Cited by 359Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

Incidental Word Learning While Reading: A Meta-Analysis

Swanborn, M.S.L., de Glopper, K.·1999·Review of Educational Research

Abstract

A meta.analysis of 20 experiments examining incidental word learning during normal reading shows that students learn around 15% of the unknown words they encounter. A test of homogeneity indicates that study outcomes diverge, although their heterogeneity is relatively small (19%). An exploratory multi-level analysis of the variability in the results suggests that several factors affect the probability of learning an unknown word while reading: pretest sensitization, students' grade level, students' level of reading ability, the sensitivity of assessment methods to partial word knowledge, and the amount of text surrounding the target words. A model that contains students' grade level and assessment methods' sensitivity to partial word knowledge predicts 66% of the systematic variance in the effect sizes. Implications for research and instruction are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/00346543069003261

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Encountering new words, if not in combination with vocabulary-related tasks, does not foster their retention, and direct instruction may be needed to add value to the learning process and lead to greater vocabulary gains.

    “This may lead to the conclusion that encountering new words, if not in combination with vocabulary-related tasks, does not foster their retention [52] and that direct instruction may be needed to add value to the learning process and to lead to greater gains in vocabulary [61].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • SCO-Kohnstamm Institute, University of Amsterdam
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Published
1999-09
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
261-285
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
OpenAlex
W2152514606
Cited by
359
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 22
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
incidental vocabulary learning, reading, vocabulary acquisition, out-of-vocabulary words, grade level, reading skills, assessment sensitivity, text context, reading instruction

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