Theoretical and Review Articles
Reading Vocabulary Knowledge and Deafness
Peter V. Paul
Ohio State University
With respect to reading vocabulary knowledge and deafness,
this article addresses two broad questions: (1) Why is vocabulary knowledge related to reading comprehension ability? (2)
How is reading vocabulary (i.e., word meanings) acquired?
The article argues that the answers to these questions are best
addressed by a vocabulary acquisition model labeled the
knowledge model. In essence, this model asserts that both
breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge are critical. It is
necessary to teach vocabulary, especially to poor readers, who
are not likely to derive many word meanings from the use of
context during natural or deliberate reading situations. On
the basis of theoretical and research syntheses, the article
offers implications for vocabulary instruction for deaf children and adolescents.
The low English reading achievement level of deaf students (i.e., with severe to profound hearing losses) has
been well documented in the research and scholarly literature (e.g., see research syntheses in King & Quigley,
1985; Paul & Quigley, 1994; Paul, forthcoming). It is
suspected that these low levels are attributed to several
language variables, one of which is reading vocabulary
knowledge (Davey & King, 1990; LaSasso & Davey,
1987; Paul & Gustafson, 1991; Paul & O'Rourke, 1988).
Although it is generally accepted that good readers
have large reading vocabularies, there is much debate
on two broad questions: (1) Why is vocabulary knowlCorrespondence chould be tent to Peter V. Paul, Ohio State University,
Department of Educational Services and Research, 356 Arps Hall,
1945 N. High Soeet, Columbia, OH 43210 (e-mail: ppaul@magnus.
tcs.ohio-state.edu).
Copyright © 19% Oxford University Press. CCC 1081-4159
edge related to reading comprehension? (2) How is
reading vocabulary (i.e., word meanings) acquired?
This article addresses these two questions relative
to both hearing and deaf children and adolescents. Although each question, by itself, has been the focus of
much research activity (at least for students with normal hearing), there is a need to synthesize these broad
research activities, especially for understanding and
improving the reading vocabulary knowledge of deaf
children and adolescents. The intent here is to show
that the knowledge model of vocabulary acquisition is
most tenable for understanding and increasing the
reading vocabulary knowledge of students, which, in
turn, should lead to an improvement of their reading
comprehension ability.
With respect to vocabulary instruction, a synthesis
of current theory and research does not support the
bulk of practices used with both hearing (e.g., Beck &
McKeown, 1991; Nagy, 1988) and deaf students (e.g.,
Conway, 1990; Dolman, 1992; Paul, 1989; Paul & Gustafson, 1991). In many instances, teachers might provide the students with a list of words and require them
to pronounce or sign the words and to use them in
short sentences. The assumption is that the students
need to know the word and its meaning only as it is
used in a particular story. "Knowing a word" means
being able to pronounce or sign the word and to use it
in a short sentence. Nevertheless, these procedures
yield only a "partial" knowledge of words (Nagy, 1988).
Very little time is spent on discussing words and their
4
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:1 Winter 1996
meanings in depth. For example, there might be little
or no discussion about the additional meanings of a
word, its relations to other words, or its metaphorical
or figurative usage. From another perspective, teachers
influenced by a pure whole-language philosophy might
spend little or no time on vocabulary instruction. Specifically, they do not present or discuss vocabulary
words prior to a reading activity (e.g., for deaf students,
see Dolman, 1992).
These prevalent approaches above ignore the merits of starting with what students know about the target
words and using this information to expand students'
overall vocabulary knowledge and understanding of
other concepts in the reading materials. In other words,
in order to deal with unknown information, students
should be encouraged as much as possible to discuss
and relate this difficult information to what they already know (e.g., Nagy, 1988; Pearson, 1984,1985). An
in-depth discussion of words (both known and unknown) and related concepts is important for helping
many poor readers and some good readers activate, enrich, and apply relevant prior knowledge before and
during reading to maximize their understanding of the
text. Often overlooked is the fact that an in-depth discussion of words provides more than just an understanding of the words themselves.
The plan for this article is as follows. First, relative
to the first question, there is a brief discussion of the
three major vocabulary acquisition theories. Next, a
representative sample of research on vocabulary is synthesized, especially in relation to vocabulary instruction and the use of context in deriving word meanings.
The research on vocabulary instruction provides additional insights into the first question. With respect to
the second question, the research on the use of context
cues addresses when and why direct vocabulary instruction is important for students. Finally, based on
the theoretical and research syntheses, I present implications for vocabulary instruction for deaf children
and adolescents.
Vocabulary Knowledge and
Reading Comprehension
There is no general consensus on why vocabulary
knowledge is important for reading comprehension
(see research reviews in Anderson & Freebody, 1979,
1985; Paul, forthcoming; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).
Only a few experimental studies have been conducted
on the effects of vocabulary instruction on reading
comprehension (for hearing students, see reviews in
Beck & McKeown, 1991; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; for
deaf students, see Paul, 1984, forthcoming; Paul &
O'Rourke, 1988). It should be kept in mind that the
effect of vocabulary instruction is also complicated by
on-going debates concerning the answers to questions
such as these: What is a word? What is a meaning?
What does it mean to know a meaning? What does it
mean to know a word? (Anderson & Nagy, 1991;
Beck & McKeown, 1991).
Beck and McKeown (1991) offer an interesting
perspective on the question of what it means to know
a word:
The question of what it means to know a word
draws two kinds of responses: One pertains to how
information about word meanings is represented in
memory. The other response involves the extent or
dimension of knowledge that people may have
about individual words, (p. 791)
The latter response has been the focus of the work of
Beck and McKeown (1991) and is of relevance here because of the implications for understanding the notion
and value of vocabulary instruction and its importance
for developing reading ability.
Three basic models have been proffered to explain
the relationship between word knowledge and reading
ability: instrumentalist, aptitude, and knowledge (Anderson & Freebody, 1985; Mezynski, 1983). Underlying these three positions is an access condition,
which is critical for all vocabulary models (Mezynski,
1983). The access condition refers to the word identification skill of readers, which, albeit important for
reading -vocabulary knowledge, is beyond the scope of
this article.
The salient tenet of the instrumentalist model is
that individuals who are good readers possess large vocabularies. This is evident by the relationship between
high vocabulary scores and high reading comprehension scores on standardized tests. This model suggests
a causal relationship between word knowledge and
reading ability. That is, the more words an individual
knows, the easier it is for that person to comprehend
reading materials. Within this framework, a great deal
Reading Vocabulary and Deafness
of emphasis is placed on the direct instruction of and
exposure to as many words as possible. Instrumentalists
have not adequately explained how and why the vocabulary knowledge is acquired; they have only emphasized the effects of such knowledge on reading ability
as determined by the scores on standardized tests.
Proponents of the second model, the aptitude position, argue that individuals with large vocabularies possess excellent mental agility, and this, in turn, facilitates
the comprehension of reading materials. The influence
of this model can be seen in what used to be a common
practice: the use of vocabulary tests as measures of intelligence (Anderson & Freebody, 1979, 1985). Because
aptitude proponents are likely to favor the effects of
heredity, they do not place much stock in vocabulary
instruction as a tool for improving reading comprehension ability. Anderson and Freebody (1985) provide a
good description of this position with reference to the
results of a standardized vocabulary test:
The essential claim of the aptitude hypothesis is
that persons with large vocabularies are better at
discourse comprehension because they possess
superior mental agility. A large vocabulary is not
conceived to be involved in a direct way in better text understanding in this model. Rather
vocabulary test performance is merely another
reflection of verbal ability and it is verbal ability
that mainly determines whether text will be understood, (p. 346)
The third position, the knowledge model, has been
influenced by a group of reading theories known as
schema-interactive theories (Anderson & Freebody,
1985; Paul, forthcoming; Paul & O'Rourke, 1988).
This model attempts to address both of Beck and
McKeown's notions about words: representation in the
mind and extent of knowledge about words. The basic
tenets of this model are that (1) knowledge is structured or integrated and consists of conceptual sets of
interrelationships, not of isolated or independent lists
of facts, and (2) understanding of new information is
dependent upon the relation of this new information
to old information, that is, what is already known by
the reader.
To illustrate these points, consider a reader who
encounters a simple word such as cat. The reader is not
likely to think about the dictionary definition of this
5
word. To come to an understanding of this word as it
is used in a story, a reader will retrieve some or all conceptual associations (i.e., interrelated knowledge structures) this word has for the concept (or object) cat.
Conceptual associations include aspects such as examples (i.e., Siamese, Persian, or pet names—Buster,
Allegro), class (e.g., feline, mammals), characteristics
(e.g., having fur and four legs), and properties (e.g.,
meows, ingests oxygen and food).
The notion of conceptual associations, or interrelated knowledge structures, especially as used in instructional situations involving multiple exposures and
meaningful interactions, has been employed in several
models of language and text processing (e.g., Just &
Carpenter, 1987; Nelson, 1991; Sharkey, 1990). Conceptual, or interrelated knowledge, associations have
also been known by several labels in the theoretical and
research literature: beta structure, plan, schema,frame,and
script (e.g., Bobrow & Collins, 1975; Rumelhart, 1980;
Schank & Abelson, 1977). Returning to the example
above, the concept of cat becomes instantiated or represented through the reader's retrieval and application of
the interrelated associations of knowledge links (e.g.,
meanings, nuances, and related concepts). This representation is a reflection of the reader's personal and
world experiences (real or imaginary) with the "word"
(i.e., object, picture, etc) in conjunction with his or her
interpretation of the use of this word in a particular^
context.
Within a knowledge model, vocabulary knowledge
is viewed as the integration of conceptual or interrelated associations of a particular word, which is interpreted as an in-depth knowledge of the word.
According to the model, an extensive and in-depth
knowledge of words is critical for and reflective of reading comprehension ability. One way to characterize this
extensive and in-depth knowledge of words is to discuss readers' "ownership" of words or a movement toward ownership (Pearson, 1984, 1985). Ownership is a
lifelong activity and refers to readers' attempts to develop a deep working knowledge of words. As readers
move toward ownership, they acquire a number of
meanings, concepts, nuances, examples, uses, and associations related to individual words. It is this totality of
knowledge that plays a critical role in the comprehension of written texts. Thus, it is not only the individual
meanings of words that are important but also the en-
6
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:1 Winter 1996
tire "conceptual framework" surrounding the words
and their meanings. For example, if readers know the
phrase squeeze play, it is also likely that they know many
concepts about the game of baseball.
As mentioned previously, these conceptual frameworks are also known as prior or background knowledge of readers (e.g., see Anderson & Pearson, 1984).
There is substantial research showing that prior knowledge of a topic, particularly an extensive knowledge of
key vocabulary words, is a better predictor of text comprehension than is • any other measure of reading
achievement (Johnston, 1984; Johnston & Pearson,
1982; see also review in Pearson, 1985). It can be argued that prior knowledge and vocabulary development go hand in hand. Readers' vocabulary knowledge
serves as a means for labeling ideas (or knowledge
structures, or schemata) that already exist in their
minds. In any case, one of the most important implications of the knowledge model is that "knowledge" of
words refers to more than just "partial" knowledge of
single, individual meanings.
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension:
Hearing Students
Relative to hearing students, there have been several
experimental investigations on the effects of familiar
and unfamiliar text vocabulary on reading comprehension. If text word knowledge is critical for text comprehension, at least two hypotheses can be tested
(Anderson & Freebody, 1979, 1985). One, texts should
either be easier or more difficult to understand based
on the substitutions of easier or more difficult words.
Two, teaching students about the more difficult,
unfamiliar vocabulary words should enhance text comprehension. In these studies, easy words were operationally defined as those of high frequency levels whereas
difficult words were those of low frequency levels.
In general, the early studies on direct text vocabulary instruction showed that there are positive effects
on increasing word knowledge and this, in turn, enhances sentence comprehension (e.g., Pany, 1978).
However, the effect of vocabulary instruction on connected discourse (i.e., story comprehension) was
equivocal. A few researchers reported beneficial effects
of instruction on text comprehension (e.g., Kameenui,
Carnine, & Freschi, 1982; Marks, Doctorow, & Wittrock, 1974). On the contrary, much of the research
seems to indicate little or no substantial improvement
(Pany & Jenkins, 1978; Pany, Jenkins & Schreck, 1982;
Tuinman & Brady, 1974).
More recently, there have been a number of investigations that have documented the effects of direct text
vocabulary instruction on both sentential and text
comprehension (Baumann, 1986; McKeown, Beck,
Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Wixson,
1986; see also the reviews in Beck & McKeown, 1991;
Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986; Nagy, 1988). Researchers
have suggested several factors that might have contributed to the discrepant findings between the early and
later studies. Some of these factors include proportion
of words taught, number of times the words are encountered in passages (e.g., word frequency), degree
of word difficulty, depth of word knowledge (e.g.,
multimeaning words), passage length, and method of
instruction (Beck & McKeown, 1991; McKeown,
1985; Wixson, 1986). In addition, two of the strongest
factors influencing the discrepancy were word frequency and depth of word knowledge. With respect to
these two major factors, it has been argued that the research on vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension can best be explained within a knowledge
framework, which, as discussed previously, avers the
importance of both breadth and depth of vocabulary
knowledge for reading comprehension ability (e.g., see
discussion in Pearson, 1994, 1995; Paul, forthcoming;
Paul & O'Rourke, 1988).
An in-depth knowledge of words (i.e., both breadth
and depth) might be related to the type of vocabulary
instruction employed. For example, a major reason
why text vocabulary instruction in the studies discussed above failed to demonstrate measurable gains in
reading comprehension is that this instruction did not
lead to a sufficient depth of vocabulary knowledge. At
best, students only obtain a partial knowledge of words
because of the use of methods such as definitions, with
some combination of looking words up, writing them
down, memorizing them, and using them in sentences.
Another common method, known as context cue analysis, involves inferring the meaning of a new word from
the context. That is, words were often situated in con-
Reading Vocabulary and Deafness
trived (or naturally occurring) sentences, and students
were expected to derive the meaning by analyzing the
context surrounding the word (i.e., the rest of the sentence).
Several of the studies discussed above, which show
benefits of text vocabulary instruction, promote an
in-depth knowledge of words based on instructional
methods influenced by the knowledge model, for example, semantic maps, semantic feature analyses, word
maps, and other semantic elaboration techniques (see
examples in sources such as Heimlich & Pittelman,
1986; Johnson & Pearson, 1984; Nagy, 1988). I argue
that the instructional use of semantic elaboration techniques is effective because these techniques reflect how
knowledge is organized in the mind, according to the
basic tenets of the knowledge model. As discussed previously, word concepts might be arranged in memory
in categorical structures that are hierarchical in nature.
Deep knowledge of words also represents knowledge of
other related concepts, many of which might be associated with the topic of a reading passage. Relative to
hearing children, there are a number of studies that
have documented the superiority of semantic elaboration techniques, particularly semantic mapping, over
any other vocabulary instructional technique (e.g., see
research reviews in Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986; Johnson, Toms-Bronowski, & Pittelman, 1982; Nagy, 1988).
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension:
Deaf Students
Similar findings can be found in the few research studies on text vocabulary knowledge and deaf students.
Based on the results of standardized reading tests, several researchers have documented a correlational relationship between text vocabulary knowledge and
reading comprehension. A typical task for assessing
text vocabulary knowledge in diese studies involves
items in which target words are presented in sentences,
and students are required to select the correct meaning
(usually a synonym or short phrase) from a list of alternatives (i.e., responses). For example, in an investigation that is representative of this pattern, Balow,
Fulton, and Peploe (1971) studied students who were
between 13 and 21 years old and whose hearing losses
ranged from 40 dB to 100 dB or greater (i.e., based on
7
a pure-tone average of the better unaided ear). The
findings reveal both low text vocabulary scores and low
reading achievement scores on the Metropolitan
Achievement Test. Balow et al. suggested that a correlational relationship existed between these two areas.
That is, the researchers observed that students who obtained low scores on the Vocabulary subtest also
obtained low scores relative to an overall reading comprehension level.
In another representative study, Quigley, Steinkamp, Power, and Jones (1978) documented the results
of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT), normed on
hearing students. The subjects in this study were students with profound hearing losses between the ages of
10 to 18 years, inclusive. On the Word Meaning subtest
(i.e., text vocabulary knowledge), the authors reported
that the gain score for the nine-year period (10 to the
end of 18 years) was 1.1 grade. The SAT reading grade
equivalent of the oldest students was 3.6. Despite the
adaptations and norms developed for the Stanford
Achievement Test-Hearing Impaired Version (SATHI), these low text vocabulary scores (based on die vocabulary subtests) and low reading achievement scores
(overall reading scores) have persisted into the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s (e.g., Allen, 1986; CADS, 1991;
King & Quigley, 1985; Paul & Quigley, 1994; Trybus &
Karchmer, 1977). These results continue to show a
strong correlation between vocabulary knowledge and
reading comprehension.
Similar to the studies on hearing students, researchers on deaf students have also been interested in
whether direct text vocabulary instruction leads to improved reading comprehension on both the sentential
and text (i.e., connected discourse) level. Compared to
the research on hearing students, there are few studies
in this area. In one early representative study, Letourneau (1972) evaluated the effects of two instructional
methods for teaching words with multiple meanings.
Eighty students, with at least a 70 dB loss in the better
unaided ear and in grades four through six, served as
subjects. The students were selected from one oral
school and three schools that used simultaneous communication (i.e., speaking and signing simultaneously).
Students and instructors were randomly assigned to
one of six experimental or control groups. Students in
the experimental groups were provided with specific
8
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:1 Winter 1996
instructions and exercises on the words with multiple
meanings that appeared in their reading selections. Instructions included discussing the various meanings of
words and using them in different sentences. In addition, the students had a number of exposures to
the words in the exercises. Students in the control
group also read the same materials' containing these
multimeaning words; however, they were not provided
with any special instructions or exercises.
Letourneau (1972) reported that instruction of
multimeaning words had a positive effect on the students' ability to comprehend the passages (i.e., connected discourse) containing the words. The beneficial
effects, however, were dependent upon the need for numerous experiences and exercises in dealing with the
multimeaning words. This focus on multimeaning
words, in conjunction with the type of instruction employed, supports the importance of depth of vocabulary knowledge, as indicated by the knowledge model.
On the contrary, in a later representative study, no
positive effects of text vocabulary instruction on sentential text comprehension were found. Robbins and
Hatcher (1981) administered reading comprehension
tests to 36 students whose hearing losses ranged from
severe to profound (better unaided ear) and whose ages
ranged from 9 to 12 years. One half of the students
were placed in an experimental group, in which they
received vocabulary training. In retrospect, this training could be labeled as the definition-and-sentence approach or the definition-and-contextual approach
(Nagy, 1988; Paul & Gustafson, 1991; see also, the discussion in the Implications section of this article). In
this approach, the focus was on single meanings of
words. The authors concluded that the reading comprehension scores of the experimental group did not
improve with training. No specific reason for this lack
of improvement was proffered.
The discrepancy between these two representative
studies has been addressed by a more recent study. For
example, LaSasso and Davey (1987) argued that the
findings of the Robbins and Hatcher (1981) study were
due to a small sample size and to the task of reading
comprehension used—that is, "single, unrelated sentences" (p. 212). These researchers examined the relation between text vocabulary knowledge and reading
comprehension in students with a profound hearing
loss (85 dB or greater in the better unaided ear) and
between the ages of 10 and 18 years, inclusive. The
measures used were the Vocabulary subtest of the
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, 1972 edition, and
the reading comprehension subtests of the SAT, the
1973 norms. The tasks included a cloze procedure and
four question-answering conditions—multiple choice,
free response, look back condition (i.e., subjects could
read the passage as often as necessary), and no look
back condition (i.e., subjects could not read the passage
more than once).
The researchers documented a strong correlation
between text word knowledge (i.e., breadth of knowledge) and reading comprehension. Similar to the finding for hearing students, it was shown that vocabulary
knowledge was a strong predictor of reading comprehension ability. One of LaSasso and Davey's (1987)
conclusions was:
Practitioners should be aware that there appears to
be more of a relationship between lexical knowledge and reading comprehension for hearingimpaired students than previously empirically
established. Although this relationship has yet to
be established as causal, practitioners should not
ignore the lexical abilities of their students, (p. 218)
The findings of LaSasso and Davey have been supported and elaborated upon by the work of Paul and
his collaborators (Paul, 1984, 1987, 1989; Paul & Gustafson, 1991; see also reviews in Paul & Quigley, 1994;
Paul, forthcoming; for related research on hearing children, see Paul, Stallman, & O'Rourke, 1990). For
example, Paul and Gustafson (1991) examined both
hearing (aged 8 to 10 years, inclusive) and deaf students' (90 dB or more in the better unaided ear and
aged 10 to 18 years, inclusive) comprehension of 45
words with multiple meanings on a picture vocabulary
test. On this test, each item contained one target word
and five possible responses (i.e., contextual illustrations, or pictures). Subjects were required to select the
best answers) that illustrated the meaning(s) of the
target word. Similar to previous studies (eg., Letourneau, 1972; MacGinitie, 1969), Paul and Gustafson selected high-frequency, multimeaning words, that is,
words that were within the 10,000th frequency level
(Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971). These high-
Reading Vocabulary and Deafness
frequency multimeaning words were considered important because of their prevalence in commonly used
reading materials for both young hearing and deaf students (eg., see discussions in Johnson, Moe, & Baumann, 1983; Paul, 1984). Examples of the selected
words included ball, change, fountain, quarter, and weave.
Paul and Gustafson were interested in the performances of both hearing and deaf students on selecting
one meaning and two meanings of the same words.
They were also interested in whether text vocabulary
knowledge (i.e., knowledge of single or multiple meanings) increased with age and was related to reading
comprehension ability (i.e., scores on standardized
achievement tests). As expected, the hearing subjects
performed significantly better than the deaf subjects on
selecting one meaning and two meanings of the same
words. In addition, both groups selected the primary
meanings more often than the secondary meanings.
Surprisingly, the scores of the subjects on selecting two
meanings of words did not improve with age. Finally,
Paul and Gustafson documented a strong correlation
between both breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge (scores on the picture vocabulary test) and reading comprehension (overall reading scores from the
standardized achievement test). Because of the prevalence of multimeaning words in reading materials (e.g.,
Dale & O'Rourke, 1986; Johnson, Moe, & Baumann,
1983; Searls & Klesius, 1984), the researchers argued
for direct instruction of common multimeaning words
within a knowledge framework (see the discussion in
the Implications section of this article).
Acquisition of Word Meanings: Instruction
versus Context
Prior to discussing the debate on instruction versus
context, it is necessary to identify two broad types of
learning from contexts: deliberate and incidental (Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). Deliberate learning refers to the situation
in which an individual is asked to read a passage and
derive the meanings of certain words, presumably unfamiliar words. Incidental learning refers to the natural
situation of reading, in which an individual is acquiring
meanings of words. There is some contentious debate
on the relative merits of different types of vocabulary
9
instruction (eg., definition plus context vs. semantic
elaboration techniques) and the two different types of
learning from context.
It is becoming evident that text vocabulary learning
is so complex that neither instruction (including semantic elaboration techniques) nor context can account for what readers know about words and how they
acquire this knowledge (Beck & McKeown, 1991; Paul,
forthcoming; Paul & O'Rourke, 1988). There is some
speculation that scholars have underestimated the contributions of oral and speaking contexts (i.e., via the
conversational form of a language) to the growth of
word knowledge. There have been several studies on
hearing students' learning of words during reading
(i.e., context), either via incidental learning (e.g., Herman, Anderson, Pearson, & Nagy, 1987; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson,
1985) or deliberate learning (e.g., Beck, McKeown, &
McCaslin, 1983; Schatz & Baldwin, 1986). Only a few
such studies exist for deaf students (eg., deVilliers &
Pomerantz, 1992; MacGinitie, 1969).
Acquisition of Word Meanings: Hearing Students
There is some evidence that incidental learning of
words from context is more effective than any type of
text vocabulary instruction (e.g., Nagy & Anderson,
1984; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). Vocabulary
instruction is said to account for only a small portion
of words good readers learn from grades 3 through 12.
Even poor readers are able to learn words from context.
For both good and poor readers, the learning is said to
occur in small increments.
The distinction between good and poor readers,
however, is a critical one and has been clarified in a line
• of research on deliberate learning. If learning from
context does occur, it is more evident for good readers
rather than for poor readers, who are not likely to engage in wide reading, a condition necessary for the
beneficial effects of context. In addition, it is not easy
to learn difficult words from natural reading because
much of the context does not provide sufficient information on the meanings of the words (Beck &
McKeown, 1991; Graves, 1986; Graves & Slater, 1987;
Schatz & Baldwin, 1986).
The problem with natural contexts becomes even
10 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:1 Winter 1996
more apparent for words with multiple meanings. A
word might be difficult if a secondary or less common
meaning is encountered in reading materials. For example, in a classic study using hearing students in third
and fourth grades as subjects, Mason, Kniseley, and
Kendall (1979) explored the effects of multimeaning
words on reading comprehension on a sentential level.
For each of the 20 words selected, two sentences were
created, one supporting the primary meaning and the
other, the secondary meaning. Results indicated that
the subjects selected the primary meanings more often
than the secondary meanings. The subjects could not
select the correct secondary meanings of words even in
sentences providing adequate contextual information.
The authors concluded that the subjects either did not
know the secondary meaning or they did not pay
sufficient attention to context. The findings of this
study indicated that some hearing children seem to
have problems selecting the most appropriate meanings
of multimeaning words on a sentential level. In essence,
the findings of Mason et al. (1979) have been supported
by more recent studies on hearing students (e.g.,
Graves, 1980, 1986; Graves & Slater, 1987; Graves,
Slater, & Cooke, 1980; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; see reviews in Beck & McKeown, 1991; Paul, forthcoming).
Acquisition of Word Meanings: Deaf Students
Not surprisingly, the use of context cues has presented
pervasive problems for deaf students, many of whom
are poor readers. In an early study on deliberate learning, MacGinitie (1969) evaluated the effects of context
on both deaf and hearing students. The deaf subjects,
selected from oral programs, ranged in ages from 9 to
20 years, and the mean dB level of the entire group was
88 dB in the better unaided ear. Examples of four test
items were as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
BEAR
BEAR
BEAR
BEAR
forest
forest
burden
burden
wild
wild
weight
weight
paw
paw
land
land
animal
carry
carry
animal
In these examples, the two common meanings of bear
are "animal" and "carry." MacGinitie hypothesized
that the students might most likely recognize "carry"
as one meaning in a supportive context, as in Item 3
rather than Item 2. The context of the second item
should persuade the students to select a meaning that
is different from the present one.
Thus, the researcher compared the number of correct responses to items with misleading contexts to the
nurrtber of correct responses to items with supportive
contexts. MacGinitie reported that context (misleading or beneficial) had no effect on the performance
of the deaf subjects. On the other hand, the scores of
the hearing students were depressed by the misleading
contexts. The implication is that the deaf students
might not have had the ability to use context cues
effectively.
In a more recent study, deVilliers and Pomerantz
(1992) examined students whose unaided hearing loss
was prelingual and ranged-from 71 to 120 dB (better
ear average). The ages of the subjects ranged from 10
years, 11 months, to 18 years, 7 months. The researchers conducted two studies relative to the school level of
the students. In Study 1, the students were selected
from an upper level (i.e., high school) of an oral school.
In Study 2, the oral students were from a middle level
of the oral school, and the total-communication (i.e.,
Signed English) students were selected from a school
for the deaf. The reading comprehension (SAT-HI)
grade level of the upper school students ranged from
2.8 to 12.4 (mean = 5.7). The reading grade level of
the oral middle school students ranged from 1.6 to 3.9
(mean = 2.8), whereas the reading grade level of the
total-communication middle school students varied
from 2.2 to 4.8 (mean = 3.1).
DeVilliers and Pomerantz studied the abilities of
the students to derive both lexical (i.e., meaning) and
syntactic (i.e., form class) information for unknown
words embedded in short passages reflective of three
types of context: lean, rich, and explicit. The lean contextual condition provided very little information
about the word whereas the rich contextual condition
provided a great deal of information. The explicit contextual condition provided "a clear contrast or equivalence statement" (p. 414). Examples of these conditions
for the middle school group were as follows:
Study 2—Middle School—Eerie
Lean
The boy painted a picture of an eerie house in his
art class. He took it home to show his mother and
father.
Reading Vocabulary and Deafness
Rich
The old house on the hill was an eerie place. It was
dark and it had broken windows, and it looked like
ghosts lived in it.
Explicit
In the daytime the woods look safe and friendly, but
at night they can be an eerie place. The trees look
strange and scary in the dark. (p. 415)
The results indicated that students with hearing
losses could use the highly informative contexts (i.e.,
rich or explicit) to derive a partial meaning of the
words. This ability was strongly related to their reading
comprehension level; that is, good readers performed
significantly better than poor readers. It was observed
that poor readers had difficulty with the explicit contextual condition. The researchers hypothesized that
this might be due either to their inability to use the
syntactical information in the sentences or to the use
of an inadequate reading strategy (e.g., location of a key
word or phrase). It should be noted that both good and
poor readers had difficulty inferring syntactic information about the words (e.g., form class or correct syntactic usage).
DeVilliers and Pomerantz, like the researchers discussed previously who studied poor readers who can
hear, remarked that:
many hearing-impaired students are caught in a vicious circle: their impoverished vocabularies limit
their reading comprehension, and poor reading
strategies and skills limit their ability to acquire
adequate vocabulary knowledge from context,
(p. 428)
In sum, some hearing and many deaf students have
difficulty inferring meanings of words from context, either in an incidental or deliberate learning situation.
For good readers and for some poor readers, it appears
that the use of context cues is most effective or facilitative when the target words are redundant with the
rest of the passage (i.e., in context-rich or -explicit environments) and when these words contribute little
information to the story. One of the most effective
compensatory strategies is to read extensively and
widely, something poor readers do not attempt either
inside or outside the school setting. In addition, the inadequate ability to use context cues reflects difficulty in
11
other1 written language variables, notably, orthography,
morphophonology, syntax, and breadth and depth of
vocabulary knowledge (for deaf students, see research
summaries in Hanson, 1989, 1991; Leybaert, 1993;
Paul, forthcoming; Paul & Quigley, 1994).
The issue of use of context and text vocabulary
instruction should not be construed as an either-or
issue. Context skills can be most effective when they
are combined with direct text vocabulary instruction
and classroom discussions of words, word meanings,
and related concepts (for hearing students, see Carnine, Kameenui, & Coyle, 1983-1984; Carroll & Drum,
1983; Jenkins, Pany, & Schreck, 1978; Stahl, 1986).
The types of direct text vocabulary instruction that
seem to be most effective are those that emphasize semantic elaboration and fit, as discussed in the next
section.
Implications
Based on the syntheses of the research on the relationship between text vocabulary knowledge and reading
comprehension level and that on the acquisition of
word meanings from context, it must be concluded that
text vocabulary instruction, at least, is necessary for
poor readers, which includes many deaf readers. This
does not mean, of course, that deaf students do not
need instruction in other areas of reading. However,one of the most important goals of instruction is to enable deaf and poor readers who can hear to become independent word learners.
It should be emphasized that text vocabulary instruction for deaf and other students needs to move
away from the traditional approaches, for example,
definition or definition-and-contextual (or -sentence)
approaches (e.g., see discussions in Nagy, 1988; Paul,
1989; Paul & Gustafson, 1991; Paul, forthcoming). In
traditional definition-and-contextual approaches, the
teacher might have a list of words that are important
for students to "know the meanings of" prior to a language or reading lesson. After practice with pronouncing and signing the words and learning the
particular, common meanings, students might be required to use the words in sentences. For example, the
student might write "very sad" as a meaning for the
word tragic and create a sentence such as the following:
"This is a tragic event."
12 JouraaJ of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:1 Winter 1996
Pearson (1984) and others (e.g., Nagy, 1988; Paul,
1989) have argued that the preceding example indicates
only that students can repeat a particular definition
and are probably guessing that tragic can supplant very
sad in sentences such as: This is a
story; Susan
is a
girl. Obviously, supplanting tragic for very
sad is not appropriate for all sentences. More important, students have not really moved toward ownership of the word and are likely to be confused by the
following example (Nagy, 1988, p. 5): "Too bad! The
tragic poet is ill again. It must be a bad fever this time,
for they're trying smoke fumes instead of medicine."
The focus on single meanings in traditional text vocabulary lessons does not facilitate the development of
depth of vocabulary knowledge. In addition, as argued
previously, these approaches do not have substantial
theoretical or research support.
The use of traditional vocabulary approaches with
deaf students has also been noted and criticized by
Conway(1990):
Traditional programs of learning definitions for
lists of words should give way to learning words in
semantically rich contexts. The contexts-can serve
as bridges to old information and as foundations
for developing further conceptual interrelationships. . . . Such rich contexts should also include
use of semantic mapping . . . and adaptations of
networking strategies, (p. 346)
Conway's remarks are based on the major tenets of the
knowledge model, as discussed previously.
Similar remarks have been echoed by Paul and
Gustafson(1991):
word maps,'and semantic features analyses. Numerous
examples of these techniques can be found in several
sources (Heimlich & Pittelman, 1986; Johnson & Pearson, 1984; Nagy, 1988). Repetition and meaningful use
refer to the encounters of words in deliberate and natural learning contextual situations. However, to maximize the benefits of context, deaf students will need
instruction in other aspects of the reading process, as
well as in reading vocabulary knowledge.
Conclusion
In this article, I argue that the knowledge model offers
the most plausible explanation for understanding the
relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension and, in part, how reading vocabulary word meanings are acquired. The knowledge
model avers that both breadth and depth of vocabulary
knowledge are important for reading comprehension.
It is critical to underscore the facilitative effects of
depth of vocabulary knowledge, which, in effect, refers
to the storehouse of knowledge pertaining to words and
their meanings. This storehouse represents organized,
interrelated information, which includes meanings,
nuances, figurative usages, and related concepts.
I also argue that, for some hearing students and for
most deaf students, it is important to "teach" vocabulary. To develop depth of vocabulary knowledge,
teachers should avoid the use of traditional definitionand-contextual approaches and focus on approaches
that can be labeled semantic elaboration. Semantic
elaboration approaches enable readers to move toward
ownership of a word. According to Pearson (1984),
these approaches
Vocabulary instruction should help broaden and
emphasize where a word fits in children's semantic
deepen students' understanding of a word and its
repertoire rather than what it means or how it is
conceptual framework by (a) relating the word to
used in sentences. That's what it means to own a
students' previous experiences, (b) providing nuword—to know what it is like and how it is differmerous opportunities for encountering the word so
ent
from other words that a child already knows,
that the word and its meanings become easily ac(p. 16)
cessible during reading of texts and (c) creating numerous opportunities for students to use the word
meaningfully. The three terms associated with
References
these concepts are, respectively, integration, repetition, a n d meaningful use. . . . (p. 59)
The word integration refers to the use of "networking
strategies" (Conway, 1990) such as semantic maps,
Allen, T. (1986). A study of the achievement patterns of hearingimpaired students: 1974-1983. In M. Karchmer & A. Schitdroth (Eds.), The uhool-aged hearing-impaired population of
the United States (pp. 161-206). San Diego, CA: CollegeHill.
Reading Vocabulary and Deafness
Anderson, R., & Freebody, P. (1979). Vocabulary knowledge
(Tech. Rep. No. 135). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center
for the Study of Reading.
Anderson, R., & Freebody, P. (1985). Vocabulary knowledge. In
H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes ofreading (3rd. ed.) (pp. 343-371). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, R., & Nagy, W. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr,
M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research (2nd ed.) (pp. 690-724). White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Anderson, R., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view
of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (pp. 255-291). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Balow, B., Fulton, H., & Peploe, E. (1971). Reading comprehension skills among hearing impaired adolescents. Volta Review. 73, 113-119.
Baumann, J. (1986). Teaching third-grade students to comprehend anaphoric relationships: The application of a direct instruction model. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 70—90.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary
acquisition. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosendial, & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2nd ed.)
(pp. 789-814). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & McCaslin, E. (1983). Vocabulary development: All contexts are not created equal. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 177-181.
Bobrow, D, & Collins, A. (Eds.). (1975). Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic
Press.
CADS. (1991). Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies. Stanford achievement test, eighth edition: Hearing-impaired
norms booklet. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University, Gallaudet Research Institute, Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies.
Carnine, D , Kameenui, E, & Coyle, G. (1983-1984). Utilization
of contextual words. Reading Research Quarterly, 19,
188-204.
Carroll, B, & Drum, P. (1983). Definitional gains for explicit and
implicit context clues. In J. Niles & L. Harris (Eds.),
Searches for meaning in reading/language processing and instruction. Thirty-second yearbook ofthe National Reading Conference (pp. 158-162). Rochester, NY: National Reading
Conference.
Carroll, J., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American heritage wordfrequency book. New York: American Heritage.
Conway, D. (1990). Semantic relationships in the word meanings
of hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 92, 339—349.
Dale, E., & CRourke, J. (1986). Vocabulary building: A process
approach. Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser.
Davey, B., & King, S. (1990). Acquisition of word meanings from
context by deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 135,
m-VA.
deVilliers, P., & Pomerantz, S. (1992). Hearing-impaired students learning new words from written context. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 409-431.
Dolman, D. (1992). Some concerns about using whole language
approaches with deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf
137. 278-282.
13
Graves, M. (1980, April). A quantitative and qualitative study of
students' vocabularies. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Graves, M. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction. In
E. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 13, 9 1 128.
Graves, M., & Slater, W. (1987, April). The development ofreading
vocabularies in rural dtsadvantaged students, inner-city disadvantaged students, and middle-class suburban students. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D C
Graves, M., Slater, W, & Cooke, C (1980, December). Skill with
polysemous words: A measurement of the depth ofchildren's word
knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. 198 513).
Hanson, V. (1989). Phonology and reading: Evidence from profoundly deaf readers. In D. Shankweiler & I. Liberman
(Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading
puzzle (pp. 69—89). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Hanson, V. (1991). Phonological processing without sound. In
S. Brady & D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in
literacy: A tribute to Isabel!e Y. Liberman (pp. 153-161)"
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heimlich, J., & Pittelman, S. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Herman, P., Anderson, R., Pearson, P. D , & Nagy, W. (1987).
Incidental acquisition of word meaning from expositions
with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 22
(3), 263-284.
Jenkins, J., Pany, D , & Schreck, J. (1978). Vocabulary and reading
comprehension: Instructional effects (Tech. Rep. No. 100). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 160 999).Jenkins, J., Stein M.,& Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary
through reading. American Educational Research Journal,
21, 767-787.
Johnson, D., Moe, A., & Baumann, J. (1983). The Ginn wordbook
for teachers: A basic lexicon. Lexington, MA: Ginn.
Johnson, D , & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Johnson, D , Toms-Bronowski, S., & Pittelman, S. (1982). Vocabulary development. In R. E. Kretschmer (Ed), Reading
and the heanng-impaired individual. Volta Review, 84 (5), pp.
11-24.
Johnston, P. (1984). Background knowledge and reading comprehension test bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19,
219-239.
Johnston, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). Prior knowledge of connectivity and the assessment of reading comprehension (Tech. Rep.
No. 245). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the
Study of Reading.
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1987). The psychology of reading and
language comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kameenui, E., Carnine, D , & Freschi, R. (1982). Effects of text
construction and instructional procedures for teaching word
meanings on comprehension and recall. Reading Research
Quarterly, 17, 367-388.
14
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:1 Winter 1996
King, C , & Quigley, S. (1985). Reading anddeafiuss. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
LaSasso, C , & Davey, B. (1987). The relationship between lexical knowledge and reading comprehension for prelingually,
profoundly hearing-impaired students. Volta Review, 89,
211-220.
Letourneau, N. (1972). The effect of multiple meanings of words in
the reading comprehension of intermediate grade deaf children:
A comparison of two methods of teaching multiple meanings
of words and their effect on reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New
York.
Pany, D., & Jenkins, J. (1978). Learning word meanings: A comparison of instructional procedures and effects en measures
of reading comprehension with learning disabled students.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 21—32.
Pany, D., Jenkins, J., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 202-214.
Paul, P. (1984). The comprehension of multimeaning words from
selected frequency levels by deaf and hearing subjects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,
Champaign.
Paul, P. (1987, October). Deaf children's comprehension of
multimeaning words: Research and implications. Paper presented at the Indiana Association for Children and Adults
with Learning Disabilities, Indianapolis, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 301 983).
Paul, P. (1989). Depth of vocabulary knowledge and reading: Implications for hearing impaired and learning disabled students. Academic Therapy, 25, 13—24.
Paul, P. (in press). Literacy and deafness: The development ofreading, writing, and literate thought. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Paul, P., & Gustafson, G. (1991). Comprehension of highfrequency multimeaning words by students with hearing
impairment. Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 12
(4), 52-62.
Paul, P.,&O'Rourke,J. (1988). Multimeaning words and reading
comprehension: Implications for special education students.
Remedial and Special,Education (RASE), 9 (3), 42-52.
Paul, P., & Quigley, S. (1994). Language and deafness (2nd ed.).
San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
Paul, P., Stalhnan, A., & O'Rourke, J. (1990). Using three test formats to assess good and poor readers' word knowledge (Tech.
Rep. No. 509). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois,
Center for the Study of Reading.
Pearson, P. D. (1984). Reading comprehension instruction: Six necessary changes (Reading Educ Rep. No. 54). UrbanaChampaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of
Reading.
Pearson, P. D. (1985). The comprehension revolution: A twentyyear history of process and practice related to reading comprehension (Reading Educ Rep. No. 57). Urbana: University of
Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Quigley, S., Steinkamp, M., Power, D , & Jones, B. (1978). Test
of Syntactic Abilities. Beaverton, OR: Dormac
Robbins, N., & Hatcher, C (1981). The effects of syntax on the
reading comprehension of hearing-impaired children. Volta
Review, 83, 105-115.
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical
issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp.
33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leybaert, J. (1993). Reading in the deaf: The roles of phonological codes. In M. Marschark & M. D. Clark (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness (pp. 269-309). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
MacGinitie, W. (1969). Flexibility in dealing with alternative
meaning words. In J. Rosenstein & W. MacGinitie (Eds.),
Verbal behavior ofthe deaf child: Studies of word meanings and
associations (pp. 45—55). New York: Teachers College.
Marks, C , Doctorow, M., & Wittrock, M. (1974). Word frequency and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Research, 67, 259-262.
Mason, J., Kniseley, E., & Kendall, J. (1979). Effects of polysemous words on sentence comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, IS, 49-65.
McKeown, M. (1985). The acquisition of word meaning from
context by children of high and low ability. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20, 482-496.
McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., & Perfetti, C. (1983).
The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading
comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior,
15, 3-18.
McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., & Pople, M. (1985).
Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 522-535.
Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of
knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253-279.
Nagy, W. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. (1984). How many words are there in
printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19,
304-330.
Nagy, W., Anderson, R., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word
meanings from context during normal reading. American
Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.
Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words
from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.
Nelson, K. (1991). Varied domains of development: A tale of
LAD, MAD, SAD, and RARE and surprising events in our
RELMS. In F. Kessel, M. Bornstein, & A. Sameroff (Eds.),
Contemporary constructions of the child: Essays in honor of Wil- Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and underliam Kesen (pp. 123-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
standing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pany, D. (1978). The effects of vocabulary instruction on knowledge Schatz, E-, & Baldwin, R. (1986). Context clues are unreliable
ofword meanings and reading comprehension ofremedial readers.
predictors of word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,
21, 439-453.
Champaign.
Searls, E., & Klesius, K. (1984). 99 multiple meaning words for
Reading Vocabulary and Deafness
primary students and ways to teach them. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 5, 55—63.
Sharkey, N. (1990). A connectionist model of text comprehension. In D. Balota, G. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.),
Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 487-514). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Stahl, S. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruction. Journal of Reading, 29, 662-668.
Stahl, S., & Fairbanks, M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56,72-110.
Trybus, R., & Karchmer, M. (1977). School achievement scores
15
of hearing impaired children: National daca on achievement
status and growth patterns. American Annals of the Deaf,
122, 62-69.
Tuinman, J., & Brady, M.. (1974). How does vocabulary account
for variance on reading comprehension tests? A preliminary
instructional analysis. In P. Nacke (Ed.), Interaction: Research and practice for college-adult reading. Twenty-third
yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 176—
184). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
Wixson, K, (1986). Vocabulary instruction and children's comprehension of basal stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,
317-329.