Skip to main content

Improving Elementary Grade Students’ Science and Social Studies Vocabulary Knowledge Depth, Reading Comprehension, and Argumentative Writing: a Conceptual Replication

Abstract

This experimental study aimed to replicate and extend a previous efficacy study of an elementary grade content literacy intervention that demonstrated positive effects on students’ vocabulary knowledge depth, argumentative writing, and reading comprehension. Using a cluster (school) randomized trial design, this replication experiment was conducted with 5,494 first- and second-grade students in 30 elementary schools in an urban school district located in the southeastern USA. Teachers implemented thematic lessons (20 lessons) that provided an intellectual framework for helping students who acquire networks of related vocabulary knowledge while learning science and social studies content. Teachers integrated thematic lessons, concept mapping, and interactive read-alouds of conceptually related informational texts to enable their students to build networks of vocabulary knowledge and to transfer this knowledge to argumentative writing and collaborative research activities. Confirmatory analyses replicated positive findings on science vocabulary knowledge depth (ES = 0.50) and argumentative writing (ES = 0.24) and also extended positive findings to social studies vocabulary knowledge depth (ES = 0.56) and argumentative writing (ES = 0.44). Positive and statistically significant findings were not replicated on domain-general reading comprehension. Exploratory analyses indicated that students’ vocabulary knowledge depth partially mediated the impact of content literacy instruction on domain-specific argumentative writing outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Using data on the effect sizes and intraclass correlation (ICC) from our previous efficacy study, we targeted a sample size of 60 teacher/classroom clusters (30 treatment groups and 30 control groups) and 15 students per cluster. Assuming an alpha level of 0.05 (two-tailed tests) on all impact models, a pretest reading covariate (R2 = 0.50), and 80% power, the minimum detectable effect sizes were 0.25 across the primary student outcomes

References

  • Alexander, P. A. (2000). Research news and comment: Toward a model of academic development: schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 28–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apthorp, H., Randel, B., Cherasaro, T., Clark, T., McKeown, M., & Beck, I. (2012). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary program on word knowledge and passage comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(2), 160–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolger, D. J., Balass, M., Landen, E., & Perfetti, C. A. (2008). Contextual variation and definitions in learning the meaning of words. Discourse Processes, 45(2), 122–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701792826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K., Cacioppo, J. T., Kaplan, R. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Olds, J. L. (2015). Social, behavioral, and economic sciences perspectives on robust and reliable science: Report of the Subcommittee on Replicability in Science, Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. Retrieved from the National Science Foundation Web site: www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/SBE_Robust_and_Reliable_Research_Report.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Borovsky, A., Ellis, E. M., Evans, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (2016). Lexical leverage: Category knowledge boosts real-time novel word recognition in 2-year-olds. Developmental Science, 19(6), 918–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. S., & Coughlin, E. (2007). The predictive validity of selected benchmark assessments used in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

  • Cabell, S. Q., & Hwang, H. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S99–S107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F., Fleming, J. E., & Gudbrandsen, B. (2000). Incidental word learning in science classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(2), 184–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervetti, G. N., Wright, T. S., & Hwang, J. (2016). Conceptual coherence, comprehension, and vocabulary acquisition: A knowledge effect? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(4), 761–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Dombek, J., Crowe, E. C., Spencer, M., Tighe, E. L., Coffinger, S., Zargar, E., Wood, T., & Petscher, Y. (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000128.

  • Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr., R., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1086/598840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y., & Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345741003592410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Ware, S., Austin, C. R., Loftus-Rattan, S. M., & Baker, D. L. (2019). Racing against the vocabulary gap: Matthew effects in early vocabulary instruction and intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control. Clinical Psychology Review, 18(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbs, C. L., & Kearns, D. (2016). Using new vocabulary in writing: Exploring how word and learner characteristics relate to the likelihood that writers use newly taught vocabulary. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(9), 1817–1843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9654-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2006). Authentic literacy activities for developing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.4.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elleman, A. E., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A. (2018). Superior working memory in experts. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (p. 696–713). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316480748.036.

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J., Elmore, J., Relyea, J. E., & Stenner, A. J. (2020). Domain-specific academic vocabulary network development in elementary grades core disciplinary textbooks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 855–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A. (2009). Learning from others: Children’s construction of concepts. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 115–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffreda, C. T., Diperna, J. C., & Pedersen, J. A. (2009). Preventive screening for early readers: Predictive validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 539–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the Center on Accelerating Student Learning. Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Analysis of presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chambers, A. (2016). Evidence-based practice and writing instruction. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (Vol. 2, pp. 211–226). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K., Wijekumar, K., Lei, P., Barkel, A., Aitken, A., et al. (2018). The roles of writing knowledge, motivation, strategic behaviors, and skills in predicting elementary students’ persuasive writing from source material. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(6), 1431–1457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9836-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, M. F. (2016). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2014). Effects of classroom practices on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivations for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 387–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106–1113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Jr., E. D. (2010–2011). Beyond comprehension: We have yet to adopt a common core curriculum that builds knowledge grade by grade—but we need to. American Educator, 34(4), 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Jr., E. D. (2016). Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imai, M., Gentner, D., & Uchida, N. (1994). Children’s theories of word meaning: The role of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development, 9(1), 45–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iran-Nejad, A. (1989). A nonconnectionist schema theory of understanding surprise-ending stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538909544723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J., Stein, M., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 767–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2003). The influence of reader’s prior knowledge on text comprehension and learning from text. In R. Nata (Ed.), Progress in Education, Vol.13 (pp. 189–209). Nova Science Publishers, Inc: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Mesite, L. M., Asher, C. A., Relyea, J. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Elmore, J. (2021). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000465

  • Kimball, D. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (2000). Transfer and expertise. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 109–122). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 223–241). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 294–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1999). Multilevel meditation modeling for group-based intervention studies. Evaluation Review, 23(4), 418–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepola, J., Poskiparta, E., Laakkonen, E., & Niemi, P. (2005). Development of and relationship between phonological and motivational processes and naming speed in predicting word recognition in grade 1. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(4), 367–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepola, J., Lynch, J., Kiuru, N., Laakkonen, E., & Niemi, P. (2016). Early oral language comprehension, task orientation, and foundational reading skills as predictors of grade 3 reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 373–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. R. (1988). Elaboration-based learning strategies: Powerful theory = powerful application. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(88)90020-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Creativity is more than novelty: Reconsidering replication as a creativity act. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maner, J. K. (2016). Into the wild: Field research can increase both replicability and real-world impact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2013). How vocabulary interventions affect young children at risk: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 223–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01464076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2011). Making vocabulary interventions engaging and effective. In R. E. O’Connor & P. F. Vadasy (Eds.), Handbook of reading interventions (pp. 138–168). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, M. G., Deane, P. D., Scott, J. D., Krovetz, R., & Lawless, R. R. (2017). Vocabulary assessment to support instruction: Building rich word-learning experiences. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W. E. (2005). Why instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 27–44). Chicago, IL: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W. E. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 52–77). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). NAEP Report Card: 2019 NAEP Reading Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2019/

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J. S., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, S., Dwyer, J., Koh, S., & Wright, T. (2007). Instructional material: The world of words: A vocabulary intervention for low-income preschoolers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, S. B., Newman, E. H., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Educational effects of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers’ word knowledge and conceptual development: A cluster-randomized trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 249–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northwest Evaluation Association. (2011). RIT scale norms study: For use with measures of academic progress (MAP) for primary grades. Portland, OR: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374.

  • Olinghouse, N. G., Graham, S., & Gillespie, A. (2015). The relationship of discourse and topic knowledge to fifth graders’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 391–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, S. A., Malloy, J. A., Parsons, A. W., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2015). Students’ engagement in literacy tasks. Reading Teacher, 69(2), 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Berman, A. I. (Eds.). (2020). Reaping the rewards of the Reading for Understanding Initiative. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Adlof, S. M. (2012). Reading comprehension: A conceptual framework from word meaning to text meaning. In J. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Rowman & Littlefield Education: Lanham, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Disney, L., & Anderson, K. (2007). Landmark vocabulary instructional research and the vocabulary instructional research that makes sense now. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 205–232). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAND Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. (1998). Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 41–60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. (2004). Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be defined. In B. Laufer & P. Bogaards (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing (pp. 209–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., Valentino, R. A., & Shores, K. A. (2012). Patterns of literacy among U.S. Students. Future of Children, 22(2), 17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, R. A., Curby, T. W., Baroody, A. E., Merritt, E., Abry, T. S., Ko, M., Thomas, J., & DeCoster, J. (2014). Efficacy of the responsive classroom approach: Results from a 3-year, longitudinal randomized controlled trial. American Education Research Journal, 52(3), 567–603. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214523821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 373–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, F. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (p. 1977). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum http://dx.doi.org/10 .4324/9781410610317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W. H. (2009). Exploring the relationship between content coverage and achievement: Unpacking the meaning of tracking in eighth grade mathematics. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Educational Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64(4), 913–951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29(1), 41–78. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strachan, S. (2015). Kindergarten students’ social studies and content literacy learning from interactive read-alouds. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(4), 207–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069003261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndyke, P. W. (1984). Applications of schema theory in cognitive research. In J. R. Anderson & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Tutorials in learning and memory (pp. 167–192). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trefil, J., Kett, J. F., & Hirsch, E. C. (2002). The new dictionary of cultural literacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Reply to Inbar: Contextual sensitivity helps explain the reproducibility gap between social and cognitive psychology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 (34), E4935–E4936.

  • Vaughn, S., Swanson, E. A., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., Stillman-Spisak, S. J., Solis, M., & Simmons, D. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijekumar, K., Graham, S., Harris, K., Lei, P. W., Barkel, A., Aitken, A., Ray, A., & Houston, J. (2019). The roles of writing knowledge, motivation, strategic behaviors, and skills in predicting elementary students’ persuasive writing from source material. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1431–1457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9836-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., Kao, J. C., Pao, L. S., Ordynans, J. G., Atkins, J. G., Cheng, R., & DeBonis, D. (2016). Close analysis of texts with structure (CATS): An intervention to teach reading comprehension to at-risk second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiske, M. S. (1998). What is teaching for understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding (pp. 61–86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C., Schatschneider, C., & Wanzek, J. (2020). Matthew effects in writing productivity during second grade. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-10001-8,

  • Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2016). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 203–226.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the funding agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James S. Kim.

Ethics declarations

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 161 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J.S., Relyea, J.E., Burkhauser, M.A. et al. Improving Elementary Grade Students’ Science and Social Studies Vocabulary Knowledge Depth, Reading Comprehension, and Argumentative Writing: a Conceptual Replication. Educ Psychol Rev 33, 1935–1964 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6

Keywords

  • Replication
  • Content literacy intervention
  • Randomized controlled trial
  • Science vocabulary knowledge depth
  • Social studies vocabulary knowledge depth
  • Reading comprehension
  • Argumentative writing