGregor and Duff,
2014). Robust Vocabulary Instruction, or RVI (Beck et al., 2002, 2008) was the primary
basis of semantics instruction. RVI consists of multiple, rich encounters with words, in
oral contexts.
Most intervention activities took place orally. In a few tasks, written materials
were presented, but materials did not include the written form of targeted words. For
example, written definitions were provided, but they did not contain the taught words.
The rationale for this was that exposure to the written form of the words could increase
the specificity of representations of the orthographic representations, with the possibility
of confounding semantic richness and orthographic knowledge.
Initially, each word was presented in a narrative context, then defined using a
child-friendly definition based on the Collins CoBuild dictionary, and an example was
given that differed from the original context. This follows the RVI approach. Following
that presentation, participants were asked to participate in a variety of other RVI

38
activities. Not every activity was presented for each target word. Appendix E gives
examples of some of these intervention strategies.
Robust Vocabulary Intervention is designed for tier two words. This study
included tier three words as well, and additional intervention strategies were used for tier
three words. For example, when learning about the words “steel” and “iron”, participants
watched clips of a documentary about making swords out of steel, looked at samples of
steel and iron, used a steel magnet to move iron filings, and completed a written chart
comparing and contrasting the two metals. During intervention about the word suffrage,
participants watched documentary clips about a figure from the suffrage movement,
discussed photos from the suffrage movement in Iowa, and heard a song from that
movement. When discussing the word “rights”, participants selected rights that they
thought were important from a list, and compared it to selected items from the US Bill of
Rights, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Experimenter Designed Texts

After completion of the intervention, participants read two texts aloud, then
measures of reading comprehension were administered. The texts were developed to be
as close as possible to one another in terms of difficulty. Four texts were initially
selected and adapted. Based on pilot data, only two were used in the current study.
One text (“Carnegie”) was adapted from stimuli from the Qualitative Reading
Inventory- 4 (QRI-4) (Leslie & Caldwell, 1995). A second text (“Anthony”) was created
from the same genre (historical biography). Since multiple text variables can affect
reading comprehension, texts were matched as closely as possible on the following
variables: length (number of words, number of sentences, mean sentence length), lexical
complexity and diversity (mean word frequency (log), mean word concreteness scores,
mean syllables per word, type token ratio), syntactic complexity (subordination index,
mean modifiers per noun phrase), text cohesion (mean Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA)
similarity between sentences, mean LSA similarity between adjascent sentences),
readability formulas (Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level).

39
 Most measures were taken from analyses generated by the Coh-Metrix website
(http://www.cohmetrix.com), which provides analysis of multiple characteristics of texts
(Graesser, McNamara, & Kulikowich, 2011). Subordination indices were computed by
hand. Exact matching was not possible on all variables. This is due to the nature of
adaptations of discourse level stimuli, since any change to a text can potentially impact
multiple different variables simultaneously. See Appendix F for a description of each of
the above measures, and Appendix G for a summary of each of these variables for the
Carnegie and Anthony paragraphs.
Pilot data was collected in order to assess if the texts were indeed similar to one
another in difficulty. Participants (n=9) were included if they met the following criteria:
enrolled in grade five or grade six, used English as the first or main language, no hearing
loss, and no diagnoses of autism, autism spectrum disorder, Asperger syndrome,
developmental delay, dyslexia. Recruitment was done through contacting parents who
were part of a database of people who had agreed to be contacted further research studies,
and by word of mouth. Protocols for obtaining consent as per the Institutional Review
Board were followed. Each participant was asked to read the texts aloud. After reading a
text, participants were asked to retell the narrative, with the instructions “Now tell me as
much as you can about this story, in your own words”, then comprehension questions
were asked. Total comprehension scores were not significantly different between the
Carnegie and Anthony texts, t(16)= 0.0, p>0.999. Similarly, there was no significant
difference between LSA generated semantic similarity scores of the retell ratings, t(16)=
0.4245, p=0.6768.

Measures of Reading Comprehension of Texts

Reading comprehension was measured with comprehension questions and ratings

of participants’ story retells. In addition, participants were asked to retell the narratives,
which were transcribed and scored by adults. Although LSA semantic similarity scores
were used when piloting the texts, human ratings had higher variance than LSA scores,
and human ratings were used for analysis of data in this study. For this study, narrative

40
retells were scored by five raters on a scale of 1 to 10. Raters were adults who were
native English speakers, and sophisticated language users (all had university level
teaching experience). Raters were given a story, and instructed to give one global score
in response to the question “How well do you think the person who retold this story,
understood the original story?”. They were asked to rate the story retell on a scale from
one to ten, with one representing “did not understand anything about this story” and 10
representing “understood this story perfectly”. The mean retell score for each story was
calculated.
Comprehension questions for the Carnegie passage were based on those in the
QRI, with adaptations when these were required because of the changes that had been
made to the original text. Questions for the Anthony passage were experimenter
designed, with the intent of making them parallel to those from the Carnegie passage.
Each of eight comprehension questions were scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0)
generating possible scores of 0 to 8. Where comprehension questions matched the
questions in the Qualitative Reading Inventory, items were scored as per criteria used by
other researchers (Keenan, J., personal communication, August 4, 2014). Scoring criteria
for the experiment specific passage were developed to align with the same principles,
namely that responses were either correct or incorrect, that correct responses to explicit
questions must contain information that came from the passage, and correct responses to
implicit questions must relate to clues in the passage.

Selection of Novel Words in Texts

The study design required that each text include novel words. To generate these
novel words, real words were removed from the text and replaced with nonword
orthographic forms. The real words used to create these novel words were taken from the
same pool of words described in the intervention section (words with importance to the
meaning of the text, and adequate semantic complexity). Words were excluded if they
appeared more than once in the text, as this would lead to imbalance in the number of
contexts in which readers had exposure to the novel word. For remaining words, words

41
with the highest LSA similarity scores were selected. Once possible words were
identified, cloze probabilities (for adult readers) were used to estimate the
informativeness of the contexts for each word. Overall, the goal was to ensure that in the
experimental task, the two texts would be equal with respect to the difficulty of
generating correct hypotheses about the semantics of novel words. To generate cloze
probabilities, adults were asked to read a paragraph with one word removed, and state
which word they thought would best fit in the blank. Cloze probabilities were defined as
the probability of a response that was identical to, or synonymous with, the word that had
been removed from that context. Synonyms were taken to be words with equivalent
meaning in any context (e.g. “costly” and “expensive”), or words that were synonymous
in this particular semantic context (e.g. “succeed” and “win”, in the context “Anthony
was arrested and tried to fight the charges. She didn’t win, and was fined $100.”). The
rationale for this step was that participants in the experiment would only be exposed to
the novel word in one context, and would therefore only be expected to deduce the
word’s meaning in that one context. Using this procedure, six words were selected from
the two paragraphs, matched for cloze probabilities. A second set of cloze probabilities
was generated, using texts in which all six words were removed. The rationale for this
step was that by removing several real words from the text, the semantic context for other
missing words, would be changed. Based on the results from these adult responses,
stimuli were adjusted (changes made to which target words were removed), and new
cloze data gathered, until cloze data were similar between paragraphs. For thirty adults
who completed the cloze task with these six words missing, cloze probabilities for words
in the Carnegie passage (M=0.506, SE=0.37) were not significantly different than cloze
probabilities for words in the Anthony passage (M=0.498, SE=0.37), t(179)=0.507,
p=0.613.
Orthographic forms for the novel words would ideally be easy to decode, would
minimize the possibility of confusion with similar real words, and would have
phonotactic probabilities that would promote early word learning. Orthographic forms
were taken from Coltheart and Leahy (1992), who published a list of orthographically
consistent, single syllable nonwords, which were read accurately by 90% or more of

42
grade three students. It was presumed that the majority of children in grade six would be
able to successfully decode them. Nonword forms were selected to have low phonotactic
probability (mean biphone probability), using data generated by an online calculator
(http://www.bncdnet.ku.edu/cgi-bin/DEEC/post_ccc.vi), because low phonotactic
probability may help learners identify word forms as novel. Some word forms were
replaced if they were judged to be close to a real word (e.g. “fiss”), or to ensure that no
novel word forms within a paragraph shared initial phonemes or rimes. The version of the
texts that were presented to the participants is shown in Appendix H.

Measures of the Quality of Reader’s Hypotheses about the Semantics of Novel

Words in Texts

The following tasks were used to measure the quality of participants’ hypotheses
about the meaning of novel words: definition and context text questions. This paralleled
the protocol for measuring semantic knowledge of taught words before and after
intervention.
Scoring of definitions was parallel to scoring for the same task done for words
targeted in intervention. However, the maximum amount of semantic knowledge
possible after exposure to one semantic context was less than for the words targeted in
intervention. Therefore, scoring criteria were slightly different. Specific scoring criteria
are found in Appendix I. Some words were considered to be synonyms in the context of
this paragraph. Those determinations were done on the basis of cloze data from adults.
In other words, words that had been considered correct responses on the adult cloze task
were also considered correct when produced by the child participants. Coding was done
by the main experimenter, who was blind to the treatment condition during coding. Inter-
rater reliability was measured by having a second rater (a speech language pathologist
familiar with language research) code a random sample corresponding to 10% of total
utterances. Inter rater reliability +/-1 was 100%.

43
 Context test questions were developed for all novel words, using the same
procedures as used for the measures used for pre and post intervention measures.
Examples of context test questions are presented in Appendix J.

Procedures

Consent and assent procedures were completed, as approved by the Institutional

Review Board of the University of Iowa. All tasks were administered either by the
experimenter, or by one of two undergraduate students in Communication Sciences and
Disorders who had received training on the experimental protocols. Participants who
were recruited through after school programs were seen at the site of the after school
programs, and participants recruited via email were seen in a laboratory setting.

Standardized Assessments

Participants were seen individually for the first session. During this session, the
WRMT-R (WA and WI subtests) and GORT-3 were administered. Standardized
procedures were used.
The PPVT-3 was administered during a later visit (visit 3), with two participants
at a time. In order to make this possible, procedures were altered slightly from those in
the administration manual. There is evidence that group and individual administration of
the PPVT result in equivalent scores, using an earlier version of the test (Fargo et al.,
1967; Norris, Hottel, & Brooks, 1960), and at least one more current study has also
reported use of group administration of items from the PPVT-R (Cunningham &
Stanovich, 1991). In this study, participants circled their responses on a coding sheet after
listening to the instructions and seeing the picture stimuli on their own laptop computer
screen. Items 109 to 204 were administered to each participant. This resulted in basals for
all participants. If administration of these items did not result in ceiling being reached,
additional items (205 to 228) were administered in the following session. Scoring was
completed as per the administration manual.

44
 Measures of Lexical Semantic Knowledge of Words Taught during
Intervention

During the first session, which was done individually, participants completed two
pre-intervention measures of lexical semantic knowledge of words that would be taught
during intervention. The order of these two tasks was held constant so that they were
presented from least scaffolding (definitions) to most scaffolding (context test questions,
in order from least specific to most specific), to prevent cueing of later responses.
However, within each task, the order of target words was randomized separately. For
each task, participants were given instructions, an example, and practice items.
The same tasks were administered individually, after intervention, at the start of
the seventh session.

Intervention

Intervention occurred over five sessions, which were generally scheduled to be

weekly. Participants were seen for these sessions in pairs, where scheduling permitted.
Participants were assigned to treatment condition (“Anthony” versus “Carnegie”) as
follows: first each participant was assigned a number based on the order in which they
had been recruited, then participants were grouped in pairs based on location and
scheduling availability. Each pair was then assigned a group number based on the lower
of the participant numbers. Singletons (participants not seen as part of a pair, for
scheduling reasons) were assigned to another singleton for the purposes of treatment
condition assignment. Group numbers were randomly assigned to a condition, with even
numbers assigned to one condition, and odd numbers assigned to the other. Twelve
participants completed the “Anthony” condition, and eleven completed the “Carnegie”
condition.
The first four intervention sessions included the introduction of 4-5 novel words,
and some activities that involved previously presented words. The final session included
activities related to all words.

45
 Measures of Reading Comprehension of Texts

After completing measures of lexical semantics of taught words in session seven,

measures of reading comprehension of experimental texts were administered.
During the final session, participants read one practice text and two experimental
texts aloud. The practice paragraph was about Christopher Columbus, and was adapted
from the QRI. Immediately after reading each text, the two measures of reading
comprehension were administered. Tasks were sequenced from least scaffolded (story
retell) to most scaffolded (comprehension questions). The order of presentation of the
experimental paragraphs (treated versus untreated) was counterbalanced across
participants.
Instructions to participants prior to reading the story were as follows: “Now I’m
going to give you a story. I want you to read it out loud. Try to understand it as well as
you can. There might be some words that you haven’t heard before- that’s okay. When
you’re done, I’ll ask you to tell me the story in your own words. Are you ready?”. After
reading the story, instructions for the story retell were as follows: “Great! Now I want
you to pretend that I didn’t hear the story. Then tell me as much as you can about the
story, using your own words.” Instructions for the comprehension questions were: “Now
I have some questions about the story. Are you ready?”

Measures of the Quality of Reader’s Hypotheses about the Semantics of Novel

Words (HSNW) in Texts

After completing all reading comprehension measures, participants read each text
aloud a second time, then completed HSNW measurement tasks. Again, tasks were
presented from least scaffolded to most scaffolded (definitions before context test
questions, and context test questions presented in order from fewest semantic cues to
most semantic cues). Participants read each text a second time in order to give the
participants adequate exposure to the semantic context for the novel words, and also to
reduce memory demands by administering the HSNW tasks in close temporal proximity
to the reading of the texts.

46
 Order of administration for each participant was the same as for the reading
comprehension task (practice text, then two experimental texts with order
counterbalanced across participants). The participants could not see the text at the time
the HSNW tasks were administered. However, the examiner read the sentence aloud in
which the word appeared, prior to asking questions about it.
Instructions prior to reading the text were as follows: “Now I’ll ask you to read
each story again. After you read it, I’m going to ask you some questions about the new
words. Are you ready to read the story out loud?”. Instructions after reading the practice
text were as follows: “Okay, now I’m going to ask you about some of the words in the
story. I want you to tell me as much as you can about them. If I asked you to tell me what
the word “dog” means, you could say “It’s an animal, and it has a tail. It barks. Some
people have dogs in their houses.” Do you understand? Great.” After reading the
experimental passages, instructions were: “Okay, now I’m going to ask you about some
of the words in this story. I’ll ask the same kind of questions as before. Are you ready?
Great. The story said that (quote sentence with novel word). Tell me as much as you can
about what you think the word (novel word) means.” Single word responses were
prompted with “Great. Tell me as much as you can about what (word used by child)
means.” Instructions for the context test questions (given for the practice paragraph only)
were: “Now I have five more questions. I’ll read each one aloud, and for each one, I want
you to say ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘I don’t know’. Ready?”.

47
 CHAPTER 4

EFFECT OF INTERVENTION ON LEXICAL SEMANTIC KNOWLEDGE

Prior to addressing the main research questions of this study, it was necessary to establish
whether intervention to increase semantic richness based on Rich Vocabulary
Intervention did indeed result in measurable increases in semantic knowledge of taught
words. The hypothesis was that this would be the case, and the prediction was that
readers would have significantly higher Total Semantic Knowledge scores for taught
words post-intervention than pre-intervention.

Results

There were two measures of lexical semantic richness for taught words, both
administered pre-intervention and post-intervention. A Total Semantic Knowledge Score
was derived by taking the average of scores from the two measures. Descriptive statistics
and t-test results are reported in Table 2.

48
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics, t-test Results, and Cohen’s dRM for Context Test
Questions, Definition Scores, and Total Semantic Scores

Outcome Pretest Posttest n Mean t df p-value r Cohen’s

Measure M (SD) M (SD) Difference dRM
M (SD)
Context Test 65.7 83.1 23 17.4 14.02 22 <0.0001 0.870 1.49
Questions (11.7) (8.7) (5.9)
(CTQs)
Definition 31.0 51.2 23 20.2 12.18 22 <0.0001 0.468 2.62
Score (8.5) (6.6) (7.9)
Total Semantic 43.4 67.1 23 18.76 23.93 22 <0.0001 0.896 2.26
Knowledge (8.31) (6.68) (3.76)
Score

Hence, results of a one tailed, paired t-test show that Total Semantic Knowledge
scores for words which had been treated, were higher after intervention (M=67.1,
SD=6.68) than before intervention (M=43.4, SD=8.31), t(22)= 23.95 , p<0.0001,
dRM=2.26. This difference was also significant for both component measures: context test
question scores were higher after intervention (M= 83.1, SD=8.7) than before
intervention (M= 65.7, SD=11.7) as indicated by a paired, one tailed t-test t(22)=14.0,
p<0.0001 dRM= 1.49, and definition scores were higher after intervention (M=51.2, SD=
6.6) than before intervention (M=31.0, SD=8.5) as indicated by a paired, one tailed t-test,
t(22)=12.18, p<0.0001, dRM= 2.62. Cohen’s dRM was calculated using dRM=tr{[2(1-r)/n]}.5
(Cortina & Nouri 2000, Dunlop, Cortina, & Vaslow, 1996). The d statistic was
calculated using the correlated t statistic (and is therefore appropriate for a repeated
measures design), and accounts for correlation across pairs of measures. Effect sizes were
large, for Total Semantic Knowledge Scores, and its component measures. The data for
this question are displayed in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

49
Figure 3: Total Semantic Knowledge Score for Taught Words: Pre and Post Intervention

Total Semantic Knowledge Scores

200

150
Pre- Total Semantic Score

100 Post- Total Semantic Score

50

0
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14
Participants

Figure 4: Context Test Question Scores for Taught Words: Pre and Post Intervention

100
Pre and Post Intervention

CTQ Score: Pre

Context Test Question

80 CTQ Score: Post

60

40

20

0
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14

Participants

50
Figure 5: Definition Scores for Taught Words: Pre and Post Intervention

Defintion Scores for Taught Words:

Pre and Post Intervention 80
Definition Scores: Pre
Definition Scores: Post
60

40

20

0
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14
Participants

Examination of the individual data indicated that each participant’s Total

Semantic Knowledge Score was higher after intervention than before intervention (see
Figure 3). A post-hoc analysis was conducted to establish if gains on scores of semantic
knowledge were related to initial semantic knowledge scores. The Total Semantic Score
before intervention was negatively correlated with the difference (post minus pre) Total
Semantic Score, r= -0.6186, p= 0.0017. This indicates that the amount of growth in
Total Semantic Scores was greater for participants with initially lower levels of word
knowledge. This data is shown in Figure 6.

51
Figure 6: Initial Total Semantic Scores, and Gains in Total Semantic Scores (Post Minus
Pre)

In summary, the intervention had the expected effect of increasing semantic

knowledge of taught words. The effect of intervention on measures of lexical semantic
richness for taught words was a robust effect, found across participants and for both
measures. The effect size was very large.

Discussion

As expected, the participants had higher scores on measures of semantic

knowledge for taught words after intervention, than before intervention. The data thus
support the hypothesis. With respect to the current experiment, this finding is a necessary
condition for testing the other predictions. However, these data also replicate results
from other studies, which indicate that a Robust Vocabulary Intervention approach
increases semantic knowledge for taught words (e.g. Apthorp, Randel, Cherasaro, Clark,
McKeown, & Beck, 2012; Lovelace & Stewart, 2009; Beck & McKeown, 2007; Beck et
al 1982; McKeown et al. 1985).
In addition, these results provide additional information about two
nonstandardized measures of vocabulary knowledge. One critique of existing literature

52
regarding reading and vocabulary is that currently available vocabulary measures are
often not “as conceptually rich as the phenomenon (vocabulary knowledge) that they are
intended to measure” (Pearson, Hiebert & Kamil, 2007, p. 283). This has been identified
as a significant challenge for research in the area of vocabulary and reading
comprehension relationships (Elleman et al., 2009; McKeown & Beck, 2014; Pearson et
al., 2007). The current study uses two measures that have been used in previous studies
of vocabulary knowledge (Kilian et al., 1995; McGregor et al., 2012), but which have
not, to my knowledge, been used in their current form for studies of the effects of
vocabulary intervention. This study therefore contributes to the body of knowledge about
vocabulary measures that have adequate sensitivity to measure change in lexical semantic
knowledge as a result of vocabulary intervention. In this regard, it is notable that the
definitions, coded as per McGregor and colleagues (2012), had a larger effect size than
the context test questions. This is as expected, as they were designed to measure higher
levels of word knowledge than the context test questions were, and they are therefore less
vulnerable to ceiling effects.
It is also important to note that an increase in knowledge of taught words occurred
for participants with a range of initial word knowledge. The negative correlation between
initial TSS scores and TSS change scores indicates that those with initially low semantic
knowledge scores had larger increases in knowledge of taught words. This is consistent
with some other reports in the literature. For example, Apthorp (2006) reported that a
vocabulary intervention program had a significant effect on vocabulary scores for a group
of third grade children with low initial vocabulary scores (many of whom were
economically disadvantaged), but that these gains were not found in a group with higher
initial vocabulary scores. Similarly, Lawrence, Capotosto, Branum-Martin, White, and
Snow (2012) reported that students from language minority homes (who were designated
by the school as English language proficient) showed greater gains as a result of a
vocabulary intervention than students who spoke English at home. Finally, Lesaux,
Kieffer, Kelley, and Harris (2014) found larger effects of vocabulary intervention on
vocabulary knowledge for students with low levels of initial vocabulary knowledge.

53
 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: READING COMPREHENSION

The first research question asked whether intervention to increase semantic richness
resulted in increases in reading comprehension of a written text containing taught words.
The hypothesis was that intervention designed to increase the participant’s semantic
richness would result in increased semantic knowledge for targeted words. This lead to
the prediction that participants would have significantly higher Reading Comprehension
(RC) scores in a treated condition (where the participants had received semantic richness
intervention for words in that text) than in an untreated condition (where participants had
not received this intervention).

Results

During the study, participants read two texts, one of which was in the treated
condition, and one of which was in the untreated condition. Two measures of reading
comprehension were taken for each text: reading comprehension questions, and a story
retell. Scores on these measures were averaged to form a Reading Comprehension
Composite Score.
The premise of the design is that the two texts were comparable in difficulty.
Control for this variable was conducted in the stimuli preparation phase (see Methods
section for details). The reading comprehension data were analyzed to establish if there
were, in fact, differences in Reading Comprehension Composite scores between the
Anthony and Carnegie conditions. The Reading Comprehension Composite Score for the
Carnegie text (M=5.14, SD=1.35) and the Anthony text (M=5.52, SD=1.00) were
compared with a two-tailed, paired t-test, which indicated that there were no significant
differences between the two texts at the 0.05 level, t(22)=1.88, p=0.072. There were also
no significant differences between the story retell scores for the Carnegie (M=5.56, SD=

54
1.76) and Anthony (M=5.65, SD= 1.58) texts, t(22)=0.248, p=0.81. There were
significant differences between the texts with respect to comprehension question scores,
however, with scores being significantly lower in the Carnegie condition (M=4.74,
SD=1.45) than in the Anthony condition (M=5.39, SD=1.41), t(22)=2.54, p=0.018.
Because there were two categories of comprehension questions, explicit and implicit,
these were analyzed separately for differences between texts. There was no significant
difference between the Anthony (M=2.39, SD=0.65) and Carnegie (M=2.26, SD=0.81)
conditions for implicit questions t(22)=0.68, p=0.50, but there was a significant
difference between the conditions for explicit questions, with significantly lower scores
in the Carnegie condition (M=2.34, SD=1.11) relative to the Anthony condition
(M=3.13,SD=1.01), t(22)=4.41, p=0.0002. Therefore data for the explicit reading
comprehension questions were normalized. For consistency, data for implicit reading
comprehension questions and story retell ratings were also normalized. All subsequent
analyses use this normalized data.
For the main analysis, a paired t-test was used to establish if there were
differences in Reading Comprehension Composite scores between the treated and
untreated conditions. Descriptive statistics and t-test results are summarized in Table 3.

55
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics, t-test Results and and Cohen’s dRM for Reading
Comprehension Questions, Story Retell Measures, and Reading Comprehension
Composite Score

Outcome Treated Untreate n Mean t df P r Cohen’s

Measure M(SD) d Differenc statistic dRM
M (SD) e M(SD) (paired)
Reading Comp. 0.0285 -0.0285 23 0.0569 0.386 22 0.352 0.611
Question Score (0.69) (0.870) (0.706)
(z-score)
Story Retell 0.198 -0.198 23 0.396 1.856 22 0.039 0.455 0.404
Score (z-score) (0.961) (0.997) (1.02)
Reading Comp. 0.113 -0.113 23 0.226 2.141 22 0.0218 0.757 0.311
Composite (0.542) (0.773) (0.506)
Score (z-score)

Hence, a paired one-tailed t-test indicated significantly higher Reading

Comprehension Composite scores in the treated (M=0.133, SD=0.54) than untreated
(M= -0.133, SD= 0.773) conditions, t(22)=2.141, p=0.0218, dRM=0.311. With respect to
the component reading comprehension measures, story retell scores were higher in the
treated (M=0.198, SD=0.961) than untreated (M=-0.198, SD=0.997) condition,
t(22)=1.856, p=0.039, dRM= 0.404. However, reading comprehension question scores were
not significantly different in the treated (M=0.0285, SD=0.69) and untreated (M=-0.285,
SD=0.870) conditions, t=0.386, p=0.352. The effect size was again calculated using
dRM=tr{[2(1-r)/n]}.5 (Cortina & Nouri, 2000; Dunlap et al., 1996), and was in the medium
range for both the story retell measure and the Reading Comprehension Composite score.
The results are shown graphically in Figures 7, 8, and 9. They depict the main
variable of interest, namely difference scores between the treated and untreated
conditions. In addition, Figure 10 shows untreated and treated scores for the Reading
Comprehension Composite score, presented as T-scores. In all cases, the participants are
ordered from lowest to highest GORT scores.

56
Figure 7: Reading Comprehension Composite Difference Scores

Composite Difference Scores

(Treated Minus Untreated)
Reading Comprehension
Reading
1 Comprehension
Composite
difference scores
0

-1
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14
Participants

Figure 8: Story Retell Difference Scores

Story Retell Difference Scores
(Treated Minus Untreated)

2 Retell Difference
Scores (Treated
Minus Untreated)

-2
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14

Participants

57
Figure 9: Reading Comprehension Question Difference scores

(Treated minus Untreated)

RCQ Difference Scores
RCQ Difference Scores
2
(Treated minus Untreated)
1

-1

-2
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14
Participants

Figure 10: Reading Comprehension Composite Scores in the Untreated and Treated
Conditions
Reading Comprehension Composite (T-scores)

80
Untreated
Treated
60

40

20

0
19

2
3
18

4
9
1
11
20

5
16

8
12
15
17
21

7
23

6
22
10
13
14

Participants

Visual inspection of the data indicates that although many participants had higher
reading comprehension composite scores in the treated condition than the untreated
condition (n=14), other participants had higher scores in the untreated condition than the
treated condition (n=9). Other literature points to a factor that might account for some of

58
this variation in response to the lexical semantics intervention. A meta-analysis of the
effect of vocabulary intervention on reading comprehension found that the students who
experienced the most benefit of vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension
outcomes were those who had been identified as having, or being at risk of, a reading
problem or disability (Elleman et al., 2009). In fact, Elleman and colleagues reported that
the effect size for reading comprehension for those with reading disabilities was
approximately three times larger than it was for those with no reading difficulties. This
was true even though effect sizes for the effect of vocabulary intervention on vocabulary
knowledge were similar in the two groups. Based on this literature, one would expect that
in the current study, the lexical semantics intervention might have the greatest impact on
reading comprehension for those with, or at risk of, reading difficulties.
A post-hoc analysis was conducted to identify if this pattern was, in fact, found in
the current study. Amongst the participants in this study, there was no separate subgroup
of those with identified reading difficulties. In fact, the sample was biased towards those
with high reading comprehension. The analysis was therefore conducted with readers
with relatively weaker reading comprehension skills, when compared to the general
population. GORT scores were used to categorize participants as having weaker reading
comprehension (GORT scores below the population mean of SS=10) or stronger reading
comprehension (GORT scores at or above SS =10). Because of recruitment bias towards
higher skill participants, there were more participants in the high GORT group (n=17),
than the low GORT group (n=6). However, ages were not significantly different
between the high GORT group (M=11.9, SD=0.377) and the low GORT group (M=12.0,
SD=0.487), t(21)=1.06, p=0.300. This is unsurprising, as all participants took part in the
study between February and May of their sixth grade year.
An independent, one tailed t-test showed that the reading comprehension
composite difference scores for the low GORT group (M= 0.574, SD=0.591) were higher
than the reading comprehension composite difference scores for the high GORT group
(M=0.104, SD=0.427), t (21)= 2.10, p=0.024. Thus, the treatment had a greater effect on
reading comprehension for participants with low GORT scores, compared to their peers
with higher GORT scores. To further characterize the differences between these groups,

59
the main question was conducted separately for the high GORT and low GORT groups.
This analysis is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics, t-test Results and and Cohen’s dRM for Reading
Comprehension Composite Scores in the High GORT and Low GORT groups

Outcome Treated Untreated n Mean t df p r Cohen’s

Measure M(SD) M (SD) Difference statistic dRM
M(SD) (paired)
High GORT 0.191 0.0878 17 -0.14561 1.00 16 0.166 0.834
group, Reading (0.527) (0.751)
Comprehension
Composite
Score (z-score)
Low GORT -0.108 -0.683 6 0.57382 2.375 5 0.0318 0.440 1.026
group, Reading (0.573) (0.544) (0.5918)
Comprehension
Composite
Score (z-score)

Hence, the lexical semantics intervention had a significant effect on reading

comprehension for the low GORT group, with higher total reading comprehension scores
in the treated (M=-0.108, SD=0.573) than untreated (M=-0.683, SD=0.544) condition,
t(5)= 2.375, p=0.0318. Further, the effect size was very large, with dRM=1.026. However,
for the high GORT group, the lexical semantics intervention did not result in significantly
higher reading comprehension scores in the treated (M=0.91, SD=0.527) versus untreated
(M=0.00878, SD=0.751) conditions, t(16)=1.00, p=0.166. Hence, the lexical semantics
intervention had the predicted effect on reading comprehension for the low GORT group,
but not the high GORT group, and the significant effect of treatment on reading

60
comprehension in the larger group seems to be driven by participants with lower reading
comprehension. The data for the two groups are shown in Figures 11 and 12.

Figure 11: Reading Comprehension Composite Difference Score (Treated Minus

Untreated) for Low GORT subgroup
Composite Difference Scores

1.5
(Treated Minus Untreated)
Reading Comprehension

1.0

0.5
RCC Diff erence
0.0 Scores
(Treated Minus
-0.5 Untreated)

-1.0
Participants (Low GORT group)

Figure 12: Reading Comprehension Composite Difference Score (Treated Minus

Untreated) for High GORT subgroup
Composite Difference Scores

1.5
(Treated Minus Untreated)
Reading Comprehension

1.0

0.5
RCC Diff erence
0.0 Scores
(Treated Minus
-0.5 Untreated)

-1.0
Participants (High GORT group)

In summary, the intervention for lexical semantic richness had the expected effect
of increasing reading comprehension scores. This effect of lexical semantic richness
intervention was seen for the Reading Comprehension Composite score, and the story
retell scores, but not the reading comprehension question scores. An effect in the
expected direction was found for some but not all participants. A post-hoc analysis

61
indicated that the effect in the larger group was driven by participants with below average
GORT scores, rather than those with above average GORT scores.

Discussion

Effect of Lexical Semantics Intervention on Reading Comprehension

The data support the hypothesis for this question, with an effect found of
vocabulary intervention on reading comprehension measures for texts containing taught
words. This is expected, based on previous literature. For example, a meta-analysis by
Elleman and colleagues (2009) concluded that receiving vocabulary intervention resulted
in increases in reading comprehension, where the outcome measures were aligned to the
treatment. Effects of vocabulary treatment on reading comprehension have also been
found in other studies since that meta-analysis (Apthorp, 2012; Clarke et al., 2010,
Lesaux et al., 2014; Lubliner & Smetana, 2015).
Effect sizes for the effect of lexical semantics intervention on reading
comprehension were in the medium range. In their meta-analysis, Elleman and
colleagues (2009) also reported that the effect size for nonstandardized reading
comprehension measures in response to vocabulary intervention ranged between -0.06 to
1.46, with an average of 0.50. Therefore, the effect sizes in this study, especially the
effect size for the story retell measure, are comparable to other findings in the literature.
It is notable that although the effect of vocabulary intervention on reading comprehension
was significant in this study, the effect size was much smaller than the effect size for
knowledge of taught words. Again, this is consistent with other reports in the literature.
Elleman and colleagues (2009) reported that in studies of the impact of vocabulary
intervention on reading comprehension, variance for vocabulary measures was much
higher than for reading comprehension measures, and effect sizes were larger for
vocabulary than reading comprehension. At one level, this is not unexpected, since
vocabulary outcomes are more proximal to the treatment than are reading comprehension
outcomes. It does, however, illustrate that while reading comprehension may be closely
tied to lexical semantic knowledge, the two are not identical constructs.

62
 The main finding of this part of the study is that there was an effect of lexical
semantics intervention on reading comprehension. This is consistent both with previous
studies and the theoretical accounts of vocabulary- reading comprehension relationships.
I argued earlier that within the theoretical framework of LSA, intervention that increases
the specificity of lexical semantic representations would be expected to affect a reader’s
comprehension of text containing those words. Hence, the general conclusion (that
increased vocabulary knowledge improves a reader’s comprehension of a text with those
words) is consistent with the predictions made for this study.
This same general finding can also be considered within other theoretical
accounts of the relationship between word knowledge and reading comprehension. This
study could be considered a test of the knowledge hypothesis, at least in so far as lexical
semantic knowledge is considered to be congruent with “knowledge’ in the knowledge
hypothesis. In this sense, the main finding of this study- that lexical semantics
intervention resulted in increased reading comprehension- is consistent with the
knowledge hypothesis.
In contrast, according to the aptitude hypothesis, both vocabulary tests and
reading comprehension tests measure verbal aptitude, and this general aptitude underlies
performance on both measures (Anderson & Freebody, 1981). The current data would not
support a strong version of this position, since vocabulary intervention led to
improvements in reading comprehension. This is not a novel conclusion, in that there is
certainly other evidence that vocabulary instruction affects reading comprehension.
However, the point is worth noting because it has educational and clinical implications.
As Anderson and Freebody (1981) point out, the verbal aptitude hypothesis can lead to a
sense of fatalism about whether reading comprehension can be improved by
environmental factors, and as they colorfully state, advocates of this view might
recommend “family planning instead of curriculum innovation” (p. 85). Certainly, the
findings of the current study contribute to the body of literature that points to reading
comprehension is a malleable variable. In fact, the use of a within- subjects design in this
study allows for a particularly strong demonstration of this point, since stable intra-

63
individual factors were controlled, but reading comprehension still increased as a result
of intervention.
One factor that has been proposed as a variable that could underly performance on
both vocabulary and reading comprehension measures is metalinguistic awareness (Nagy,
2005). Any direct language instruction (such as the intervention in this experiment) could
result in an increase in metalinguistic awareness of the participants. However, a general
increase in metalinguistic awareness would be expected to affect reading comprehension
in both the treated and untreated conditions, and therefore would not account for
differences in performance between the two conditions.
It is notable that these data do not argue against the existence of underlying
factors that would affect both reading comprehension and vocabulary, but rather would
support the notion that the aptitude hypothesis cannot be the only account of the reading
comprehension-vocabulary relationship.
With respect to the access hypothesis, it should be noted that the vocabulary
intervention was conducted orally, without exposure to the written form of the target
words. Therefore, the intervention would not be expected to affect speed or efficiency of
orthographic processing for targeted words, nor would this likely account for the
observed gains in reading comprehension.
Previous studies have found that the effect of vocabulary intervention on reading
comprehension is larger for readers with identified reading difficulties, or those at risk of
having reading difficulties. The current study did not include a group of readers who had
been identified as having a reading disability. However, readers whose GORT scores
were below the population mean were analyzed separately from those with GORT scores
above the population mean. When the data were treated categorically in this way, there
were substantial differences between those with weaker and stronger reading
comprehension. Low comprehension readers experienced significant increases in reading
comprehension as a result of the lexical semantics intervention, an effect that was not
found for high comprehension readers. In fact, the effect of intervention on reading
comprehension for the group as a whole seems to be driven by a substantial effect in the
low comprehension group.

64
 Two accounts will be proposed for why low and high GORT readers responded
differently to the intervention, with respect to reading comprehension. The first account is
that relatively impoverished lexical semantics is a characteristic of those with poorer
reading comprehension scores on standardized tests. Therefore, vocabulary intervention
would be expected to improve reading comprehension for this low comprehension group,
where the vocabulary items matched the texts used as outcome measures. This would not
be the case for those with stronger reading comprehension, who also have higher initial
levels of lexical semantic knowledge. A second account is premised on the idea that
comprehension of a given text is not a feature of an internal quality of the reader only, but
rather of the match between a reader’s ability and the text difficulty. This has a parallel in
Item Response Theory, where examinees have the trait of ability, and test items have the
characteristic of difficulty, and performance of a given person on a given item is
determined by both characteristics. With respect to this study, lower scores on the GORT
were an indicator that the texts used in this experiment would be more challenging for
that participant, and the comprehension of those texts could be improved by increasing
lexical semantic knowledge about the words in it. However, lexical semantic knowledge
could potentially be a limiting factor for any reader if there were to be a significant gap
between the reader’s skill and a given passage’s difficulty. If this account is true, then the
participants in this study who had high GORT scores might have shown an effect of
intervention on reading comprehension, had the experimental texts been more
challenging. By this account, lexical semantic knowledge has a similar role in reading
comprehension for both low and high comprehenders. In other words, the model in
Figure 1 would hold true for all readers, where the texts are in the “Goldilocks zone”,
neither too difficult nor too easy. The data from this study do not distinguish between
these two accounts.
However, these two accounts may seem to have different clinical and educational
implications. By the first account, the kind of intervention employed in this study is
particularly well suited to readers who are most in need of support with their reading.
This would support a recommendation to provide direct vocabulary instruction with the
expectation that this would benefit all in terms of vocabulary knowledge, but

65
differentially benefit weaker readers in terms of their reading comprehension. In clinical
and educational endeavors to ‘close the gap’ between weak and strong readers, this
interpretation would be of particular interest. The alternative account has theoretical
parsimony, in that it posits a similar relationship between comprehension and lexical
semantics for all readers, but it does not appear to have the same advantageous
implications for clinical and educational practice. However, as outlined earlier, both
standardized reading comprehension tests and this experimental measure hold text
difficulty constant by giving the same text to all examinees. In a similar way, children are
typically evaluated in school on their ability to read and understand texts that are at grade
level. In that sense, schools do hold the text constant, in just the same way that a
standardized test or this experimental measure does. To the extent that this is true, it
would be reasonable to expect that in an educational setting, children with lower reading
comprehension (relative to their grade level) would particularly benefit from vocabulary
intervention in terms of comprehension of grade level texts.

Reading Comprehension Measures

An effect of vocabulary intervention was found on the quality of story retells, but
not on scores for reading comprehension questions. Thus, although the intervention had a
significant effect on the Reading Comprehension Composite scores, this effect seems to
be driven largely by the effect of intervention on the quality of story retells.
Reading comprehension questions were designed to measure both explicitly stated
and implied information in the texts. However, there are several reasons why these
questions may not have been sensitive to changes in reading comprehension as a result of
vocabulary intervention. Firstly, the comprehension questions by necessity sampled only
a small set of the information in the textbase. Secondly, no attempt was made to match
the reading comprehension questions to the content of the vocabulary intervention, so in
some cases the information needed to correctly respond to the question might be
relatively unaffected by deeper vocabulary knowledge of other words in the text. Thirdly,
reading comprehension questions of the type used in this study may not be sensitive to

66
multiple factors that are expected to affect comprehension, including comprehension of
text structure, temporal and causal relationships, and integration of information across
sentences. This is especially true of the explicit comprehension questions. In contrast, the
story retells were scored with a global measure that had the potential to include these
more complex aspects of text comprehension. The adults who scored the story retells
offered comments that suggested that they used criteria such as: number of events
included, importance of the events included to the macrostructure of the text, length,
story cohesion, extent of inferencing about causal relationships, and extent of connection
to knowledge outside the text. In other words, skilled language users made us of a wide
variety of cues from the story retells to make judgments about the reader’s text
comprehension. Given the limitations and strengths of the two comprehension measures
used in the study, it is not surprising that vocabulary intervention had an effect on the
quality of the story retells, but not on comprehension questions.
The finding that some measures of reading comprehension do not capture all
aspects of the construct of reading comprehension is hardly novel. Reading
comprehension is a multifactorial construct (Paris, 2005; Pearson & Hamm, 2005; Cain,
Oakhill & Bryant 2004; Francis, Fletcher, Catts, & Tomblin, 2005), and different
assessment measures (even well established reading comprehension tests) may not be
measuring the same component skills (Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008; Pearson &
Hamm, 2005). Reading comprehension measures may differ, for example, on whether
they load more heavily on decoding or listening comprehension (Keenen et al., 2008), or
on passage specific or passage independent knowledge (Keenan & Betjemann, 2009). In
addition, test formats vary, with accompanying differences in the cognitive demands of
the tasks (Pearson & Hamm, 2005).
The reading comprehension composite (RCC) is used in future analyses in this
study, which includes both the reading comprehension questions and the story retell
scores. This is because reading comprehension is a multifactorial construct, with no
single measurement of reading comprehension capturing all aspects of comprehension
(Francis, Fletcher, Catts, & Tomblin; Sweet, 2005). Therefore, multiple measures are

67
likely to provide a more valid representation of the construct of reading comprehension
than any single measure.
Another measurement question related to the effect of vocabulary intervention on
reading comprehension relates to the nature of the texts used to assess comprehension.
Some previous studies of the effect of vocabulary intervention on reading comprehension
have been critiqued because the texts used to measure reading comprehension were
“contrived”, in the sense that they were developed in order to use vocabulary items that
had been taught (Nagy, 2010). It has been argued that this practice detracts from the
ecological validity of the findings. In the current study, texts were developed first, and
taught words were derived from the text (rather than the reverse). Further, taught words
were selected using objective measures of complexity and importance to the text. The
study design therefore addressed this particular concern about other studies reported in
the literature.

68
 CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE SEMANTICS OF

NOVEL WORDS

The research question for this part of the study was whether the richness of a reader’s
lexical semantics was a causal factor that affected the quality of the reader’s hypotheses
about the semantics of novel words. The hypothesis was that there was such a causal
relationship, with reading comprehension as the intervening variable. This led to the
prediction that readers would have significantly higher Hypotheses of the Semantics of
Novel Word (HSNW) scores in a treated condition (where participants were taught about
the meaning of words in the text) than in an untreated condition (where participants had
not received this intervention).

Results

Each of the two texts read by participants (treated and untreated) contained six
novel words. Two measures of participants’ hypotheses about the semantics of those
novel words (HSNW) were taken for each word: context test questions, and definitions.
Scores on these measures were averaged to form a composite HSNW composite score.
It was important to the design of the study that the two texts were comparable in
terms of the amount of semantic information available to readers for developing
hypotheses. Control for this variable was conducted in the stimuli preparation phase (see
Methods section for details). The data were analyzed to establish if there were differences
in HSNW scores between the Anthony and Carnegie conditions. Both treated and
untreated conditions were included in this analysis. The composite HSNW scores for the
Carnegie text (M= 16.87, SD= 3.11) and the Anthony text (M= 15.04,SD= 3.52) were
compared, and a two-tailed, paired t-test, indicated that there were significant differences
in Total HSNW scores between the two texts (t(22)=2.512, p=0.0198). The two different
scores that contributed to the HSNW composite score were examined separately. There
69
no significant differences between the HSNW definition scores for the Carnegie
(M=13.04, SD=3.15) and Anthony (M=12.61, SD=3.41) texts t(22)=0.742, p=0.465.
However, there were significant differences between the texts with respect to context test
question (CTQ) scores, with scores being significantly higher in the Carnegie condition
(M=20.69, SD=4.54) than the Anthony condition (M=17.47, SD=5.11), t(22)=2.43,
p=0.024. Therefore, CTQ scores were normalized. For consistency, definition scores
were also normalized, and the HSNW Composite score was composed of the average of
the two normalized scores. These normalized scores were used for all subsequent
analyses.
A paired t-test was used to establish if there were differences in total HSNW
scores between the treated and untreated conditions. Descriptive statistics and t-test
results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics and t-test Results for Context Test Questions, HSNW
Definition Scores, and Total HSNW Score

Outcome Measure Treated Untreated n Mean t df p

M(SD) M (SD) Difference
M(SD)
Context Test -0.0688 0.688 23 -0.138 0.505 22 0.30
Questions (CTQs) , (1.05) (0.93) (1.31) 9
z-scores

HSNW Definition 0.089 -0.089 23 0.179 1.03 22 0.15

Scores, z-scores (1.00) (0.982) (0.834) 7
HSNW Composite 0.0103 -0.0103 23 0.0206 0.127 22 0.45
Score, z-scores (0.887) (0.723) (0.784) 1

Hence, the effect of intervention on HSNW composite score was in the expected
direction, with positive mean difference scores indicating higher HSNW scores in the
treated (M=0.0103, SD=0.887) than untreated (M=-0.0103, SD=0.723) condition.
However, a paired, one tailed t-test did not indicate that this difference was significant at
70
the p<0.05 level t(22)= 0.127, p=0.451. With respect to the component HSNW measures,
the effect of treatment on HSNW definitions was also in the expected direction, with
higher scores in the treated (M= 0.089, SD=1.00) than untreated (M=0.089, SD=0.982)
condition, however a paired, one tailed t test indicated that this effect was not significant,
t(22)=1.03, p=0.157. The context test question scores were higher in the untreated
condition (M=0.688, SD= 0.93) than the treated condition (M=-0.688, SD=1.05), which
was in the unexpected direction. A paired, two tailed t-test did not indicate that this
difference was significant, t(22)=0.505, p=0.309.
These data are shown graphically in Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16. In all cases, the
participants are ordered from lowest raw GORT scores to highest GORT scores.

Figure 13: HSNW Composite Difference scores (Treated Minus Untreated)

2
HSNW DefinitionDifference

HSNW Composite
1 Difference Scores

0
Scores

-1

-2

-3
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14

Participants

71
Figure 14: HSNW Context Test Questions Difference Scores (Treated Minus
Untreated)
CTQ Difference Scores

0 CTQ Difference
Scores

-2
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14
Participants

Figure 15: HSNW Definition Difference Scores (Treated Minus Untreated)

2
Definition Difference Scores

1 Definition Difference
Scores (Treated
Minus Untreated)
0

-1

-2
19
2
3
18
4
9
1
11
20
5
16
8
12
15
17
21
7
23
6
22
10
13
14

Participants

72
Figure 16: HSNW Definition Scores in the Treated and Untreated Conditions

HSNW Definition Scores (T-scores)

Untreated
80
Treated

60

40

20

0
19

2
3
18

4
9
1
11
20

5
16

8
12
15
17
21

7
23

6
22
10
13
14
Participants

In summary, there were no significant differences between the scores for

hypotheses about the semantics of novel words in the treated and untreated conditions,
for either of the two measures, or for the composite measure.

Discussion

The planned analysis for this question did not support the hypothesis that lexical
semantic intervention would result in an increase in the quality of hypotheses generated
about novel words encountered in text. This result would argue against the validity of the
model that underlies the questions in this study (seen in Figure 1). However, there are
two alternative accounts for this finding that will also be discussed. One is that the
hypothesis is true, but that the measures used were not sufficiently sensitive to reveal this
difference. A second possibility is that intervention had a differential effect on
participants’ HSNW scores, based on whether or not their reading comprehension was
affected by the treatment. These are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

73
 Measures of the Quality of Hypotheses about the Semantics of Novel Words

In terms of the sensitivity of the HSNW measures, it would be anticipated that the
definition measure would be more sensitive to the effect of treatment than the context test
questions, since the context test questions were designed to measure very low levels of
word knowledge. This seems to be borne out by the data, since while neither measure
showed an effect of treatment, the effect for the definitions score was in the expected
direction but this was not true for the context test questions.
The context test question task did have higher memory demands (e.g. working
memory, immediate recall) than the definitions task. Context test questions were
administered after the definitions, and there were five questions. To illustrate the memory
demands of the task, participants were asked the following questions regarding the novel
word “drace”. “The story said that Susan Anthony gave speeches around the country to
persuade others to drace a woman’s right to vote. Tell me what you think the word
“drace” means. Is drace something you do? Can a person drace? Would someone drace a
rock? If a person draces something, would they think it’s okay? Would you work for
something that you draced?”. Each of the context test questions could potentially provide
cues regarding word meaning. Some participants made comments that indicated that they
were attempting to monitor the content of the questions and update their hypotheses
about the novel word’s meaning. If participants were using this strategy, then memory
demands of the context test questions could be even greater. It was observed that some
participants gave responses to the CTQs that were not at all consistent with the
definitions that they had just provided. Memory limitations might well account for this
observation.
The task demands described above also apply to the context test questions
administered for the taught vocabulary items. However, these words were typically at
least familiar to participants, and in many cases (especially after intervention) participants
had quite enriched semantic representations for the words that they were being asked
about. In contrast, when the context test questions were administered for the novel words,
the participants had semantic representations that were based on exposure to the word in

74
only one context. These representations were naturally more fragile, and performance
would be much more vulnerable to the high task demands of the context test questions.
Given the significant limitations of this measure, all future analyses use definitions as the
measure of HSNW.
The finding that contextual word learning is difficult to measure is consistent with
other literature on the topic. For example, in an early study of contextual word learning
while reading, Pany, Jenkins, and Schreck (1982) found that the “meanings from context”
condition resulted in similar levels of learning as the “no exposure to the word”
condition. The study by Nagy, Herman and Anderson (1985) was a landmark one
because it showed that there were in fact measurable gains in word knowledge as a result
of exposure to words in context. It was notable however, that the size of the gains was
quite small. A somewhat more recent meta-analysis of incidental word learning while
reading (Swanborn & DeGlopper, 1999) showed that students did learn words while
reading, but that the proportion of words learned was small (approximately 15%). Hence,
learning new words from context is an effect that can be measured, but the magnitude of
the effect is not expected to be large for any given exposure. The small amount of
learning that occurs on a given exposure means that measuring a difference in contextual
word learning between different conditions is inherently challenging, although previous
studies have done so (Diakidoy, 1998; Herman, Anderson, Pearson, & Nagy, 1987).

Differential Effect of Treatment on HSNW, based on Reading Comprehension

Effects

There is a second possibility which may account for the absence of a significant
effect of treatment on HSNW, and that is that the intervention had a differential effect on
participants’ HSNW, based on the effect of the intervention on reading comprehension.
Given the theoretical model presented in earlier chapters, an effect of treatment on
HSNW would only be expected to the extent that the treatment had an effect on reading
comprehension. Further, it was noted that intervention did not have an effect on reading
comprehension in the expected direction for all participants. A previous analysis showed

75
that the lexical semantics intervention had a statistically significant impact on reading
comprehension only for the subgroup of participants with lower GORT scores. This issue
will be further addressed in the next chapter.

76
 CHAPTER 7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT

EFFECTS ON HSNW

The next question in this study was whether individual differences in reading
comprehension ability level affected the amount of change in quality of the hypotheses
about the semantics of novel words, as a result of the intervention. Based on studies that
indicate that higher skill learners have better inferences about novel word meanings
(McKeown, 1985; Shelfbine, 1990), the hypothesis for this question was that higher skill
participants would have increased rates of word learning through reading text. The
planned analysis was a moderation analysis for repeated measures design (Judd, Kenny,
& McClelland, 2001). In this analysis, the difference in the outcome variable is regressed
on a second variable. If this variable is a moderator, it will be predictive of the difference
in the outcome variable, indicating that the size of the treatment effect is dependent on
that variable (Judd et al., 2001). In this case, reading comprehension ability scores were
examined as a moderator of the effect of the treatment on HSNW definition scores. It was
predicted that reading comprehension ability scores in the untreated condition would be a
significant moderator variable.
This analysis is predicated on the existence of a reading comprehension measure
that represents a stable trait of the reader. The planned analysis was to use the reading
comprehension score for the untreated condition of the experimental task (or passage
comprehesion score) as a measure of untreated reading comprehension skill. This has the
advantage of having task demands that are directly comparable to those in the
experimental condition. However, standardized GORT scores were also available for
participants, and these could provide a second measure of reading comprehension skill.
Hence, the GORT scores were transformed so as to be on the same scale as the
normalized passage comprehension scores from the untreated condition, and the two
scores were then summed. This value was used as the reading comprehension ability
(RCA) measure.
77
Results

Reading comprehension ability (RCA) scores significantly predicted HSNW

definition difference scores, b= -0.433, F(1,21)= 4.858, p=0.039, with an R2 of 0.188.
Therefore, reading comprehension ability scores (RCA) in the untreated condition were a
significant moderator of the effect of lexical semantic richness intervention on the
definitions that participants gave for novel words. The negative beta value indicates that
the treatment had a greater effect on definitions of novel words, for participants with
lower levels of reading comprehension ability (RCA). Results are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: ANOVA Table for Regression of HSNW Definitions Difference Scores on

Reading Comprehension Ability Scores

Sum of df Mean Square F p value

Squares
Regression 2.872 1 2.872 4.858 .039
Residual 12.412 21 0.591
Total 15.284 22
Dependent Variable: HSNW Definitions Difference Scores
Predictors: Reading Comprehension Ability Score

Hence, according to the analysis proposed by Judd, Kenney and McClelland

(2010) the data support the hypothesis that reading comprehension ability (RCA) is a
moderator of the treatment effect on hypotheses of novel words. However, the direction
of the effect is the opposite of what was predicted, and favors readers with low reading
comprehension ability (RCA) rather than readers with high reading comprehension
ability (RCA). Because of this finding, and the previous analysis that found differences
between low GORT and high GORT groups for reading comprehension, a post-hoc
analysis was conducted to determine if there were also differences between the low and
high GORT groups with respect to the effect of treatment on HSNW. An independent t-
test, with Welch’s correction for unequal variances, indicated that there was a significant
difference between the HSNW Definition difference scores for the Low GORT group

78
(M=0.8942, SD=0.197) and the High GORT group (M=-0.0733,SD= 0.191), t(14.78)=
3,522, p=0.0031. Thus, the treatment had a significantly greater effect on the quality of
definitions that readers generated about new words, for readers with reading
comprehension (GORT) scores below the population mean, than it did for their peers who
had reading comprehension (GORT) scores at or above the population mean. The HSNW
Definition Difference scores by GORT standardized scores are plotted in Figure 17.

Figure 17: HSNW Definitions Difference Scores and GORT Standard Scores

A paired t-test was then used to establish if there were differences in HSNW
scores between the treated and untreated conditions for the low GORT group. This
analysis was also conducted for the high GORT group. Descriptive statistics and t-test
results are summarized in Table 7.

79
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics, Paired one tailed t-test Results, and Cohen’s d, for HSNW
Definition Scores: High and low GORT groups

Group Treated Untreated n Mean t df P r Cohen’s

M(SD) M (SD) Difference dRM
M(SD)
HSNW 0.0777 0.1511 17 -0.0733 0.191 16 0.354 0.602
Definition (0.919) (0.843) (0.789)
Scores
(z-scores), High
GORT group
(n=17)
HSNW 0.123 -.771 6 0.894 4.538 5 0.003 0.939 0.647
Definition (1.33) (1.10) (0.482)
Scores
(z-scores), Low
GORT group
(n=6)

For the low GORT group, the HSNW definition scores were significantly higher
in the treated (M=0.123, SD=1.33) than untreated (M= -0.771, SD= 1.10) conditions,
t(5)= 4.538., p=0.003, d=0.647. Hence, for participants who initially had GORT scores
below the population mean, the quality of their definitions of new words encountered in
text was significantly better in the treated than the untreated condition. Cohen’s d was
calculated using dRM=tr{[2(1-r)/n]}.5., for the HSNW Definitions score, and the effect size
is considered large. In contrast, for the High GORT group, the HSNW definition score
was not significantly different in the treated (M=0.0777, SD= 0.919) and untreated
(M=0.1511, SD= 0.843) conditions, t= 0.191, p=0.354. Hence, the intervention did not

80
have a significant effect on the quality of definitions of novel words in text, for
participants who initially had GORT scores that were at or above the population mean.
The HSNW definition difference data for the two groups are shown graphically in
Figures 18 and 19.

Figure 18: HSNW Definition Difference Scores (Treated Minus Untreated) for
Participants with Low GORT scores

Figure 19: HSNW Definition Difference Scores (Treated Minus Untreated) for
Participants with High GORT scores

81
 Hence, there was a significant and meaningful difference between the high GORT
and low GORT groups with respect to the effect of treatment on the HSNW definitions.
Readers in the low GORT experienced a significant increase in the quality of definitions
of new words as a result of intervention, but this effect was not found for the high GORT
group.

Discussion

In summary, a planned moderation analysis indicated that reading comprehension

ability (RCA) was a moderator of the effect of treatment on HSNW definition scores. The
effect was in the opposite direction to the predicted effect, favoring readers with poor
reading comprehension. A post-hoc analysis indicated that the treatment had a
significantly greater effect on HSNW for readers with reading comprehension (GORT)
scores below the population mean, than it did for their peers with comprehension
(GORT) scores at or above the population mean. When the main analysis of the effect of
treatment on the quality of hypotheses generated about novel words was conducted
separately for participants with high and low GORT scores, the treatment was found to
have no effect on those with high GORT scores, and a significant effect for those with
low GORT scores. This was true even though there were many more participants in the
high GORT group than the low GORT group, and the analysis for the high GORT group
therefore had more power. Taken together, these results support the idea that there was a
differential effect of the lexical semantic richness treatment on HSNW, such that readers
with poor reading comprehension ability (RCA) were the most affected by the lexical
semantics intervention.
These findings were in the opposite direction than the hypothesis, which predicted
that there would be a greater effect of intervention on HSNW for higher skill participants.
This hypothesis was based on previous literature that indicated that the ability to generate
hypotheses about the meaning of words from context was positively related to reading
comprehension level (Cain, Oakhill & Elbro, 2003; Cain, Oakhill, & Lemmon, 2004;
Diakidoy, 1998; Swanborn & deGlopper, 1999), as well as to standardized (McKeown,

82
1985) and experiment specific measures (Shefelbine, 1990) of vocabulary. Thus, in
general it seems that higher skill readers learn more about new words that they encounter
in text, and in that sense, the initial hypothesis was reasonable. However, none of these
other studies directly address the question in this study, namely whether readers with
higher and lower reading comprehension ability (RCA) benefit differently from
intervention on lexical semantics. Hence, the direction of the result, while not expected,
does not contradict other findings in the literature.
The finding of greater benefits in HSNW for readers with lower reading
comprehension ability (RCA) is consistent with research on the effect of background
knowledge on incidental word learning. Carlisle, Fleming and Gudbrandsen (2000) found
that children with low levels of understanding of related words at the start of a science
unit did not have significant amounts of incidental word learning during that unit.
Similarly, Diakidoy (1998) reported that prior knowledge related to the topic of a text
was correlated with incidental word learning when reading the text. This is consistent
with the finding that a reader’s prior knowledge of the topic of a text has a significant and
positive impact on the amount of learning that occurs when reading (Shapiro, 2004). One
way to conceive of the intervention in this study is that it increased background
knowledge about the topic of the texts, thereby reducing the disadvantage that low-
knowledge participants had. In this sense the results from the current study are consistent
with the literature on the effect of background knowledge on word learning while reading
text.
The analysis in which the effect of treatment on HSNW was treated separately for
two groups (high GORT and low GORT) was motivated in part by the earlier analysis
that showed differences between these groups with respect to benefits in reading
comprehension. Based on the theoretical model that forms the basis of this study, one
would expect that the intervention would only result in changes to HSNW, if they also
resulted in changes to reading comprehension. Therefore, the findings are consistent with
the theoretical model that is the basis for this study (portrayed in Figure 1). That is, the
lexical semantics intervention had an effect on reading comprehension for one subgroup
of participants (the low GORT group), and the same subgroup also experienced an

83
increase in HSNW. The other subgroup (the high GORT group) did not show significant
increases in either reading comprehension or HSNW.
The finding that there were effects of direct vocabulary instruction on generating
hypotheses about the meaning of untaught words (at least for some readers) is relevant to
the discussion in the literature about the value of direct vocabulary instruction. As
discussed earlier, some researchers have advocated direct and intensive vocabulary
instruction, with a goal of making long-term improvements in vocabulary and reading
comprehension (Beck et al., 2002, 2008; Biemiller, 2010a). Others have been skeptical of
the value of such an approach, given the large number of possible words to teach and the
intensity of instruction required to affect comprehension, and have instead advocated
increased reading of text in order to increase incidental word learning (Nagy, 2010; Nagy
& Herman, 1987). The current results suggest an alternative to considering these
instructional strategies as a dichotomy. Specifically, the current results indicate that, at
least for a subgroup of readers, direct and intensive instruction on the semantics of words
has the potential to positively impact later incidental word learning. This would motivate
instructional practices that include both direct instruction about the meaning of words,
and the reading of texts that contain those words. One might expect that at least for some
readers, these two practices together could extend the effects of vocabulary instruction
beyond taught words.
The effect of lexical semantic richness intervention on HSNW was large, for the
group of readers whose GORT scores were below the mean. This is encouraging, as it
suggests that learning more about the meaning of words could provide a way to increase
incidental word learning in educationally meaningful ways. It should also be noted,
however, that the intervention in this experiment was more intensive than would be
practical in most classroom or clinical settings (5 hours of intervention related to one
text). This observation about the intensity of instruction might be seen as a significant
limitation to the clinical and educational applicability of the findings of this study.
However, this limitation should be seen in light of the general finding that incidental
word learning results in very small increases in word knowledge with each exposure, and
that these small changes can accumulate to have a large effect on vocabulary growth over

84
time (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). Therefore, even small changes in the rate of
incidental word learning, especially if they occurred early in the trajectory of reading
development, might potentially have a substantial effect on vocabulary growth as
measured over a period of many years. One might hypothesize that an intervention that
was less intense (less instruction per word) than the one in this study might result in a
smaller effect on HSNW. If this were true, however, the impact of a sustained vocabulary
intervention could still be educationally meaningful for some readers if it resulted in
small changes in the rate at which new words were acquired over time. This has not been
tested, of course, but given the incremental nature of incidental word learning, would
seem to be a reasonable hypothesis.

85
 CHAPTER 8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: READING COMPREHENSION AS AN

INTERVENING VARIABLE

The research question in this case was a mediation question, specifically: if there is an
effect of the richness of a reader’s lexical semantics on the quality of hypotheses about
the semantics of novel words, is this effect mediated by reading comprehension? In this
case, reading comprehension refers to the passage specific comprehension of the
experimental texts, as measured by the Reading Comprehension Composite scores. The
planned analysis in this case was a mediation analysis for repeated measures design (Judd
et al., 2001), to test if reading comprehension of the experimental passage was an
intervening variable between intervention and HSNW. In this analysis, the difference in
the outcome variable between treatment conditions is regressed on the difference in the
concomitant variable between treatment conditions. In this case, the HSNW definition
difference scores were regressed on the Reading Comprehension Composite difference
scores. In this approach, mediation is judged to be present if two criteria are met. First,
there must be an overall treatment effect on the concomitant variable (in this case, the
Reading Comprehension Composite). Second, the concomitant variable difference (in
this case, the Reading Comprehension Composite difference scores) must predict the
outcome difference (in this case, the HSNW Definition difference scores). This first
criteria has already been established in previous analyses, therefore this chapter will
focus on the second analysis.
Readers will note that in this case, conducting this analysis means performing a
mediation analysis in the absence of a treatment effect on the outcome variable. It has
been argued that indirect effects (such as mediation) may be relevant even in the absence
of a direct effect, and that tests for such indirect effects may be valid (Shrout & Bolger,
2002). This has been described as an emerging perspective on mediation and moderation
(Karazsia, Berlin, Armstrong, Janicke, & Darling, 2014). The finding of a mediation
effect, even in the absence of a main effect, might occur because there can potentially be
86
very different power for tests of the direct and indirect effect (Kenny & Judd, 2013). This
phenomenon could possibly occur for within subject tests as well as between subject tests
of mediation (Kenny, D., personal communication, March 19, 2015).
It should be noted that Reading Comprehension Composite (RCC) scores serve a
different function in this analysis than the Reading Comprehension Ability (RCA) scores
used in the moderation analysis. In the moderation analysis, the goal was to define a
stable concomitant variable, unaffected by the intervention. In this mediation analysis, the
reading comprehension measure serves a concomitant variable that is measured under
two different treatment conditions. Hence, the variable used in this analysis is the
Reading Comprehension Composite (RCC) difference score.

Results

Reading comprehension (RCC) difference scores significantly predicted HSNW

definition difference scores, b= 0.303, F(1,21)= 6.95, p=0.015, with an R2 of 0.249. As
previously stated, in this approach mediation would judged to be present if there is
overall treatment effect on the Reading Comprehension Composite (RCC), and if
Reading Comprehension Composite difference scores predict the HSNW Definition
difference scores. The conclusion, then, is that reading comprehension of the
experimental passages is a mediator for the effect of treatment on HSNW.
These data are presented graphically in Figure 20.

87
Figure 20: Reading Comprehension Composite Difference
Scores and HSNW Definitions Difference Scores

1.5

(Treated minus Untreated)

Difference Scores
1.0
HSNW Definitions

0.5

-2 -1 1 2
-0.5

-1.0

Reading Comprehension
Composite Difference Scores
(Treated minus Untreated)

Discussion

According to the planned analysis, reading comprehension (RCC, as a measure of

passage comprehension) acts as a mediator for the effect of treatment on HSNW. It may
seem puzzling to perform a mediation analysis in the absence of a direct effect of
treatment on HSNW, and counterintuitive to find a significant mediation effect in the
absence of such a direct effect. However, as described above, this can occur due to
significant power differences between tests of direct and indirect effects. This may well
account for the finding in this study that reading comprehension (experimental passage
comprehension) mediates the effect of treatment on HSNW, even in the absence of a
statistically significant direct effect of treatment on HSNW.
Visual inspection of the data shows that there were many examples of difference
scores that were positive for both Reading Comprehension Composites (RCC) and
HSNW. These were instances where the results matched the prediction. There were,
however, also instances in which the difference scores (both for Reading Comprehension
Composite scores and HSNW) were in the unexpected direction i.e. higher in the

88
untreated than treated condition. Further, these instances contribute to the relationship
between Reading Comprehension Composite difference scores and HSNW difference
scores that are part of this type of mediation analysis. This complicates interpretation of
the mediation analysis findings. In particular, the data would not seem to support a claim
that the relationship between reading comprehension and hypotheses about the semantics
of new words is exclusively a treatment effect.
The theoretical model presented in this study would predict that reading
comprehension and HSNW would be closely related, including within individuals. That
is, if there were to be a difference between reading comprehension scores for the two
texts, one would expect a proportionate difference in HSNW scores. This would be
predicted regardless of whether, for a given individual, there was an effect of intervention
on reading comprehension. The analysis above could be interpreted as a demonstration of
such an effect. Previous studies have certainly found such a relationship between
individuals (Cain, Oakhill, & Elbro, 2003; Cain, Oakhill & Lemmon, 2004; McKeown,
1985; Shefelbine, 1990). However, these relationships may be confounded with many
other types of differences between individuals. What these data show is that the quality
of hypotheses that a reader generates about novel words in a text is related to the readers’
comprehension of that text, and specifically it shows that this relationship for reading
comprehension and HSNW holds within individuals. This finding is a novel contribution
to the literature on reading comprehension and word learning while reading text.

89
 CHAPTER 9

SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This study consisted of an intervention to increase the lexical semantic richness of

selected words for participants in sixth grade. The study addressed the impact of this
intervention on semantic knowledge of targeted words, on comprehension of texts
containing the targeted words, and on the participants’ ability to generate accurate
hypotheses about the meanings of new words in those texts.

Summary of Results

The results related to the first question supported previous research and
established that intervention based on the principles of Robust Vocabulary Instruction
leads to increased knowledge of taught words, as well as increased comprehension of
texts containing taught words. These benefits to comprehension were statistically
significant, but were not observed in every participant. In fact, readers with low scores
on a standardized measure of reading comprehension had large and statistically
significant increases in reading comprehension as a result of the lexical semantics
treatment, but this was not the case for readers with higher reading comprehension
scores. The second question examined the question of whether the lexical semantics
intervention had an effect on the hypotheses that readers had about novel words in the
text. When the data was examined for the group as a whole, no significant effect was
found for the lexical intervention on the quality of hypotheses generated about the
meanings of the novel words. However, there was a significant effect on HSNW for the
subgroup with low comprehension scores on the GORT, which was the group of
participants who had experienced a boost in passage comprehension as a result of the
treatment. This differential effect is consistent with the theoretical model that formed the
basis for the study.

90
 Reading comprehension ability (RCA) scores were a significant moderator of the
effect of lexical semantic richness intervention on the definitions that participants gave
for novel words, with treatment resulting in a greater effect on the definitions of novel
words for participants with lower levels of reading comprehension ability (RCA). This is
consistent with the categorical analyses which showed effects of both reading
comprehension (Reading Comprehension Composite score for passage comprehension),
and HSWN for the low GORT group, but not the high GORT group.
Finally, a regression of Reading Comprehension Composite (RCC) difference
scores and HSNW difference scores indicated a significant, positive relationship,
indicating that passage comprehension acted as a mediator.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that semantic word learning when
reading text depends on an individual’s text comprehension, which would be specific to a
given reader with a given text. I also hypothesized that the reader’s comprehension of a
text would depend on the richness of a reader’s lexical semantics for words in the text
that are not novel (“known” words). Specifically, it was proposed that richness of lexical
semantics that a reader has for words in a given text would be one factor affecting novel
word learning. The model underlying these relationships is shown in Figure 21.

91
Figure 21: Model of the relationship between richness of
lexical semantics for words in a text and the quality of
hypotheses about the semantics of novel words

The study results did provide support for this hypothesis, in that richness of
semantic knowledge of known words did affect passage comprehension. In particular,
this relationship was found for the subgroup of participants with lower GORT scores. For
those who experienced an increase in passage comprehension (the low GORT group),
there was also an increase in the quality of hypotheses generated about the semantics of
novel words. However, for ths subgroup of participants with higher GORT scores, neither
of these effects were found. Hence, not all participants had an increase in reading
comprehension and the quality of hypotheses generated about novel words. Nonetheless,
the pattern of performance – with effects either on both reading comprehension and
HSNW, or on neither- was consistent with the model.
The model above was based on predictions from Latent Semantic Analysis.
Specifically, within LSA, passage meaning is representend as the linear sum of all the
individual words within the text, and this motivated the hypothesis that a reader’s
comprehension of a given text would be a function of the richness of the reader’s lexical
semantics for the individual words in that passage. Secondly, within LSA, new words are
assigned a meaning that corresponds to the meaning of the paragraph. This motivated the

92
hypothesis that the quality of hypotheses that a reader generates about new words would
be determined by the quality of their comprehension of the passage. This study was not
intended as a test of the validity of LSA as a theory of semantics. However, to the extent
that the model above was supported by the data, the results of the study would certainly
be consistent with the general principles of the LSA model.
As discussed earlier, one of the proposed relationships between vocabulary and
reading comprehension is the reciprocal hypothesis, in which growth rates in vocabulary
differ across reading skill level, even while absolute vocabulary skill levels increase for
all (Stanovich, 1986). The current study pertains to one possible mechanism for such an
effect, namely that richness of lexical semantics for known words could affect reading
comprehension, which would in turn affect new word learning. The data from this study
does support the possibility of such a mechanism for some readers. Naturally, it does not
address any questions about the extent to which this may actually occur across reading
development. However, it does experimentally validate a mechanism that could underly
such a longer term effect.

Contributions to the Literature

These findings make several contributions to the existing literature on reading

comprehension, vocabulary, and word learning while reading text.
Firstly, the results support previous findings that direct vocabulary intervention
results in measurable increases in both word knowledge and reading comprehension. The
findings of the current study contribute to the conclusion that these effects are robust.
Secondly, this study makes a contribution to the methodological literature on
measuring reading comprehension and word learning while reading text. The challenges
of measuring word knowledge have previously been identified as a major barrier to
progress in the field of reading comprehension and vocabulary research (Elleman et al.,
2009; McKeown & Beck, 2014; Paris, 2005; Pearson et al., 2007). In particular,
measurement of incidental word learning while reading text has been challenging because
of the inherently incremental nature of the phenomenon being studied (Swanborn & de

93
Glopper, 1999). The stimulus materials in this study were carefully matched for text
difficulty and the semantic informativeness of the texts for the novel words. A coding
system for measuring knowledge of new words encountered while reading text was
developed, by adapting previously a previously published coding system (McGregor et
al., 2013). The data from this study indicates that these stimuli and coding protocols can
indeed be used to detect meaningful changes in passage comprehension and HSNW
within subjects. Hence, there is good reason to believe that future studies using these
stimuli and protocols would also result in meaningful data.
Thirdly, this study establishes that for a subgroup of readers, an intensive
intervention that targets depth of vocabulary knowledge can have an effect on the
hypotheses generated about the meanings of untaught words. These results are consistent
with the theoretical model of reading comprehension and lexical knowledge in which
reading comprehension is causally related to the hypotheses generated about the
meanings of new words encountered in text. The evidence is limited, in that the
hypothesis was supported for only a subgroup. Nonetheless, this is an important finding.
Although this relationship has been presumed in the literature on the Matthew effect
(Stanovich, 1986), and in some current models of reading comprehension (Perfetti &
Stafura, 2014), it has not been tested before with an experimental manipulation of
readers. Importantly, the within subjects design of the study allowed for control of the
other intra-individual factors which would also be expected to contribute to the quality of
hypotheses made about new word meanings.
Fourthly, this study sheds light on the question of individual differences in
incidental word learning while reading text. The moderation analysis and categorical
analyses involving low and high comprehension readers (high GORT and low GORT
groups) both indicate that predicted effects on the experimental texts were seen for
readers with low comprehension, rather than high comprehension. This might indicate
that the proposed theoretical model regarding lexical semantics and reading
comprehension is true only for those with weak reading comprehension, as measured by
standardized tests. Alternatively, it may be that experimental manipulation of lexical
semantics has distal effects on passage comprehension and HSNW, but only when a

94
given text is sufficiently challenging for a given reader. This second interpretation has
theoretical parsimony, but this data set does not distinguish between the two.
Fifth, the data from this study indicate that a reader’s ability to generate
hypotheses about novel words in text is closely related to their comprehension of that
text. This study provides evidence for this relationship within individuals, which is a
novel contribution to the literature. This is very consistent with the theoretical model
presented as the basis for this study.
Finally, this study provides support for the clinical and educational value of direct
vocabulary instruction. Given the importance of vocabulary outcomes, and the
presumption that learning new words while reading text is critical to vocabulary growth
through childhood and adulthood, it is of great importance to identify manipulable
variables that affect the rate of vocabulary learning while reading. There has been an
ongoing debate in the educational literature about the relative value of direct vocabulary
instruction versus increasing incidental word learning by increasing text exposure (Beck
et al., 2002, 2008; McKeown & Beck, 2014; Nagy, 2010; Nagy & Herman, 1987). These
results address this dichotomy by showing that direct vocabulary instruction has the
potential to increase incidental word learning for untaught words. This provides
additional motivation for direct vocabulary instruction, especially if it is combined with
reading texts that contain taught words.

Future Directions

The current study extends previous research on reading comprehension and

vocabulary relationship by specifically analyzing the possibility of causal relationships
between lexical semantics, reading comprehension, and hypotheses generated about the
meanings of novel words. Moreover, this study identified differences in responses to
lexical semantics intervention between participants in the study with respect to their
initial reading comprehension. Specifically, the lexical semantics intervention had an
effect on definitions of new words for participants in this study with poor reading
comprehension (as assessed by a standardized measure), but not for participants with

95
good reading comprehension (ass assessed by a standardized measure). The implications
of these differences is that while one can expect that while lexical semantic intervention
will result in increased knowledge of taught words for all readers, readers with poor
comprehension can also be expected to benefit from this type of intervention by deriving
more accurate hypotheses about new, untaught words encountered while reading texts
that contain taught words.
Future research could build on these findings by addressing a number of areas that
were not addressed in the current study. Some of these possible future directions are
outlined below:

1. The work to date does not elucidate whether the relationship between reading
comprehension and HSNW is specific to gains in lexical semantic knowledge. It
is possible that this is the case, and that both the gains in reading comprehension
and the gains in HSNW can be attributed to a local restructuring or enrichment of
the part of the lexical semantic system specific to the taught words. An alternative
hypothesis, however, is that changes in reading comprehension for any reason
would affect readers’ ability to generate hypotheses about the meanings of new
words. Reading strategy intervention could provide a means of testing these two
hypotheses, since reading comprehension strategy interventions have been shown
to have a positive impact on text comprehension (Berkeley, Scruggs, &
Mastropieri, 2010; Melby-Lervag & Lervag, 2014). If the results observed in
readers with poor comprehension in this study were specific to changes in the
lexical semantic system, then reading comprehension instruction should not
change the hypotheses generated about novel words while reading. Alternatively,
if reading strategy instruction did result in positive changes in HSNW, it would
indicate that the relationship between reading comprehension and new word
learning is not specific to the lexical semantic system. This comparison could also
provide guidance about the relative benefits of different instructional approaches
for readers with poor comprehension.
2. The current study concerned initial hypotheses about novel words, but did not
address the question of how those hypotheses related to longerterm learning. It
96
 would be important to establish if the effects seen for the initial hypotheses about
novel words are maintained over time, and can be measured on later days.
3. It would be interesting to establish whether the effects seen in this study for low
comprehension readers might also be found for high comprehension readers, if the
texts presented were more challenging for them. One way to address this question
would be to have a group of younger readers who were matched on raw GORT
scores to the sixth grade readers who had low standard scores. These readers
would be matched to the “low GORT” group for comprehension levels, but would
be high skill readers relative to their same age peers.
4. The lexical semantics intervention had a differential effect on HSNW for readers
with low versus high GORT scores. Since standardized reading comprehension
measures differ substantially in task demands and how they load on various
components of comprehension, it would be interesting to know if other reading
comprehension tests also predicted response to the lexical semantics intervention.
5. It was observed that some participants produced very different responses on the
two tasks designed to measure the quality of hypotheses about the new words. It
would be interesting to establish what task or reader variables contributed to this
behavior.
6. Tier 2 words have been recommended as targets for vocabulary intervention
programs (Beck et al., 2002, 2008). Data from this study could be used to explore
the relative importance of knowledge of tier 2 and tier 3 words, with respect to
gains in reading comprehension.

97
 REFERENCES

Aarnoustse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (2000). Development of poor and better readers during
the elementary school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(3), 251-278.

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary Knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.),

Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77-117). Newark, Delaware:
International Reading Association.

Apthorp, H. (2006). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary program in third-grade

reading/language arts. Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 67-79.

Apthorp, H., Randel, B., Cherasoro, T., Clark, T., McKeown, M., & Beck, I. (2012).
Effects of a supplemental vocabulary program on word knowledge and passage
comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 160-188.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low!income children’s oral
vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary
School Journal, 107(3), 251-271.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing Words to Life: Robust
Vocabulary Instruction. New York: Guilford Press.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary:
Frequently asked questions and extended examples. New York: Guilford Press.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse
vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The
Nature of Vocabulary Instruction (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction
for students with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and
Special Education, 31(6), 423-436.

Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: implications for

choosing words for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In E. Hiebert & M.
Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning new vocabulary: bringing research to
practice (pp. 223-242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Biemiller, A. (2010a). Vocabulary: Needed if more children are to read well. Reading
Psychology, 24, 323-335.
98
Biemiller, A. (2010b). Words worth teaching: Closing the vocabulary gap. Columbus:
McGraw-Hill SRA.

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An Effective Method for Building Meaning
Vocabulary in Primary Grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44-62.

Biemiller, A., Rosenstein, M., Sparks, R., Landauer, T., & Folz, P. (2014). Models of
vocabulary acquisition: Direct tests and text-derived simulations of vocabulary
growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 130-154.

Biemiller, A., & Slomin, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in
normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of
vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498-520.

Bloom, P. (2002). How Children Learn the Meaning of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Bolger, D. J., Balass, M., Landen, E., & Perfetti, C. (2008). Context variation and
definitions in learning the meanings of words: An instance-based learning
approach. Discourse Processes, 45(2), 122-159.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading
comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 431-443.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability:
Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Elbro, C. (2003). The ability to learn new word meanings from
context by school-age children with and without language comprehension
difficulties. Journal of Child Language, 30(03), 681-694.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2003). The ability to learn new word meanings
from context by school-age children with and without language comprehension
difficulties. Journal of Child Language, 30, 681-694.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of
word meanings from context: the influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary
knowledge, and memory capacity, Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4),
671-681.

99
Cain, K., Tring, A., & Guillaume, S. (2009). Accessing information from semantic
memory: Relations with word reading and comprehension. Paper presented at the
Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boston, MA.

Carlisle, J. F., Fleming, J. E., & Gudbrandsen, B. (2000). Incidental word learning in
science classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(2), 184-211.

Carnine, D., Kameenui, E. J., & Coyle, G. (1984). Utilization of contextual information
in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words. Reading Research Quarterly,
188-204.

Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor
comprehenders: a case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278-293.

Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children's
reading-comprehension difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological
Science, 21(8), 1106-1116.

Coltheart, V., & Leahy, J. (1992). Children's and adult's reading of nonwords: Effects of
regularity and consistency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 18(4), 718-729.

Cortina, J.M., & Nouri, H. (2000). Effect size for ANOVA designs (No. 129). Sage.

Cunningham, A. (2005). Vocabulary growth through independent reading and reading

aloud to children. In M. Kamil & E. Hiebert (Eds.), Teaching and Learning New
Vocabulary: Bringing Research to Practice (pp. 45-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print
exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and
spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 264-274.

Dennis, S. (2007). How to use the LSA web site. In T. K. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S.
Dennis & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 3-34).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Diakidoy, I.-A. N. (1998). The role of reading comprehension in word meaning

acquisition during reading. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13(2),
131-154.

Dollinger, S. (2008). Which factors best account for academic success: Those which
college students can control or those they cannot? Journal of Research in
Personality, 42(4), 872-885.

100
Duff, D., Tomblin, J. B., & Catts, H. W. (in press). The Influence of Reading on
Vocabulary Growth: A Case for a Matthew Effect. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research.

Duff, F. J., & Clarke, P. J. (2011). Practitioner review: Reading disorders: What are the
effective interventions and how should they be implemented and evaluated?.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(1), 3-12.

Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of
experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 170.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- 4th Edition
Manual. Minneapolis: Pearson.

Elleman, A., Lindo, E., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. (2009). The impact of vocabulary
instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1-44.

Fargo, G. A., Crowell, D. C., Noyes, M. H., Fuchigami, R. Y., Gordon, J. M., & Dunn-
Rankin, P. (1967). Comparability of group television and individual
administration of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Implications for
screening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 137-140.

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Catts, H. W., & Tomblin, J. B. (2005). Dimensions
affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl
(Eds.), Children's Reading Comprehension and Assessment. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Frishkoff, G. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Collins-Thompson, K. (2010). Lexical quality in the
brain: ERP evidence for robust word learning from context. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 35(4), 376-403.

Frishkoff, G. A., Collins-Thompson, K., Perfetti, C. A., & Callan, J. (2008). Measuring
incremental changes in word knowledge: Experimental validation and
implications for learning and assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4),
907-925.

Gogate, L. J., Walker-Andrews, Arlene S., Bahrick, Lorraine E. (2001). The intersensory
origins of word comprehension: an ecological-dynamic systems view.
Developmental Science, 4(1), 1-37.

101
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing
multilevel analysis of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223-
234.

Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Pearson, D. P., Nagy, W. E. (1987). Incidental

Acquisition of Word Meaning from Expositions with Varied Text Features, 22(3),
263-284.

Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing
mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods,
6(2), 115-134.

Karazsia, B. T., Berlin, K. S., Armstrong, B., Janicke, D. M., & Darling, K. E. (2014).
Integrating mediation and moderation to advance theory development and testing.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 163-173.

Kennan, J., & Betjemann, R. S. (2009). Comprehending the Gray Oral Reading Test
without reading it: Why comprehension tests should not include passage
independent items. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 363-380.

Keenan, J., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary
in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral
comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281-300.

Kempe, C., Eriksson-Gustavsson, A. L., & Samuelsson, S. (2011). Are there any
Matthew effects in literacy and cognitive development? Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 55(2), 181-196.

Kilian, A. S., Nagy, W. E., Pearson, D. P., Anderson, R. C., & Garcia, G. E. (1995).
Learning vocabulary from context: Effects of focusing attention on individual
words during reading. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Reports.
Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information

processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

Landauer, T. (1998). Learning and Representing Verbal Meaning: the Latent Semantic
Analysis Theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(5), 161-164.

Landauer, T. (2007). LSA as a theory of meaning. In T. K. Landauer, D. S. McNamara,

S. Dennis & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 3-34).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

102
Landauer, T., & Duamis, S. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic
analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge.
Psychological Review, 104(2), 211-240.

Landauer, T., Kintsch, W., & Laham, D. (n.d.). LSA @ CU Boulder. Retrieved March
24, 2015, from http://lsa.colorado.edu/

Landauer, T., Kireyev, K., & Panaccione, C. (2011). Word maturity: A new metric for
word knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 92-108.

Lawrence, J., Capotosto, L., Branum-Martin, L., White, C., & Snow, C. (2012).
Langauge proficiency, home-language status, and English vocabulary
development: A longitudinal follow-up of the Word Generation program.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 437-451.

Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., Kelley, J., & Harris, J. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary
instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized
field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159-1194.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (1995). Qualitative Reading Inventory- 3. New York, NY:
Longman.

Loftus, S. M., Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Zipoli, R., & Pullen, P. C. (2010). Effects
of a supplemental vocabulary intervention on the word knowledge of kindergarten
students at risk for language and literacy difficulties. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 25(3), 124-136.

Lovelace, S., & Stewart, S. R. (2009). Effects of Robust Vocabulary Instruction and
multicultural text on the development of word knowledge among African
American children. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 18, 168-
179.

Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effects of comprehensive vocabulary instruction
on Title I students' metacognitive word-learning skills and reading
comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 163-200.

McGregor, K. K., Berns, A. J., Owen, A. J., Michels, S. A., Duff, D., Bahnsen, A. J., &
Lloyd, M. (2012). Associations between syntax and the lexicon among children
with or without ASD and language impairment. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 42, 35-47.

McGregor, K. K., & Duff, D. (2014). Promoting Diverse and Deep Vocabulary
Development. In T.A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), School-Age Language Intervention (pp.
247-278), Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

103
McGregor, K. K., Oleson, J., Bahnsen, A. J., & Duff, D. (2013). Children with
developmental language impairment have vocabulary deficits characterized by
limited breadth and depth. International Journal of Language and
Communciation Disorders, 48(3), 307-319.

McKeown, M., & Beck, I. (2014). Effects of vocabulary instruction on measures of

language processing: Comparing two approaches. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 29, 520-530.

McKeown, M. G. (1985). The acquisition of word meaning from context by children of

high and low ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 482-496.

McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1988). Learning Vocabulary: Different Ways for
Different Goals. Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 42-52.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of
the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of
words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522-535.

Melby-Lervag, M., & Lervag, A. (2014). Effects of educational interventions targeting

reading comprehension and underlying components. Child Development
Perspectives, 8(2), 96-100.

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science 159, 3810.

Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of

vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research,
53(2), 253-279.

Nagy, W. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive.

In E. Hiebert & M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bridging
research and practice (pp. 27-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. (2010). The Word Games. In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing
Reading Research to Life (pp. 72-91). New York: Guilford Press.

Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school
English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 304-330.

Nagy, W., & Herman, P. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge:
Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. Curtis
(Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

104
Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading
Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233-253.

Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic

relations among good and poor comprehenders: evidence from semantic priming.
Cognition, 70, 1-13.

Norris, R. C., Hottel, J. V., & Brooks, S. (1960). Comparability of Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test scores under group and individual administration. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 51(2), 87-91.

Oakhill, J., McCarthy, D., Cain, K., & Nightingale, Z. (2009). The relation between
speed of semantic access, semantic knowledge, and aspects of reading ability.
Paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boston, MA.

Pany, D., Jenkins, J. R., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word
knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(3), 202-
215.

Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research

Quarterly, 40(2), 184-202.

Pearson, P. D. & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A

review of practices—Past, present, and future. Children’s reading comprehension
and assessment, 13-69.

Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we
know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282-296.

Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies

of Reading, 11(4), 357-383.

Perfetti, C., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In D. S. Gorfein
(Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 67-86). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37.

Petersen, D. K., & Elbro, C. (2009). Reading comprehension: Contributions from size
and semantic organization of the mental lexicon. Paper presented at the Society
for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boston, MA.

Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Konold, T. R., Maynard, K. L., & Coyne, M. D. (2010).
A tiered intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered

105
 instruction for young students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 25(3), 110-123.

Perfetti, C. A., Wlotko, E. W., & Hart, L. A. (2005). Word learning and individual
differences in word learning reflected in event-related potentials. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1281.

Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Translation and Meaning. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Nation, K. (2008). Investigating orthographic and
semantic aspects of word learning in poor comprehenders. Journal of Research in
Reading, 31(1), 117-135.

Samuels, S. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In S. J. Samuels & A. E.

Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction.

Shefelbine, J. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learning word meanings

from context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12(1), 71-97.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental

studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological methods, 7(4), 422.

Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: a model-
based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72-110.

Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching Word Meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Stallman, A. C., Pearson, P. D., Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Garcia, G. E. (1995).
Alternative approaches to vocabulary assessment. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Center
for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual

Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4),
360-407.

Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Tying it all together: A model of reading acquisition and reading
difficulty, Progress in Understanding Reading: Scientific Foundations and New
Frontiers (pp. 149-158). New York: The Guilford Press.

Steele, S.C. (2015). Does language learning disability in school aged children affect
semantic word learning while reading? (Abstract). International Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology. Doi: 10.3109/17549507.2014.979872.

106
Steele, S.C. & Watkins, R.W. (2010). Learning word meanings during reading by
children with language learning disability and typically-developing peers, Clinical
Linguistics and Phonetics, 24(7), 520-539.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G. McKeown &

M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 89-106). New
Yok: Psychology Press.

Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V. M., Chipchase, B. B., & Kaplan, C. A.
(1998). Language- impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(2), 407-419.

Swanborn, M.S., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental Word Learning While Reading: A
Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 69(3), 261-285.

Swanborn, M. S. L., & De Glopper, K. (2002). Impact of reading purpose on incidental

word learning from context. Language Learning, 52(1), 95-117.

Sweet, A. (2005). Assessment of reading comprehension: The RAND Reading Study

Group vision. In S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's Reading
Comprehension and Assessment (p. 3-12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Vermeer, A. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and
frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217-234.

Weekes, B., Hamilton, S., Oakhill, J., & Holliday, R. E. (2008). False recollection in
children with reading comprehension difficulties. Cognition, 106, 222-233.

Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised. Chicago, Illinois:

Riverside.

Zipoli, R. P., Coyne, M. D., & McCoach, D. B. (2011). Enhancing vocabulary

intervention for kindergarten students: Strategic integration of semantically
related and embedded word review. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 131-
143.

107
 APPENDIX A: LEXICAL DECISION TASK

Stimuli- Words from Carnegie Condition, and Stimuli- Words from Anthony Condition, and
Nonwords (In Brackets, Definition Provided Nonwords (In Brackets, Definition Provided
if Participants Identified Real Word as if Participants Identified Real Word as
Nonword) Nonword)
!"#$"%"&&'()*********** • B";%%"$#(%'/&*
• +$"(,* -./#"*0/$1* • !;00$(4"*-$'4.%*%/*7/%"1*
• 2/#"* * • H&)"55*-&/%*;&%')1*
• 3,,'4$(&%*-#"$5/&*6./*,/7"51* • 8/&%$(,#/&'5%*
• +'))"$* • +">'?(%'/&*-$"())9*?/,,'%%">1*
• 8/,#(&9*-:;5'&"551* • C(@"*5"$'/;5)9*->/*5/,"%.'&4*(:/;%1*
• 3$/&*-(*,"%()1* • 8(;5"*-5/,"%.'&4*9/;*6/$@*0/$1*
• !%"")*-(*,"%()1* • F5#"?'())9*-,/$"*%.(&*/%."$51*
• <)'5%"$'&4* • C(;>4"*
• =($%*/6&"$*-#"$5/&*%.(%*/6&5*(*:'%*/0*1* • C.'?@"$9*
• =$/>;?"*-,(@"1* • ="&"$$'0;)*
• A"55","$*-6(9*%/*,(@"*5%"")1* • ="&&")*
• B(')$/(>*-%$('&%$(?@51* • G/7","&%*-#"/#)"*6/$@'&4*%/4"%."$1*
• C"":/* • B'4.%5*-6.(%*9/;*($"*())/6">*%/*>/1*
• !)(>>'&4* • I"&&"$'J"$*
• C/,(* • +'))"$*
• !.(#"D*?.(&4"* • +"0"$,'?(%'/&*
• C$;)9D*$"())9* • 8/&0$(&%;())9*
• C$;,#"%'&"* • =$'5%/$(?%'/&()*
• E':"* • I'&"*-,/&"9*:"?(;5"*9/;*:$/@"*(*$;)"1*
• =$/?"55*-6(9*%/*?.(&4"1* • 2/%"*-5(9*9/;$*?./'?"1**
• F7"&%;())9*-'&*%."*"&>1* • 2/#"*
• 3&?$"(5"*-4"%*:'44"$1* • I'4.%*0/$*-6/$@*%/6($>51*
• 3&*>/'&4*5/*-:9*>/'&4*%.(%1* • C/,(*
• A(&&'0"$* • E':"*
• G"%./>*-(*6(91* • 3&*#/)'%'?5*->/*%.'&45*%/*?.(&4"*)(651*
• +"7")/#*-,(@"*4$/61* • =;:)'?(%'/&*-://@*/$*,(4(J'&"1*
• C.'?@"$9* • +/##")(%"*
• A())/#* • C",#"$(&?"*-&/%*>$'&@'&4*()?/./)1*
• C(;>4"* • C(@"*,(%%"$5*'&%/*9/;$*/6&*.(&>5*->/*
• 0"5?/7"&%* 5/,"%.'&4*(:/;%*'%*9/;$5")01*
• G'))*-0(?%/$91* • =$'&>)"*
• !?()"*-./6*,;?.1* • K55/?'(%'/&*-4$/;#*/0*#"/#)"1*
• =$'&>)"* • <)'5%/6*
• G/>""* • A())/#*
108
• +/##")(%"* • I'4.%*%."*?.($4"5*-5(9*&/%*4;')%91*
• ="&&")* • ="$5;(>"*-?/&7'&?"1*
• B;:'>* • 3&?);>'&4*-/&"*/0*(*4$/;#1*
• !"#$"%"&&'()*

109
 APPENDIX B: WORDS TARGETED DURING VOCABULARY INTERVENTION

Words Targeted in the Carnegie Condition Words Targeted in the Anthony Condition
* • *
• +$"(,* * • !;00$(4"**
• 3,,'4$(&%** • H&)"55**
• 8/,#(&9** • +">'?(%'/&**
• 3$/&** • C(@"*5"$'/;5)9**
• !%"")* • 8(;5"**
• =($%*/6&"$* • F5#"?'())9**
• =$/>;?"** • G/7","&%**
• A"55","$** • B'4.%5**
• B(')$/(>** • I'&"**
• !.(#"* • 2/%"**
• C$;)9* • I'4.%*0/$**
• =$/?"55** • 3&*#/)'%'?5**
• F7"&%;())9** • =;:)'?(%'/&**
• 3&?$"(5"** • C",#"$(&?"**
• 3&*>/'&4*5/** • C(@"*,(%%"$5*'&%/*9/;$*/6&*.(&>5**
• G"%./>** • K55/?'(%'/&**
• +"7")/#** • I'4.%*%."*?.($4"5**
• G'))** • ="$5;(>"**
• !?()"** • 3&?);>'&4**
• •

110
 APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF CONTEXT TEST QUESTIONS FOR TAUGHT
WORDS

Is a house very suffrage?

Can you hold suffrage in your hands?
Is suffrage for elephants?
Is suffrage about voting?
Is suffrage about who is allowed to do something?

Do people movement?
Is a movement made of people?
In a movement, do people work together?
If a person doesn’t care whether things change, would they join a movement?
If two people want to sit in different chairs, and they trade chairs, is that being part of a movement?

Would a piano immigrant?

Is a plant a kind of immigrant?
Is an immigrant a person?
Does an immigrant go to a new country?
Does an immigrant go to that new country just for holidays?

Could you Bessemer a flower?

Is the word Bessemer about a machine?
Does a Bessemer converter make concrete?
Does a Bessemer machine blow air through metal?
Does a Bessemer converter add extra slag or junk to the metal?

111
 APPENDIX D: SCORING CRITERIA FOR DEFINITIONS OF TAUGHT WORDS

0 1 2 3 4

Don’t know One key semantic One key semantic Two key semantic Two key semantic
element from the element elements (a elements plus other
OR
list / incorrect part synonym counts correct details on
AND
A morphological of speech as both key list

derivative of the Correct part of semantic

OR OR
word without speech elements)

additional correct Semantic content Two key semantic

information, relates to one elements plus
sense of the word, another meaning of
OR
but not to a key the word

A phonologically semantic element

similar word on list/

OR correct part of
speech
No semantic
relationship OR

OR Correct use of
word in sentence
Very idiosyncratic
semantic OR

relationship
Correct details but

OR neither of key
semantic elements
Meets only one
part of criteria for
“1”

112
Examples: Examples:

Morphological One key semantic

derivative: element from the
“special” for list / incorrect part
“especially” of speech

Phonologically Semantic content

similar word: relates to one
sense of the word,
“suffer” for
but not to a key
“suffrage”,
semantic element
on list/

No semantic correct part of

relationship: “like speech

when you get

“Do things with
arrested” for “in
other people,
politics”
everyone” for
“including”

Very idiosyncratic
semantic
relationship:
“work harder,
work better” for
“increase”

Meets only one

part of criteria for
“1”:

Incorrect information is ignored unless it pertains to one of the key points. Credit is not given for a key point
if it is stated both correctly and incorrectly in the same response.

113
Word Part of Key Semantic Elements Other Correct Details
Speech
Association noun Organized group Synonym:club, council
Same interest/ goal/ job
(not a business per se)
Bessemer noun Making steel Uses iron
Kind of converter/turns Big
into Hot
Oxygen goes through it
Efficient
Cause noun Goal/idea/problem/ The existence of groups that
something one believes in support the goal/idea
(an example of a cause is
considered a goal/idea)
Fight for/ action to solve
or change
Company noun Group of
people/organization
Make money OR
team/work together or
produce/ business
Building adjective About making something/
construction
Something big (house,
road, etc)
Dedication noun Strong support/loyalty To a person/ goal
Actions to show support/
reach a goal
Develop verb Grow or change Example of developing
Usually better
Dream noun Want very much/ wish/ Example of a dream
goal Note: 1 point for “thinking of”
For a long time/ future
Especially adverb More than others
Part of group (can give an
example of a group)
Eventually adverb Later Overcoming problems or
After a long time/ longer obstacles
than expected/ in the end
Fight verb Not guilty/ not agreeing Results in a trail
charges with charges (only if legal Note: 1 point for some
context is clear) reference to court/ trial, without
Tell judge/plead other two elements
Fight for verb Effortful/ doing anything Can be nonviolent
114
 you can/ determination Passionate
(expressing or stating) Example e.g. Martin Luther
Toward goal/ something King,
desired or wanted or
believed in/ for a change
Fine noun Pay money Judge gives
Punishment / breaking a Example of an infraction that is
rule or law/ doing not very serious
something wrong
Immigrant noun Move to new country/ Permanent/ living in a new
foreigner (but no credit country
for “foreign traveler”
because this doesn’t
imply permanence)
Person/ someone
In doing so conjunction Causation- one thing
makes another thing
happen
Same time or
immediately after/ while
In politics Related to government or Candidate
elections or democracy Politicians or examples of
Power- having it, trying politicians
to get it (including (only one point for example of
running in an election, politicians without either key
arguing) semantic element)
Including conjunction Part of / example of Note: being inclusive socially
Larger list/ group (not is considered a different
social group) meaning therefore one point
Increase verb Change Examples
Bigger
Iron noun Metal/ mineral/ ore/ Rusts
mined/ in ground Can be used to make steel
Not a compound/ raw OR Can have slag in it
relatively weaker or more
brittle
Method noun Way of doing something Synonym: technique, procedure
Careful, specific plan Example
Mill noun Building (or the word Industrial
factory)/ place
Grain into flour (or other
conversion)
Movement noun Group(s) of people Not a single organization
Working for a goal/ Goal could be a cause
change/ take a stand or Example e.g. civil rights,
115
 make a statement suffrage
Part Owner noun Person who owns Sharing losses/ profits
Shares ownership/ partial Not complete power
(can say “half”) Company
Persuade noun Change ideas /actions of Synonym: convince
another
By giving reasons or
opinions, arguing, asking
Process noun Way/ Actions that lead to Can happen naturally
a result
Doesn’t need to be exact
Produce verb Make/ create/ get more Synonym: manufacture
Especially with machines
Publication noun Printed words or Note: reference to book (or any
examples that involve other example) by itself =2
print e.g. book, paper, (can’t get credit for both key
draft points by giving an example)
Many copies (or example
of book or newspaper)
Railroad noun Tracks for trains Specific description of parts of
Company that owns them/ tracks
whole system/ land they Example of components of
are on company (land, employees,
trains)
Rights noun Should be allowed to/ Moral or legal
entitle to/ deserves to (or Citizen or human rights
the word “freedom” or examples e.g. speech, press
“privelege”)
To have/ get/ do/ be
treated
Scale noun About size
Relative- larger or smaller
Shape verb Form/ Change/ Mold Reference to a person being
Not the only factor/ help shaped
create/ change some/
guide
Steel noun Metal / Compound/ Made by Bessemer converter
Material/ made of iron Doesn’t rust
Hard/ strong/ used for Stronger or less brittle than iron
building Carbon as well as iron
Suffrage noun Right Example of a group e.g.
Vote women, prisoners, poor people
Take matters Verb phrase Action to make a change
into own Not being done by others
hands
116
Take Verb phrase Interested/ invested/ not
seriously jesting
Willingness to act
Temperance noun Don’t do, or rarely do/ Want it to be illegal
don’t want others to
Alcohol
Truly adjective Veracity/ not doubting/ Note: one point only for “being
actually/ really true” by itself
Sincerity/ believing/
honestly/ truthfully
Unless conjunction What will happen Synonym: except if
If something else doesn’t
happen
Vote Verb/noun Choice/ Specific kind of election e.g.
preference/Participation presidential
In an election/with a
ballot or ballot box/
decision or winning
OR
Able to express choice in
an election (have the
vote)

117
 APPENDIX E: EXAMPLES OF INTERVENTION ACTIVITIES

Task Example
Initial Presentation Target Words: In doing so
“I’m going to tell you another story about the girl I told you about
before. Her name is Leanna. Here’s her picture again. Then we’ll
talk about some of the words.
Leanna knew how to mix her own shampoos. When Leanna started
to make shampoos, she did it on a small scale. Her grandmother
helped her mix some up, and she put it in baby food jars for her
friends. But as more people wanted it, she needed to produce it in
bigger amounts. So now other people work at her home to make it
with her. She started getting more and more orders, and in doing so,
Leanna made more and more money. Leanna’s dream is to have her
shampoos and hair products in stores all across the United States.
She is also truly generous: Leanna would also like to use some of
her money to start a school in Haiti for children who don’t have one.
“
(Note that this story includes 5 target words/phrases: scale, produce,
in doing so, dream, truly).
“In the story, it says that Leanna started getting more and more
orders, and in doing so, she made more and more money. That
means that she made more and more money because she got more
and more orders.
When you say a person did something, and “in doing so”,
something else happened, you mean that because the person did the
first thing, it made the second thing happen at the same time (show
written definition).
I might say “I went swimming, and in doing so, cooled off”. That
means that I cooled off because I went swimming. Getting cool
happened at the same time. Or a person could say “I picked up the
garbage on the sidewalk, and in doing so, made the street look
better.” That means that I made the street look better because I
picked up the garbage on the sidewalk.”
Lexical Judgment: Target Word: Produce
“I’m going to tell you about some situations. You tell me whether
examples or non-
they go with the word ‘produce’. Then I’ll ask you why you chose
examples of target that answer. Are you ready? “
a car factory
words
a person who buys lots of cars
a chocolate factory
a corner store that sells chocolate bars
“Now I want you to tell me why.”
Lexical Judgment: Target Word: Develop
118
whether sentences “Now I have some sentences that use the word ‘develop’. I want you
to tell me if the sentence makes sense.
containing the
The longer you have a car, the more it develops.
word are Babies develop new skills all the time.
Caterpillars develop into butterflies.
semantically
Tables develop legs.
correct Why/ Why not?”
Identifying Target Words: Taking matters into your own hands, Temperance
Examples
“I’m going to tell you a sentence that a person could say. I want you
to tell me which of our words or phrases goes best with it”

Forget it! I’m just going to do it myself, if no one else will!

I’m so upset that there is a bar in our city- I think that should be
illegal.

Paired Word Tasks Target Words: Increase, Scale, Immigrant, Shape

“Would you increase something so that it would be on a small scale?

Why not?”

“Would an immigrant help to shape their new country? Why/ why

not?”
Definition Target Words: Dream, Company, Scale
Identification
“I’m going to give you some phrases. They tell about the words
we’ve been talking about. I want you to tell me which words you
think they go with.”

Something you really want

People working together to make money
Big or little compared to usual

(Note that these definitions are not identical to the ones presented
initially).
Sentence Target Word: Unless
“Now I’m going to show you some pictures. I want you to tell me a
Generation
sentence that goes with the picture, and uses the word “unless”.

Stimuli: Photo of a boy trying to ride a bicycle with a square wheel

Stimuli: Photo of a snail on a computer keyboard.

Sentence Target Word: Publication

119
Completion “I’m going to tell you some sentences that aren’t finished yet, and
you tell me how to finish the sentences. I want you to use one of the
words we have talked about.”

Susan is a good writer, and wants to share her ideas, so she is

looking for a job where she can help create a …… “
Lexical Semantic Target Words: Increase, Company, Bessemer, In politics
Judgments: “How
“I’m going to tell you about some situations. I want you to tell me
surprised?” how surprising they are to you. If they are not surprising at all, you
can put your finger here. If they are very surprising, you can put
your finger here. You can put your finger anywhere you want on
this line.”

“How surprised would you be if…

D the principal said it was okay to have a Bessemer converter in
your classroom?
D a person studied extra hard and then had an increase in their
grades?
one of your parents was in politics?”
Comparisons Target Word: Produce
involving target
“What would be easier to produce- toy cars, or real cars? Why?
words Frozen pizza, or food for astronauts to eat in space? Why?”
Word Comparison Target Words: Suffrage, Temperance
Task
“I’m thinking of two words. I will tell you how they are the same,
and how they’re different. You tell me which word is which.”
Judgments Using Target word: Develop
Target Words
“What skills would you like to develop? Why?”
“People say that children develop, because they are changing and
learning new things. Do you think that adults can develop? Why?”

Narrative Target Words: Building, eventually, immigrant, increase

Generation
“I am going to tell you four words. I want you to make up a story
that uses all of them. Are you ready? Building, eventually,
immigrant, increase.”

If needed, the participant was provided with the words one at a time.

120
 APPENDIX F: DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES USED DURING TEXT
DEVELOPMENT

Number of words
Total number of words in the text.
Number of sentences
Total number of sentences in the text.
Mean sentence length
Mean number of words per sentence.
Mean word frequency (log)
Mean of the log of frequency of content words in the text.
Mean word concreteness scores
These are human ratings of word concreteness. Values range between 100 (more abstract)
to 700 (more concrete). The values shown are a mean for all content words in the text.
Mean syllables per word
This is sometimes taken as a proxy measure of word frequency or complexity (as in the
Flesch reading measures below).
Type token ratio
A measure of lexical diversity: the number of unique words divided by the number of
instances of the word.
Subordination Index
The subordination index is calculated by dividing the number of clauses by the total
number of utterances. It is a measure of syntactic complexity.
Mean modifiers per noun phrase
Mean of the number of modifiers per noun-phrase. It is also a measure of syntactic
complexity. Together, the subordination index and mean modifiers per noun phrase
measure provide an estimate of syntactic complexity as it pertains to both left and right
branching.
Mean Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) similarity between adjacent sentences
The mean of the LSA cosines for adjacent sentences. This is a measure of how
semantically similar each sentence is to the sentence that follows it. It is a measure of text

121
cohesion.
Mean LSA similarity between all sentences
The mean of the LSA cosines for all sentence combinations (all combinations of sentences
are considered, not just sentences which are adjacent). It is also a measure of the semantic
aspects of text cohesion.
Flesch Reading Ease Score
A traditional readability score that uses the formula “Reading Ease Score” = 206.835 -
(1.015 x mean sentence length )- (84.6 x mean syllables per word). Note that mean
sentence length and mean syllables per word were also used as matching variables.
Flesch Kincaid Grade Level
This converts the Flesch reading ease score into a grade level (grade 0-12). The formula
“Flesch Kincaid Grade Level= (.39 x mean sentence length) + (11.8 x mean syllables per
word).

122
 APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF VARIABLES AFFECTING TEXT DIFFICULTY

Carnegie Anthony
Length- words 301 294
Length- sentences 26 25
Mean Sentence Length 11.577 11.76
LSA-average similarity between 0.331 0.302
sentences
LSA- average similarity between 0.308 0.221
adjascent sentences
Word frequency: log 2.294 2.357
Concreteness 414.089 382.355
Type Token Ratio 0.535 0.502
Subordination Index 1.77 2.25
Modifiers per Noun Phrase 0.761 0.742
Reading Ease Score: Flesch 73.091 64.276
Reading Level: Flesch Kincaid Grade 5.941 7.216
Level

123
 APPENDIX H: STIMULI PRESENTED TO PARTICIPANTS FOR READING
COMPREHENSION AND HSNW TASKS, AND MEANINGS OF NONWORDS

It may be hard to imagine, but women in the United States haven’t always had the right to
vote. It took hard work and dedication of many people, including Susan Anthony. Susan
Anthony spent much of her life fighting for causes she believed in. She especially worked
for women’s suffrage, or women’s right to vote. Susan Anthony was born in 1820 and
grew up in a politically zove family. For example, they worked to end slavery. They were
also part of the temperance movement. People in the temperance movement wanted to
stop the sale of alcohol. Once, Susan Anthony was not allowed to speak at a meeting for
the temperance movement because she was a woman. This vacked her to fight for
women’s rights. Susan Anthony realized that no one would take women in politics
seriously unless women had the right to vote. Anthony was tireless in her efforts. She
gave speeches around the country to persuade others to drace a woman’s right to vote.
She started a weekly publication about women and voting. She started a group called the
North American Suffrage Association. She even took matters into her own hands. Once,
she voted in the presidential election illegally. Anthony was arrested and tried to fight the
charges. She didn’t nush, and was fined $100. She never paid the fine. When Anthony
died in 1906, American women still did not have the right to vote. Fourteen years after
she died, the U.S. Hane was changed, and this gave women the right to vote. The U.S.
bome put Anthony’s picture on one dollar coins in 1979. This was to recognize her
dedication and hard work. She was the first woman to get this honor.

Andrew Carnegie was the son of Scottish immigrants. One of his first jobs was as a
messenger boy. He only earned $2.50 a week! At the age of eighteen, Carnegie got a job
on the Pennsylvania Railroad. As he was working, he realized that iron was not a good
yane material for the railroad. Iron nings tended to crack and often had to be replaced.
The weight of a train weakened iron bridges. Carnegie felt that steel would be a stronger
building material. He decided to find ways to increase the production of steel that could
be used on the railroads. Carnegie carefully saved his money and used it to become part
owner of a small iron company. Eventually, he broned the ownership of several more

124
companies. That allowed him to increase his production of steel. But making steel was
slow and zump. Then Carnegie learned about the Bessemer process. Using this method,
steel could be made quickly and on a large scale. Carnegie decided to risk all. He spent a
lot of money to build a huge steel mill. He also bought iron and coal mines. As well, he
bought ships and trains to transport the steel. By 1900, three million tons of steel were
produced by Carnegie’s mills each year. Carnegie’s fortune was then worth two hundred
and fifty million. Carnegie accomplished his dream, that of increasing steel production,
and, in doing so, he developed and shaped the United States steel hile. In 1901, at the
peak of his career, Carnegie decided to sell his stide and retire. He then spent much of his
time and money in helping others. He gave money to start more than two thousand
libraries in the United States and around the world. Carnegie can truly be called the Man
of Steel.

Meaning of Nonwords

Zove= Active

Vacked=Inspired

Drace= Support

Nush= Win

Hane= Constitution

Bome= Government

Yane= construction

Nings= Rails

Broned= Acquire

Zump= Costly

Hile= Industry

Stide= business

125
 APPENDIX I: SCORING CRITERIA FOR DEFINITIONS OF NOVEL WORDS

0 1 2 3 4
Don’t know OR Incorrect part of One key Two key Target Word
speech semantic semantic OR
Phonologically OR element elements
based response OR Semantic AND Exact synonym
content makes
No semantic some connection Correct part of
relationship OR to paragraph but speech
not key semantic
Very idiosyncratic element
semantic
relationship OR

Meets only one

part of criteria for
“1”

Word Part of Key Semantic Elements Exact Other Comments

Speech Synonyms
construction adjective Making building Great material=1
Something physical Any physical quality
eg. Strong, pure, dull
=1 (physical is a key
semantic element)

rails noun Part of railroad Tracks Piece=1

Something that indicates
function e.g. bar, parallel,
holds up trains,, metal
acquire verb Pay money for
Possess/ Have/ Be in charge
costly Adjective A lot of money
Sacrifice/ difficulty
126
Specific part of railroad
that is not associated
with rails e.g. hoop,
clips, latches, nails =1
If above plus railroad
=2
Obtained
Purchased
Bought
Expensive Slow (by itself) =1
industry Noun Company/ business Production= 1
Group of businesses National production =2
business Noun Goods or services Businesses Property=2
For money Company Something owned/
Companies livelihood/ work= 2
active adjective Involved/ participating/ do
many things/ hard work
Action/ movement/ energy/
persistence
inspired verb To cause/ to do something Motivated Desire includes anger,
about Encouraged obligation, wanting,
Desire being persuaded or
convinced
support Verb Agree/ approve
Help or assist including
making a difference
win verb Victory Succeed Fail=2 (got important
Effort or fortune semantic feature, but
missed negative
implications in
sentence)
Not giving up,
perseverance =2
constitution noun Law/ rule Bill of Government = 1
For whole country Rights
government Noun Decisions/ power including
making decisions about
coins, being a money maker,
mint, honouring people
For a country

127
APPENDIX J: EXAMPLES OF CONTEXT TEST QUESTIONS FOR NOVEL WORDS

Drace: to support
Is drace something you do?
Can a person drace?
Would someone drace a rock?
If a person draces something, would they think it’s okay?
Would you work for something that you draced?

Hane: Consitution
Do bears hane?
Is a hane a thing?
Is a hane a kind of law?
Is a hane for every country in the world?
Does a hane say what a government can do?

Yane: Construction
Can yane sit down?
Are school principals yane?
Can something yane help you make something?
Can something that’s yane help you make something?
Could wood be something yane?

Zump: Costly
Can something you do be zump?
Could you have a zump mountain?
Does zump mean that something is colorful?
Is it cheap to do something zump?
Is something zump worth a lot?

128