Details

Published: 26 September 2014

Hits: 62560

Vocabulary/Oral Language/Comprehension: Some research findings

Dr Kerry Hempenstall, Senior Industry Fellow, School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

My blogs can be viewed on-line or downloaded as a Word file or PDF at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/olxpifutwcgvg8j/AABU8YNr4ZxiXPXzvHrrirR8a?dl=0

New Addition - March 2025

So, this document is a new variant of my original paper. As my original document goes back quite some time, this one is focusing on recent times – it is reporting only on those released between 2000 and 2050. I’m interested to see how the various elements of educational issues may have changed.

My original material tended to address the students’ education issues in their early youth. In this older version of these topics, attention will be addressed also at the older students with issues.

The original paper can be found at the end of this new section. 

International assessments show that 20% of adolescents cannot read simple texts with understanding. Despite this, research has focused on early reading in childhood and skilled reading in adulthood, neglecting reading development during adolescence. We report a longitudinal study assessing reading and vocabulary development at 12, 13 and 14 years in a sample of 210 adolescents who were unselected for ability. Word reading accuracy, word reading fluency, reading comprehension, receptive vocabulary and expressive vocabulary were assessed using standardized assessments. Latent variable models showed consistent rank order amongst individuals (high stability), significant progress over time, and evidence that achievement gaps between the least and most able adolescents were narrowing. Oral vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension were best conceptualized as indices of a common language construct. Low levels of reading proficiency were also observed in a substantial proportion of this sample, underlining the importance of providing ongoing reading and language support during adolescence.

Ricketts, J., Lervåg, A., Dawson, N., Taylor, L. A., & Hulme, C. (2020). Reading and Oral Vocabulary Development in Early Adolescence. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24(5), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1689244

“Abstract

This study examined the structure of oral language and reading and their relation to comprehension from a latent variable modeling perspective in Kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2. Participants were students in Kindergarten (n = 218), Grade 1 (n = 372), and Grade 2 (n = 273), attending Title 1 schools. Students were administered phonological awareness, syntax, vocabulary, listening comprehension, and decoding fluency measures in mid-year.

Outcome measures included a listening comprehension measure in Kindergarten and a reading comprehension test in Grades1 and 2. In Kindergarten, oral language (consisting of listening comprehension, syntax, and vocabulary) shared variance with phonological awareness in predicting a listening comprehension outcome. However, in Grades 1 and 2, phonological awareness was no longer predictive of reading comprehension when decoding fluency and oral language were included in the model. In Grades 1 and 2, oral language and decoding fluency were significant predictors of reading comprehension.

Learning to read requires an array of linguistic skills in order to ensure successful comprehension. Critical to recognizing words is the ability to connect graphic units to phonological segments. However, decoding the pronunciation of a word may not yield lexical understanding and, therefore, vocabulary knowledge is also an important skill in learning to read.

Another linguistic skill that is foundational to the reading process is knowledge of the structural features of language, that is, syntactic knowledge. Longitudinal studies starting in Kindergarten show both vocabulary and syntax to be important predictors of later reading success (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004) and also to differentiate good and poor readers (e.g., Catts et al., 1999). However, longitudinal studies in the early grades often do not show that oral language contributes unique variance to reading outcomes (Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Carlson, & Foorman, 2004; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).

To better understand the role of oral language measures of vocabulary, syntax, and listening comprehension in learning to read, we designed the current study to examine their relation with phonological awareness in predicting listening comprehension in Kindergarten and reading comprehension in Grades 1 and 2. We added listening comprehension as a predictor in all three grades and decoding fluency as a predictor in Grades 1 and 2 because reading success is often described as a product of decoding and language comprehension in the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). To account for the inter-relatedness of these predictors, we examined their relations from a latent variable modeling perspective.

The role of vocabulary and syntax in learning to read and comprehend text

Understanding spoken and written language requires that the meaning of words and sentences be integrated into a mental model of the text (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). Contributing to this integration are world knowledge, motivation, and system architecture issues such as limitations in working memory or executive functioning that are beyond the scope of this study. To measure word meanings researchers typically administer expressive and receptive vocabulary tests that assess lexical depth and breadth. To measure the structural features of language (i.e., syntax) researchers often administer oral tasks that require grammatical judgments or the repetition of sentences with increasingly complex grammatical structures.

A controversial question is the exact role of vocabulary and syntactic knowledge in learning to read. Some researchers argue that all oral language correlates of poor word reading, including vocabulary and syntactic skills, have their genesis in weak phonological awareness (Shankweiler, Crain, Brady, & Macaruso, 1992). According to this view, weak phonological representations jeopardize lexical quality and undermine word recognition processes. Furthermore, according to the lexical restructuring model (Walley, Metsala, & Garlock, 2003), the more entries available in the lexicon, the more fully specified phonological representations will be.

Thus, one might expect strong phonological awareness to coincide with strong oral vocabulary and strong word recognition processes. However, there is little support for significant effects of oral vocabulary on word recognition (e.g., Muter et al., 2004), although Ouellette and Beers (2010) found that vocabulary did predict irregular word recognition in first grade.

Ouelette and Beers suggest that irregular word reading taps orthographic processing and, therefore, benefits from fuller and deeper semantic representations than those afforded by representations of words with consistent sound-spelling patterns. Another way to explain this oral vocabulary effect is as a bootstrapping mechanism that provides top-down support to scaffold partially decoded words until plausible meanings are achieved (e.g., Share, 1995).

The relationship between vocabulary and reading and between syntactic knowledge and reading depends partly on the readers’ phase of reading development and the reading outcome used (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). One longitudinal study of early literacy found a direct effect of a latent variable comprised of vocabulary and syntax in preschool on Kindergarten letter knowledge (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002) found that (a) preschoolers’ vocabulary and listening comprehension directly predicted word reading at the end of Grade 1 and indirectly predicted reading comprehension in Grade 3 and that (b) word reading at the end of Grade 1 predicted reading comprehension in Grade 3. Finally, a third longitudinal study found that the relationship between oral language and reading accuracy in Grades 1–2 and reading comprehension in Grades 3–4 was mediated by code-related skills such as letter knowledge and phonological awareness (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).

Not surprisingly, the relationship between oral language and reading tends to be stronger when reading comprehension measures are employed rather than word reading measures, presumably because reading comprehension requires the understanding of units of text larger than individual words (e.g., Muter et al., 2004; Scarborough, 2005; Share & Leikin, 2004; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).

For example, Cromley and Azevedo (2007) found a direct effect of vocabulary on reading comprehension in a study of 175 students in 9th grade, but they also found an indirect effect mediated by inference—presumably needed when comprehension was compromised by encountering unknown word meanings. One could also imagine the cognitive complexity of verbal material indirectly influencing the relation of oral language skills of vocabulary and syntax to reading comprehension (e.g., Scarborough, 2005).

In sum, there is a substantial amount of research on relations between phonological awareness and reading (see Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001). Much of this research privileges phonological awareness as a core variable in predicting reading outcomes (e.g., Stanovich, 1988; Shankweiler et al., 1992), but other research relegates it to a reciprocal role fairly early in reading development (Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes, 1987) and emphasizes the integration of phonological, orthographic, and semantic representations (e.g., Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989). There is much less research on relations among vocabulary, syntax, and reading, and results vary depending on the phase of reading development studied and the reading outcomes used.

The Simple View of Reading

The Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990) states that reading is a product of word recognition and language comprehension. The Simple View is relevant to a discussion of relations among syntax, vocabulary, listening comprehension, phonological awareness, and comprehension in the primary grades because of the strong relations between phonological awareness and word recognition and the possibility that vocabulary, syntactic knowledge, and listening comprehension comprise the language comprehension construct.

Tunmer and Chapman (2012) recently tested the hypothesis that vocabulary makes an independent contribution to word recognition in the Simple View of Reading model. They gave tests of vocabulary, nonword reading, word recognition, and listening and reading comprehension to 122 7-year-old students. Through regression analyses they found that vocabulary made a unique contribution to reading comprehension beyond that made by word recognition and listening comprehension. Through structural equation modeling they found that the latent variable of language comprehension—consisting of vocabulary and listening comprehension—related to reading comprehension directly and indirectly through the latent variable of word recognition.

However, Wagner, Herrera, Spencer, and Quinn (2014) found that Tunmer and Chapman had misspecified their model by omitting a required covariance. When they reran the model with the correct specification, they not only found that the Simple View of Reading fit the data well, but they also found that the Simple View was equivalent to models that replaced the covariance with a direct effect from oral language to decoding as well as a direct effect from decoding to oral language. This evidence of reciprocity can only be untangled through longitudinal and intervention studies.

Other researchers have found that vocabulary accounts for more variability in reading comprehension than listening comprehension does. Protopapas, Sideridis, Mouzaki and Simos (2007) in a longitudinal study conducted on the island of Crete, found that decoding had a negligible effect on reading comprehension when vocabulary was taken into account. Similarly, in a longitudinal study of 2,143 Dutch children, Verhoeven and Van Leeuwe (2008) found that reading comprehension in Grade 1 was explained by decoding and listening comprehension but that earlier vocabulary predicted later reading comprehension, whereas earlier listening comprehension did not.

In a meta-analysis, Garcia and Cain (2014) examined whether three reader skills—vocabulary, decoding, and listening comprehension—moderated the relationship between decoding and reading comprehension. Only listening comprehension was a significant moderator of the relationship. The authors were not surprised that decoding was not a significant moderator because of its declining role as word recognition becomes fluent and efficient. However, the authors were surprised that vocabulary was not a significant moderator of the decoding-reading comprehension relation. They surmised that perhaps an independent effect of vocabulary on both decoding and reading comprehension might have reduced its strength as a moderator. Alternatively, they wondered whether the vocabulary measures themselves are to blame for not adequately capturing complex language (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008).

In summary, the relations between vocabulary and listening comprehension as they relate to decoding and reading comprehension are unclear. This lack of clarity may be due to how and when the constructs are measured during reading development.”

Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., Petscher, Y., Mitchell, A., & Truckenmiller, A. (2015). The Structure of Oral Language and Reading and Their Relation to Comprehension in Kindergarten through Grade 2. Reading and writing, 28(5), 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9544

“The two major determinants of reading comprehension are language comprehension and decoding, but prior studies of the development of reading comprehension from an early age show inconsistent results. To clarify these inconsistencies we report a 6-year longitudinal study (starting at Age 4 years) where we control for measurement error and track the development and interrelationships between a range of predictors of reading comprehension (language, decoding, and cognitive skills).

We found two main pathways to reading comprehension: a highly stable language comprehension pathway (reflecting variations in vocabulary, listening comprehension, grammar, and verbal working memory) and a less stable code-related pathway (reflecting variations in phoneme awareness, letter knowledge, and rapid automatized naming). Early language comprehension at Age 4 years is strongly related to code-related predictors (phoneme awareness, letter knowledge, and rapid naming), and influences decoding indirectly through these constructs. Early oral language skills predicted initial levels of reading comprehension and its growth between the ages of 7 and 9 years. Strikingly, language comprehension and decoding, together with their interaction and curvilinear effects, explain almost all (99.7%) of the variance in reading comprehension skills at 7 years of age.

Our study adds to prior knowledge in several important ways and provides strong support for an elaborated version of the simple view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Educational Impact and Implications Statement Word reading (decoding) and language skills are the foundations for reading comprehension. The present study shows that oral language skills are highly stable and are a critical foundation for the development of both decoding and reading comprehension skills. Evidence from several randomized trials shows that broadly based language interventions can be effective.

Early education policy should place a strong emphasis on providing interventions to improve oral language skills for children who experience difficulties in this area.

The goal of reading is to comprehend text. It is well established that reading comprehension depends upon both language comprehension and word reading skills (the simple view of reading, Gough & Tunmer, 1986).

Most studies of reading comprehension use concurrent or short-term longitudinal designs, with limited ranges of measures (for comprehensive reviews, see Hjetland, Brinchmann, Scherer, & Melby-Lervåg, 2017; Lonigan, Schatschneider, & Westberg, 2008) which do not allow us to unravel the complex relationships between the development of reading comprehension, word reading, and various aspects of oral language skills.

Systematic reviews show that longitudinal studies of the development of reading comprehension have yielded inconsistent results (Hjetland et al., 2017; Lonigan et al., 2008). Here we present data from a large-scale longitudinal study beginning at 4 years of age, before children have started formal education. Following guidelines to improve replicability in multivariate observational studies (Tackett et al., 2017) here we address three issues that might have led to inconsistencies in prior studies: (a) we include a large set of predictors, (b) our analyses control for measurement error, and (c) we follow children beyond the early stages of reading development.

Development of Reading Comprehension.

There are a number of theoretical models that aim to explain the growth of reading comprehension (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007; Kintsch, 1988; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).

For reading comprehension in elementary school, the simple view of reading has received the strongest empirical support (Foorman, Koon, Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, 2015; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Lervåg & Aukrust, 2010; for a review see Hjetland et al., 2017). According to this model reading comprehension is the product of decoding (word reading) and listening (language) comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). A seminal study traced Head Start children annually from roughly 4 to 9 years of age (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).

This study provides support for the simple view with two distinct pathways to reading comprehension: a language comprehension and a code-related pathway. Language comprehension showed higher longitudinal stability than code-related skills. In the earliest grades, decoding had the greatest influence on reading comprehension, but from third grade, language comprehension started to have a significant influence.

There was also a strong relationship between language comprehension and code-related skills, but the strength of this relationship decreased with age. Similar findings were also obtained in a study of typically developing children in the highly transparent Finnish orthography, though here the direct effect of decoding on reading comprehension entirely disappeared after second grade (Torppa et al., 2016).

This latter finding presumably reflects the fact that decoding skills plateau early in a highly transparent orthography such as Finnish (Caravolas, Lervåg, Defior, Seidlová Málková, & Hulme, 2013). A recent systematic review of studies examining preschool predictors of later reading comprehension partly gives support to these two large-scale studies (Hjetland et al., 2017).

This review developed a meta-analytic structural equation model based on 42 studies and, in line with the simple view, gave support to two distinct pathways from preschool to later reading comprehension. One was a pathway from language comprehension (a latent construct based on vocabulary and grammar), and the second a pathway from letter/sound skills (a latent construct based on phoneme awareness and letter knowledge) via decoding to reading comprehension. The model explained 60% of the variation in reading comprehension.

Methodological Issues in Prior Longitudinal Studies Predicting Reading Comprehension From Preschool

The review by Hjetland et al. (2017) showed that the bivariate correlations between preschool predictors and later reading comprehension differed markedly between studies. For example, some studies found a strong correlation between preschool vocabulary and later reading comprehension (Roth, Speece, & Cooper, 2002), while others found only a weak relationship (Fricke, Szczerbinski, Fox-Boyer, & Stackhouse, 2016). Across 45 studies the size of such correlations varied between .13 to .67. Equivalent inconsistency was also demonstrated in another systematic review (Lonigan et al., 2008).

The inconsistencies between studies are particularly clear among those that trace children beyond the early stages of learning to read. Those studies that have traced children beyond the earliest stages of reading instruction find influences on reading comprehension from a variety of different measures including working memory and sentence repetition (Adlof, Catts, & Lee, 2010; Kurdek & Sinclair, 2001), syntax/morphology (Adlof et al., 2010; Casalis & Louis-Alexandre, 2000), receptive vocabulary (Durand, Loe, Yeatman, & Feldman, 2013), and letter knowledge (Leppänen, Aunola, Niemi, & Nurmi, 2008).

A moderator analysis conducted by Hjetland et al. (2017) showed that the inconsistencies in the size of the correlations between reading comprehension and preschool predictors had several potential explanations. One variable that explained variation between studies in the size of correlations was the age at which reading comprehension was assessed.

Notably, most studies were short-term longitudinal studies with beginning readers, and in these studies code-related predictors were more important than in studies of older children. The systematic review by Lonigan et al. (2008) emphasizes the lack of studies that follow children from preschool to the later stages of reading development. Another potential explanation for inconsistency is failure to control for measurement error. Measurement error can distort the pattern of relationships in longitudinal studies, when predictors differ in their reliability (Cole & Preacher, 2014).

Out of the 64 studies included in the Hjetland et al. (2017) review, only four used latent variables to control for measurement error and only 20 reported the reliability of measures. An additional issue that may contribute to the inconsistency of conclusions from prior studies are differences in the preschool predictors of reading comprehension they include.

Many previous studies include a very limited set of predictors (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005; Pike, Swank, Taylor, Landry, & Barnes, 2013; Sénéchal, 2006): the majority focus on predictors of decoding and in addition only have a single measure of vocabulary and reading comprehension (e.g., Cronin, 2013; Furnes & Samuelsson, 2009; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004; Näslund & Schneider, 1996).

There appear to be only two studies that have used an adequate range of predictors from both domains (predictors of comprehension and predictors of decoding) while also controlling for measurement error by using latent variables (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Torppa et al., 2016). Finally, previous studies have shown that the type of reading comprehension test used is a critical influence on the strength of correlations found between reading comprehension, decoding, and language comprehension. Keenan, Betjemann, and Olson (2008) showed that cloze tests (where the reader is asked to fill in a missing word in a sentence) relied heavily on decoding skills, whereas tests that use open-ended questions are more dependent on language comprehension skills.

The role of decoding has also been related to text length, as tests that used single-sentence or two-sentence passages proved to be more sensitive to decoding skills than tests that used longer passages (Francis et al., 2006; Keenan et al., 2008). Keenan and Betjemann (2006) demonstrated that a problem with tests using a multiple-choice format was that in many cases the child could answer test questions correctly without reading the passage.

Issues related to type of reading comprehension test may also have led to inconsistencies in previous studies and unfortunately, the majority of studies in this area use cloze or multiple-choice tests (55 out of 64 studies, Hjetland et al., 2017). In the present study we choose the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA; Neale, 1997) which has open-ended questions and narrative text and presumably draws more heavily on the comprehension component of reading comprehension than tests with multiple choice and cloze procedures (Bowyer-Crane & Snowling, 2005; Cain & Oakhill, 2006; Keenan et al., 2008).”

Hjetland, H. N., Lervåg, A., Lyster, S.-A. H., Hagtvet, B. E., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age.Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000321

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Explaining Performance in Word Reading and Comprehension Across Ages: An Analysis of Multiple Hypotheses with the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (2022)

Jason R. Parkin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8407-7202 parkinj@seattleu.edu and Lily Robins DevilleView all authors and affiliations

Volume 40, Issue 7

https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221107324

• Contents
  • Abstract
  • References

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/07342829221107324

Abstract

Like all psychoeducational batteries, the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, fourth Edition (WIAT-4) requires independent investigation and analysis. The publisher provides multiple theories to support interpretation of its reading measures. At the word reading level, the battery includes a new Phonemic Proficiency subtest that the publisher reported correlated relatively higher with word reading skills than more basic phonological measures. However, its explanation of word reading skills in the context of other important predictors, like vocabulary, has not been investigated. At the comprehension level, the publisher endorsed an expanded simple view of reading, where oral reading fluency skills mediate the effects of word reading and oral language skills on comprehension. Using structural equation modeling with correlations provided in the technical manual, these analyses investigated multiple hypotheses stemming from publisher-endorsed theories. Results conformed to much of the publisher’s word level theories, but they were more equivocal at the comprehension level. Implications for WIAT-4 interpretation are discussed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

This next segment is the original, broader document and includes earlier periods.

How does the research assist us in ensuring that students are able to maximise their understanding of what they read? Though it may appear intuitively that the answer is obvious, the research provides a few surprises. It also highlights how influences on vocabulary and comprehension can vary significantly over a student's school career.

"Vocabulary refers to the words children need to know to comprehend and communicate. Oral vocabulary is the words children recognise or use in listening and speaking. Reading vocabulary is the words children recognise or use in reading and writing."

Carnine, D, Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E.J., Tarver, S.G., & Jungjohann, K. (2006). Teaching reading to struggling and at-risk readers. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

“The process of acquiring and using words in oral and written contexts is a life-long learning process that begins quite critically during the early years. Knowledge of vocabulary meanings affects children’s abilities to understand and use words appropriately during the language acts of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Such knowledge influences the complexities and nuances of children’s thinking, how they communicate in the oral and written languages, and how well they will understand printed texts. …Unless children develop strong vocabularies early in life and continue to deepen and broaden their vocabulary knowledge throughout the schooling years, they will predictably face difficulty in understanding what they read, will not use advanced and mature words in their writing, will have problems with academic subjects, will perform poorly on national achievement tests, and will fall steadily behind their more vocabulary-proficient peers” (p. 333-4).

Sinatra, R., Zygouris-Coe, V., & Dasinger, S. (2011). Preventing a vocabulary lag: What lessons are learned from research. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(4), 333-357.

"In addition to the NRP report, six reviews and two meta-analyses of vocabulary instruction were published between 1998 and 2009 (Baker et al., 1998; Baumann, Kame’enui et al., 2003; Elleman et al., 2009; Harmon et al., 2005; Jitendra et al., 2004; Kuhn & Stahl, 1998; Read, 2004; Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). The most recent meta-analysis, by Elleman et al., included 37 studies in prekindergarten to twelfth grade. Among the findings was that students with reading difficulties who were exposed to vocabulary instruction benefited three times as much as those who were not. The meta-analysis conducted by Swanborn and de Glopper examined incidental word learning. Kuhn and Stahl synthesized the research of learning words from context, whereas Baker et al. identified advances in the research on vocabulary development for diverse learners. Baumann, Kame’enui et al. categorized vocabulary strategies by their use: strategies for teaching specific words and strategies to learn words independently. The other vocabulary reviews focused on more restrictive populations or topics. For example, Read examined studies in second language learners’ vocabulary instruction since 1999, and Harmon et al. identified several effective strategies for students struggling with content-area texts. Jitendra et al. highlighted the importance of choosing an instructional method based on instructional goals and the needs of individual students. However, none of these reviews highlighted the methodologies of the studies cited" (p.254-55).

Hairrell, A., Rupley, W., & Simmons, D. (2011). The state of vocabulary research. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(4), 253-271.

Read more ...