There are multiple pathways for students with and without disabilities to learn new vocabulary terms. However, the number of empirically tested and validated multimedia options is surprisingly limited. In this study, researchers tested a commercially available app (InferCabulary) to evaluate the impact on vocabulary performance of fifth-grade students with and without disabilities. A key practice that can take many forms while maintaining its core characteristics is explicit instruction. Therefore, researchers paired the functionality of the app with explicit instruction to evaluate its impact on student learning. Based on a counterbalanced design across 6 alternating weeks accessing the app or teacher-led business-as-usual instruction, students scored higher on weeks when they used the app plus explicit instruction to learn new terms. Implications for future research are included.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction—Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
2.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407. doi:10.1177/0022487108324554
3.
BaumannJ. F.Kame’enuiE. J.AshG. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In FloodJ.LappD.SquireJ. R.JensenJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5.
BosC. S.AndersP. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 13–42. doi:10.2307/1510390
6.
ByrantD. P.GoodwinM.BryantB. R.HigginsK. (2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 117–128. doi:10.2307/1593594
7.
DiamondL.ThorsnesB. J. (2008). Assessing reading: Multiple measures for kindergarten through twelfth grade. Consortium on Reading Excellence. Novato, California: Consortium on Reading Excellence, Inc.
8.
EbbersS. M.DentonC. A. (2008). A root awakening: Vocabulary instruction for older students with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 90–102. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00267.x
9.
Ford-ConnorsE.ParatoreJ. R. (2015). Vocabulary instruction in fifth grade and beyond: Sources of word learning and productive contexts for development. Review of Educational Research, 85, 50–91. doi:10.3102/0034654314540943
10.
GravesM. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
11.
HarrisM. L.ShumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2011). The effects of strategic morphological analysis instruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary students with and without disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 17–34.
12.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.
13.
HortonS. V.LovittT. C.GivinsA. (1988). A computer-based vocabulary program for three categories of student. British Journal of Educational Technology, 19, 131–143. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1988.tb00261.x
14.
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL. L.SacksG.JacobsenL. A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
15.
KennedyM. J.DeshlerD. D.LloydJ. W. (2015). Effects of multimedia vocabulary instruction on adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 22–38. doi:10.1177/0022219413487406
16.
KennedyM. J.RodgersW. J.RomigJ. E.LloydJ. W.BrownellM. T. (2017). The impact of a multimedia professional development package on inclusive science teachers’ vocabulary instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 213–230. doi:10.1177/0022487116687554
17.
KennedyM. J.ThomasC. N.MeyerJ. P.AlvesK. D.LloydJ. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 71–86. doi:10.1177/0731948713507262
18.
KesidouS.RosemanJ. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522–549. doi:10.1002/tea.10035
19.
KlingnerJ. K.UrbachJ.GolosD.BrownellM.MenonS. (2010). Teaching reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 59–74. doi:10.1177/073194871003300201
20.
KuderS. J. (2017). Vocabulary instruction for secondary students with reading disabilities: An updated research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 155–164. doi:10.1177/0731948717690113
21.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.KelleyJ. G.HarrisJ. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized control trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 1159–1194. doi: 10.3102/0002831214532165
22.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
McKeownM. G.CrossonA. C.MooreD. W.BeckI. L. (2018). Word knowledge and comprehension effects of an academic vocabulary intervention for middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 572–616. doi:10.3102/0002831217744181
24.
NagyW. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection. In WagnerR. K.MuseA. E.TannenbaumK. R. (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Implications for reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
NassajiH. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 645–670.
26.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
27.
ReschlyD. J.HoldheideL. R.BehrstockE.WeberG. (2009). Enhancing teacher preparation, development and support. In GoeL.. (Ed.), America’s opportunity: Teacher effectiveness and equity in K-12 classrooms. National comprehensive center for teacher quality (pp. 41–64). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
28.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.BerkeleyS.MarshakL. (2010). Mnemonic strategies: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 79–86. doi:10.1177/1053451210374985
29.
SilvermanR. D.HartranftA. M. (2015). Developing vocabulary and oral language in young children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
SnowC. E.LawrenceJ. F.WhiteC. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 325–344. doi:10.1080/19345740903167042
31.
StahlS.NagyW. (2006). Teaching word meanings. New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
SwansonE.SolisM.CiulloS.McKennaJ. W. (2012). Special education teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices in response to intervention implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 115–126.
33.
XinJ. F.RiethH. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87–103.
