You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Effects of Interactive Vocabulary Instruction on the Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehension of Junior-High Learning Disabled Students
Candace S. Bos and Patricia L. Anders
Learning Disability Quarterly
Vol. 13, No. 1 (Winter, 1990), pp. 31-42
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510390
Page Count: 12
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Drawing upon theory-driven vocabulary instruction and the vocabulary-reading comprehension connection, this study compared the effectiveness of three interactive vocabulary strategies derived from the knowledge hypothesis with definition instruction derived from the access and instrumental hypotheses. Subjects were 61 learning disabled junior-high students. Using content-area texts, students participated in one of three interactive strategies - semantic mapping (SM), semantic feature analysis (SFA), and semantic/syntactic feature analysis (SSFA) - or in definition instruction (DI). Learning was measured both at short and long term by vocabulary and comprehension multiple-choice items and written recalls. Results from the multiple-choice items suggested that students participating in the interactive strategies demonstrated greater comprehension and vocabulary learning than students receiving definition instruction. Results of the written recalls indicated qualitatively and quantitatively greater recalls at long term for students in the SFA and SSFA conditions compared with the DI condition. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Learning Disability Quarterly © 1990 Hammill Institute on Disabilities