The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effects of Vocabulary Instruction: A Model-Based Meta-Analysis
Abstract
This paper reports a meta-analysis of studies concerned with the effects of vocabulary instruction on the learning of word meanings and on comprehension. This analysis was used to examine two questions: Does vocabulary instruction have a significant effect on children’s comprehension of text? What types of vocabulary instruction are most effective? In response to the first question, a mean effect size of .97 could be attributed to vocabulary instruction for comprehension of passages containing taught words and of .30 for global measures of comprehension, both of which are significantly different from zero. For the second question, it was suggested that the most effective vocabulary teaching methods included both definitional and contextual information in their programs, involved the students in deeper processing, and gave the students more than one or two exposures to the to-be-learned words. In addition, the mnemonic keyword method was found to have reliable effects on recall of definitions and sentence comprehension.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The keyword method compared to alternative vocabulary-learning strategies
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Miller, G. E. (1982) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/0361-476x(82)90007-8 · Cited by 106
Cited by
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.12.1181 · Cited by 2,033
Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning
Schmitt, N. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089921 · Cited by 1,467
We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis
KRASHEN, S. (1989) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x · Cited by 1,274
Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: a meta-analysis.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543066002099 · Cited by 1,106
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(2018) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation · doi:10.4135/9781506326139.n214 · Cited by 1,051
Metadata
- Authors
- Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1986
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 72
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114811706
- Cited by
- 1,003
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
