No abstract

Much is known about the impact of vocabulary instruction on reading skills, word knowledge, and reading comprehension. However, knowledge of the underlying theories that guide vocabulary instruction and their potential impact on teachers’ performance and/or students’ achievement has not been investigated. In this content analysis, articles published in The Reading Teacher and Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy between 2007 and 2017 were dissected to identify and code embedded word-learning strategies, grade levels addressed, target student populations, and desired outcomes (receptive or productive vocabulary). Our primary goal was to examine the embedded word-learning strategies within the articles, and to identify the theories on which they were built. Findings showed that a combination of theories guided most strategy recommendations: Social constructivism and sociocultural theories, schema and psycholinguistic theories, motivation theory, and dual coding theory. We also parallel-coded our findings with a recent review of literature on vocabulary instruction by Wright and Cervetti (2017), and found that they corresponded with the original coding. Follow-up quantitative studies can use the salient theories detected in this content analysis to investigate whether knowledge of underlying theories has an impact on teachers’ performance and student vocabulary and reading comprehension achievement.

This meta‐analysis examined the effectiveness of improving reading comprehension for students in K‐12 classrooms using intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs), a computer‐based learning environment that provides customizable and immediate feedback to the learner. Nineteen studies from 13 publications incorporating approximately 10 000 students were included in the final analysis; using robust variance estimation to account for statistical dependencies, the 19 studies yielded 88 effect size estimates. The meta‐analysis indicated that the overall random effect size of ITSs on reading comprehension was 0.60 (using a mix of standardized and researcher‐designed measures) with a 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.85 (p < 0.001). This review confirms previous studies comparing ITSs to human tutoring: ITSs produced a small effect size when compared to human tutoring (0.20, 0.02–0.38, p = 0.036, n = 21). All comparisons to human tutoring used standardized measures. This review also found that ITSs produced a larger effect size on reading comprehension when compared to traditional instruction (0.86) for mixed measures and (0.26) for standardized measures. These findings may be of interest to practitioners and policy makers seeking to improve reading comprehension using consistent and accessible ITSs. Recommendations for researchers include conducting studies to understand the difference between traditional and updated versions of ITSs and employing valid and reliable standardized tests and researcher‐designed measures.

No abstract