Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although numerous studies have identified a correlational relationship between vocabulary and comprehension, we know less about vocabulary interventions that impact reading comprehension. Therefore, this study is a systematic review of vocabulary interventions with comprehension outcomes. Analyses of 36 studies that met criteria are organized around (a) type of comprehension measure (i.e., comprehension of passages that included taught words or more generalized comprehension measures) and (b) type of intervention (i.e., direct teaching of word meanings or word-learning strategies). The authors looked for patterns in characteristics of vocabulary instruction within these analyses. Their findings led to four major themes: (1) Teaching of word meanings supported comprehension of text containing the target words in almost all cases; (2) instruction that focused on some active processing was typically more impactful than a definition or a dictionary method for supporting comprehension of text containing the target words, but we do not know how much instruction is sufficient; (3) there is very limited evidence that direct teaching of word meanings, even long-term, multifaceted interventions of large numbers of words, can improve generalized comprehension; and (4) there is currently no empirical evidence that instruction in one or two strategies for solving word meanings will impact generalized comprehension. However, studies that actively teach students to monitor their understanding of vocabulary and to use multiple, flexible strategies for solving word meanings are a promising area for future research. The authors discuss the implications of these themes, as well as critical avenues for future vocabulary research.

Advocates of the science of reading have invoked the simple view of reading (SVR) to justify an approach that foregrounds decoding in early reading instruction. The SVR, which describes comprehension as the product of decoding and listening comprehension, also served as the primary theoretical model underlying the Reading for Understanding (RfU) initiative. Research funded under the RfU initiative included direct examinations of the validity of the SVR and the nature of its underlying components and extended the SVR in studies of middle school and high school readers. In this article, the authors use research conducted under the RfU initiative to examine the validity and utility of the SVR, in general, and the appropriateness of its application in the “science of reading” debate. RfU research has provided not only evidence in support of the overall SVR model but also important cautions relevant to the “science of reading” debate. In particular, RfU has provided evidence regarding the significance of the listening comprehension component of the SVR, often overlooked by advocates of the science of reading. This research has documented the importance of early oral language skills, which support both decoding and listening comprehension in young readers and plays a critical role in students’success as readers as they move through school. In addition, RfU research has identified a complicated constellation of skills and knowledge that impact reading comprehension as students advance in school.

This study addresses the distribution of words in texts at different points of schooling. The first aim was to identify a core vocabulary that accounts for the majority of the words in texts through the lens of morphological families. Results showed that 2,451 morphological families, averaging 4.61 members, make up the core vocabulary of school texts. The 11,298 words in the 2,451 morphological families account for 58% of the approximately 19,500 most frequent words in written English. The majority of the morphological families appear by the end of the elementary school period (85%), but a small group of morphological families (15%) is added through the middle to high school period. Analyses of the ranks of words across grade bands indicated that late-appearing words gain in prominence in higher level texts as some elementary-level words become less frequent. The second aim of the study was to determine the degree to which the core vocabulary accounted for the words in an independent but critical set of texts: the exemplar texts identified within the Common Core State Standards. The 2,451 families accounted for 97.1% (grades K and 1) to 89.1% (grade 11 through college) of the total words in texts and 95.6% (grades K and 1) to 74.9% (grade 11 through college) of the unique words in texts. Implications of the findings on the nature and role of the core vocabulary in complex texts are suggested for researchers, curriculum developers, and publishers.

Previous research has documented the role of readers’ existing topic knowledge in supporting students’ comprehension of text; yet, we know less about how to build students’ knowledge in order to support comprehension and vocabulary learning. In the current study, we test the hypothesis that knowledge can be built and leveraged simultaneously in the interest of students’ literacy development through the use of conceptually coherent text sets. Fourth grade students (N = 59) were randomly assigned to read either a set of six informational texts that cohered around a set of concepts related to the topic birds (CC texts) or a set of texts that addressed a range of topics (NCC group texts). After reading, we assessed students’: (1) knowledge of the concepts in the conceptually coherent text set, (2) knowledge of target concept-related words that appeared in their respective text sets, (3) knowledge of general academic words that appeared in both texts sets, (4) comprehension of a novel text on a related topic, and (5) interest in the topic of the conceptually coherent texts. Results revealed that students who read the conceptually coherent texts demonstrated more knowledge of the concepts in their texts, more knowledge of the target words in their texts, and had better recall of the novel text compared to students who read unrelated texts. Findings suggest that there is potential for knowledge and vocabulary to be built during English language arts through a focus on conceptual coherence in the design of reading experiences for students.

Cervetti describes the origins and aims of content-area literacy and disciplinary literacy and explains how these traditions can be reconciled in integrated science-literacy instruction. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of supporting students' development of scientific literacies in light of the current global crises related to human health and the environment. Integrating science and literacy is a powerful way to prepare students as citizens and as the next generation of scientists. Interest in integrated literacy and science instruction has experienced a resurgence over the last decade with the introduction in both domains of new standards in the US that emphasize connections and complementarities.

The National Reading Panel ( NRP ) identified five pillars, or essential components, of reading instruction that lead to the highest chance of reading success—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. A decade after the NRP 's report, the majority of US states adopted the Common Core State Standards/English Language Arts & Literacy ( CCSS / ELA ). One of the most significant changes of the CCSS / ELA is a focus on knowledge development as part of literacy development and focus on the acquisition of literacy skills specific to different disciplines. In highlighting these connections between ELA and knowledge as part of literacy, the CCSS / ELA provide an opportunity for teachers to emphasize what research has validated for decades: that knowledge is a critical component of the reading process. In this column, we describe why knowledge development should be viewed as the sixth pillar of reading instruction and how teachers can increase their students’ knowledge building through reading.

Recent articles in The Reading Teacher have communicated contributions of reading research over the last three decades. In this article, the authors focus on a type of research that has contributed to our understanding of practice: studies of exemplary teachers of literacy. The authors discuss three studies and their findings: a study of a teacher who was exemplary in fostering the literacy achievement of African American students; a study of two teachers who were, in comparison with five other teachers studied, exemplary in fostering literacy engagement; and a study of 36 teachers who were more and less effective at fostering literacy growth. These and other studies of exemplary teachers reveal a wide range of instructional practices and their orchestration.

Much has been written recently about the role of talk in content-area learning, including science learning. However, there is still much to be learned about how teachers begin to engage students in the kinds of peer-to-peer conversations that help them make sense of their investigations in science and that advance their conceptual understandings. This study was designed to follow teachers as they received professional development about involving students in sense-making science talk and then attempted to enact the lessons of the professional development in an urban middle school science classroom. We present an analysis of the challenges that surrounded two teachers’ efforts to engage urban grade 6 and 7 students in sense-making talk around science concepts, as well as the conditions under which students began to engage in connected and evidence-rich talk.