Claims

Vocabulary-added instruction produced larger gains on taught vocabulary than phonological-awareness-and-decoding-only instruction, though differences were not statistically significant

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i2 First-grade English Learners in the morphological-awareness vocab+ condition gained more target word vocabulary than the PAD-only control (d = .64), and the semantic-relations condition outperformed it as well (d = .54), but the ANCOVA was not statistically significant. → Filippini 2012

Evidence

Filippini 2012

Filippini, A. L., Gerber, M. M., & Leafstedt, J. M. (2012). A Vocabulary-Added Reading Intervention for English Learners At-Risk of Reading Difficulties. International Journal of Special Education, 27(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1001055

q2 · i2 · causal · r1

ANCOVA on posttest target vocabulary (VOC) with pretest VOC as covariate across the three conditions in this exploratory classroom study of 71 first graders. The article also reports "the average student in the MA group performed at the 74 th percentile of the PAD group ( d = .64)" and d = .54 for SR; within-group gains were d = .56 (MA), d = .28 (SR), d = .04 (PAD).

"Mean differences between groups at posttest were large but not statistically reliable, F(2, 67) = 2.263, ( p = .112)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.