Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Educational Research
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Causal Relationships Between Phonics,
Reading Comprehension, and Vocabulary
Achievement in the Second Grade
J. LLOYD ELDREDGE
BELL QUINN
DENNIE D. BUTTERFDELD
Brigham Young University
201
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
202 Journal of Educational Research
Decoding and Reading Comprehension (1970), however, suggest that the ability to use both con
textual and graphic cues seems to be important for begin
When a child begins school, his or her ability to analyze
ning readers?and proficient readers use both.
the sounds in words correlates with later reading achieve
ment more strongly than virtually any other entering in Several studies have found that "automaticity" in de
dex, except perhaps vocabulary knowledge (Calfee & coding helps comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974;
Drum, 1986). Researchers also have found that teachers McNeill, 1968; Perfetti & Lesgold, 1979). Stanovich,
who spend more than average amounts of time teaching Nathan, and Vala-Rossi (1986) found that of six varia
students to segment and blend sounds in words produce bles correlating with reading comprehension, word-rec
larger than average gains on reading achievement tests ognition speed and vocabulary were the strongest corre
(Haddock, 1976; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1984). lates to the reading comprehension scores of third-grade
In spite of the empirical evidence supporting the posi students. Competent readers seem to decode with accu
tive influence of early phonics instruction on word recog racy and with fluency (Curtis, 1980; Perfetti & Lesgold,
nition (Chali, 1983; Guthrie & Tyler, 1978; Johnson & 1979).
Baumann, 1984; Pflaum, Walberg, Karegianes, & Rash Analyses of poor readers revealed that (a) they read
er, 1980; Williams, 1985), concerns have been raised re slowly (Calfee & Drum, 1986); (b) they cannot decode
garding the negative effect that phonics instruction may nonsense words created according to the graphic struc
have on reading comprehension. As Johnson and Bau ture of real words (Doehring, Trites, 'Patel, & Fiedoro
mann (1984, p. 595) cautioned, ". . . it may be that the wicz, 1981); and (c) they do not use spelling-sound pat
excessive reliance upon code-emphasis instruction ob terns when attempting to identify unfamiliar real words
scures the more important goal of obtaining meaning (Biemiller, 1970; Camine, Camine, & Gersten, 1984;
from print." These concerns are supported by studies re Jorm & Share, 1983; Lesgold & Curtis, 1981; Weber,
vealing that young children taught by explicit phonics 1970). Liberman and Shankweiler (1979) suggested that
programs make more nonsense errors when reading than the inability to recognize the graphophonic structure of
do children who are taught to read through a sight word words creates a working memory bottleneck that inter
context approach (Barr, 1972; Cohen, 1974-1975; De feres with word recognition speed.
Lawter, 1975; Norton, 1976). The literature on decoding suggests that the ability to
Researchers have suggested that a negative outcome of use both contextual and graphophonic cues seems to be
explicit phonics instruction is that children tend to focus important for effective decoding. The suggestion that
more on the structure of the words that they read than on both cues should be taught appears reasonable. The liter
the meaning that they should acquire from the printed ature also suggests that improved decoding skills provide
text. Dank (1976) found that second graders who were the possibility for readers to give more attention to the
taught to read by explicit phonics approaches generated text message, resulting in better reading comprehension.
miscues that were frequently nonwords having a high
graphic and sound similarity to the attempted word. In
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension
that same study, the children who received reading in
struction using an implicit phonics approach produced Although there are studies demonstrating an improve
miscues that were typically real words and semantically ment in reading comprehension attributable to vocabu
appropriate, though less graphically and aurally suitable lary instruction (Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; Ka
(see also Norton & Hubert, 1977, for similar findings). meenui, Camine, & Freschi, 1982; McKeown, Beck,
Because of these findings, some researchers have con Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; Stahl, 1983; Wixson, 1986),
cluded that although explicit phonics instruction results other researchers have been unable to demonstrate any
in word recognition skills beyond those produced by pro facultative effect (Lieberman, 1967; Pany & Jenkins,
grams with a less rigorous approach to phonics, such in 1978; Pany, Jenkins, & Schreck, 1982; Tuinman & Brady,
struction fails to show any significant positive effect on 1974). Those researchers who have been unable to show a
reading comprehension (Johnson & Baumann, 1984; Res direct influence of vocabulary instruction on reading
nick, 1977) and may interfere with the comprehension comprehension still seem to believe that vocabulary
process (Norton & Hubert, 1977). knowledge affects comprehension. This belief may be
Advocates of explicit phonics approaches believe that based on data obtained from factor analyses of reading
making nonsense errors is a stage that passes once flu comprehension tests that consistently reveal a substantial
ency in reading is developed (Biemiller, 1970). A study proportion of variance accounted for by vocabulary
conducted by Camine, Camine, and Gertsen (1984) knowledge (Botzum, 1951; Clark, 1972; Davis, 1944;
seems to confirm that notion. Davis, 1968). As Mezynski (1983, p. 253) pointed out,
Some researchers have claimed that proficient readers "Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how a reader could
tend to rely more heavily on contextual cues than on comprehend text in which most of the words were unfa
graphic cues. Leu (1981), Dahl (1979), and Biemiller miliar.''
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
March/April 1990 IVol. 83(No. 4)] 203
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
204 Journal of Educational Research
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
March/April 1990 [Vol. 83(No. 4)1 205
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
206 Journal of Educational Research
on their answer form. Students indicated their choice by their responses were correct or incorrect. A week later,
selecting one word. The test was scored by summing cor these students were given the group-administered version
rect answers. of the test. A validity correlation of .814, significant at the
A portion of the Teacher Directions, which introduces .005 level, was obtained by comparing the individual test
the test, is presented below. Everything that the teacher results with the group test results. At the end of the
says to the students is printed in uppercase letters, and all 1983-84 school year, a test-retest reliability correlation of
instructions are printed in lowercase letters: .73 was obtained, using 1,100 second-grade students (El
Distribute place markers and a test to each student. dredge & Butterfield, 1986).
LOOK AT THE WORDS ON YOUR TEST. EACH Reading comprehension and vocabulary were meas
WORD IS A NONSENSE WORD. HOWEVER, THEY ured using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, Level B,
CAN BE READ AS IF THEY WERE REAL WORDS. I
Form I (Gates-MacGinitie, 1978). The test yields two sub
AM GOING TO READ ONE OF THE NONSENSE
WORDS ON EACH ROW. PLEASE CIRCLE EACH test scores?reading comprehension and vocabulary. The
WORD THAT I READ. numer of correct answers on these subtests was computed
Print 'tep mep tup teb' on the chalkboard. PLACE for each student. A total reading score was not computed
YOUR MARKERS UNDER THE SAMPLE ROW. CIR from this test for this study.
CLE THE WORD TEP . . . Wait for the students to re
spond. Circle the word tep in the chalkboard sample. DID Procedure
YOU CIRCLE THIS WORD? Point to the word tep. IF
YOU DID, YOU CIRCLED THE CORRECT WORD. The students were given the achievement tests during
NOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO TAKE
THIS TEST WE WILL BEGIN THE ACTUAL TEST. the first week of September, 1984, and again in the second
CIRCLE ONLY THE WORD THAT I READ FOR week of May, 1985. During the school year, the teachers
EACH ROW. PLACE YOUR MARKERS UNDER ROW involved in the study conducted their reading classes as
1 AND CIRCLE THE WORD BAB . . . BAB. Continue usual. Although the instructional and grouping strategies
the instructions using the following words: utilized by the teachers in the study differed, the correla
Notice that each of the three distractor words (mep, tions obtained between the variables of phonics, reading
tup, teb) in the sample row is identical to the word read by comprehension, and vocabulary achievement did not dif
the teacher (tep), with the exception of only one graphem fer significantly (p > .05) for students involved in differ
ic/phonemic element. The word mep differs from tep in ent school or district reading programs. Therefore, in
the initial graphophonic element?the word tup in the structional strategies were not included as a factor in the
medial element?and the word teb in the final element. analysis.
This format was followed throughout the test.
All of the words used in the test were created according Findings
to the graphophonic structure of real words. The spelling Descriptive Statistics
sound relationship of each nonsense word on the test was
checked against the common spelling-sound relationships Student scores increased for all three reading achieve
found in the written language. This check was done by ment measures between the pretest and the posttest. The
first comparing the spelling of the nonsense word up to distributions of the scores for the three measures from
and including the vowel with spelling relationships found both testing occasions were approximately normal. Table
in commonly used words. For example, in the word bab, 1 gives the descriptive statistics for the reading achieve
the ba spelling for the ba sound is consistent with the ba ment measures involved in the study. The measures were
spelling in words like bat, back, bag, band, etc. Second, acceptably reliable using the auto-correlations as test
we checked the spelling of the nonsense word from the
vowel to the end of the word. In the word bab, the ab Table 1.?Descriptive Statistics on Achievement Measures
spelling for the ab sound is consistent with the ab spelling
in words like lab, tab, stab, crab, etc. A nonsense word Variables M SD
like mik would not be used because there are no single
syllable words where the ik sound is spelled ik. In real Phonics
words, the ik sound is spelled ick such as in pick, stick, Pretest 58.0 13.7
Posttest 70.6 9.4
quick, trick.
At the beginning of the 1983-84 school year, 30 second Reading comprehension
Pretest 23.8 8.4
grade students in one of the Utah school districts were Posttest 32.1 6.8
asked to read a list of nonsense words created according
to the graphophonic structure of real words. The words Vocabulary
Pretest 24.8 8.9
that each student read to the examiner were the stimulus Posttest 34.4 7.5
words that the teacher reads on the group-administered
phonics test. No feedback was given regarding whether Note, n = 504.
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
March/April 1990 [Vol. 83(No. 4)1 207
retest reliability indexes. The auto-correlation was .689 Phonics effects. The third step in the analysis was to
for phonics, .629 for reading comprehension, and .737 test for differences between the cross-lagged correlations.
for vocabulary. In the analysis, there were statistically significant differ
ences in the cross-lagged correlations for each of the three
Cross-Lagged Analysis comparisons. When phonics was paired with the other
Simple correlations. The first step in the cross-lagged two variables, the cross-lagged correlations for phonics
analysis of the data was to determine the three pairs of were significantly greater than the correlations for reading
correlations (auto-, synchronous, and cross-lagged) for comprehension or for vocabulary (see Table 2).
the panel. All correlations between phonics, reading com The differences between the cross-lagged correlations
prehension, and vocabulary were positive and fairly large, for phonics and the other two variables were large as well
r(502) = .506 to .757, p < .001. as statistically significant (see Table 2). The cross-lagged
Stationarity. The second step in the analysis was to test correlation for phonics measured at the beginning of the
for stationarity of the relationships between the three vari school year accounted for 57% of the variability in vocab
ables. Because six tests of significance were involved in the ulary achievement measured at the end of the school year.
study, the critical value of the Pearson-Filon test statistic Vocabulary achievement measured at the beginning of the
was adjusted (PFcrit(502) = 2.435, p = .008) to give an school year related to only 30% of the variability in phon
experiment-wide level of about .05 that any of the com ics achievement at the end of the school year. Further
parisons for stationarity or temporal predominance more, the cross-lagged correlation for phonics measured
would be judged statistically significant (Rozell, 1965). at the beginning of the school year accounted for 39% of
When the synchronous correlations were examined for the variability in reading comprehension measured at the
the three pairs of variables?phonics with reading com end of the school year. Reading comprehension measured
prehension, phonics with vocabulary, and reading com at the beginning of the school year related to only 26% of
prehension with vocabulary?the results indicated that the variability in phonics achievement at the end of the
the assumption of perfect stationarity is tenable (see Table school year.
2). Table 2 includes the correlations for the analysis and Comprehension effect. In addition to findings that sug
the results of both the test for stationarity and the test for gest that phonics knowledge was a cause of higher scores
cross-lagged differences. on reading comprehension and vocabulary tests, the find
Phonics and .6887 .6292 .6416 .6272 -0.45 .6251 .5059 3.42
comprehension
Phonics and .6887 .7367 .7212 .7493 1.27 .7569 .5432 7.21
vocabulary
Comprehension and .6292 .7367 .7345 .7437 0.40 .6864 .5846 3.43
vocabulary
Note. Variables listed first in each pair were in the position of variable A in Figure 1; variables listed second were in the position of variable B. For
all correlations, n = 504.
ap < .008.
Table 3.?Means and Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Vocabulary, Comprehension, and
Phonics Measurement Variables
V 24.8194 8.8995
Pre C 23.8274 8.3839 .7345
P 58.0060 13.7444 .7212 .6416 ?
v 34.3849 7.5407 .7367 .6864 .7569
Post c 32.0992 6.8088 .5846 .6292 .6251 .7437
p 70.5972 9.4114 .5432 .5059 .6887 .7493 .6272 ?
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
208 Journal of Educational Research
ings indicate that reading comprehension causes growth in bles are shown in Table 3. From the correlation matrix of
general vocabulary knowledge. The differences between the observed measurement variables, we used the LISREL
the cross-lagged correlations for reading comprehension VI computer program (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984) to test
and vocabulary achievement showed a predominant five theoretical models describing possible causal relation
causal effect for reading comprehension (see Table 2). ships between phonics, vocabulary, and reading com
The cross-lagged correlation for reading comprehen prehension.
sion measured at the beginning of the school year ac The five models that were tested are shown in Figure 2.
counted for 47% of the variability in vocabulary achieve Through a series of model-fitting procedures (as described
ment measured at the end of the school year. Vocabulary in Lomax, 1982), we eventually produced a best fitting
achievement measured at the beginning of the school year model from the testing of the five models. Model A, tested
accounted for only 34% of the variability in reading com first, is a no cause model, based on the assumption that the
prehension achievement at the end of the school year. variables of (a) vocabulary knowledge, (b) phonics knowl
edge, and (c) ability to comprehend written text have no
Path Analysis causal impact on each other. Model A proved to be the
Five alternative causal or no causal models. Means and worst fitting model of the five tested (x2 = 503.9, df = 9, p
standard deviations and intercorrelations between vocab < .0001, RMSR = .165. GFI = .781, AGFI = .232).
ulary, phonics, and comprehension measurement varia Models B and C were tested next. Model B is based on
Model A
(A No Cause Model) .457 uv
.737
Vocabulary Vocabulary
.721
.526 uv
.689
.735 Phonics Phonics
A
.642
.604 uv
.629
Comprehension Comprehension
Model B
(Phonics Causes Growth in Vocabulary Knowledge and
Reading Comprehension.)
.351 uv
.398
Vocabulary Vocabulary
.721
.526 uv
.735
X.642
Phonics Phonics
.521 uv
Comprehension Comprehension
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
March/April 1990 [Vol. 83(No. 4)] 209
Model C
(Vocabulary Causes Growth in Phonics Knowledge.
Comprehension Causes Growth in Phonics Knowledge.)
y At
457 uv
Vocabulary Vocabulary
.721
.518 uv
.735
A Phonics Phonics
.642
^604 uv
Comprehension Comprehension
Model D
(Full Causal Model)
.331 uv
Vocabulary Vocabulary
.721
.518 uv
.735
)l Phonics Phonics
.642 <519 uv
Comprehension Comprehension
Model E
(Phonics Causes Growth in Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading
Comprehension. Reading Comprehension Causes Growth in
Vocabulary Knowledge.)
.333 uv.
.205
Vocabulary Vocabulary
.187
.721 .526 uv
.735
>
.642
Phonics Phonics
.522 uv^
.1741
Comprehension Comprehension
Figure 2. Models Describing Causal Relationships Between Phonics, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
210 Journal of Educational Research
the assumptions that (a) phonics knowledge influences .020, GFI = .996, AGFI = .993), verifying the findings
growth in vocabulary knowledge, and (b) phonics knowl obtained from the first path analysis and the cross-lagged
edge influences growth in reading comprehension. Model panel analysis.
C is based on opposite assumptions, that is, (a) vocabu
lary knowledge influences growth in phonics knowledge, Discussion
and (b) comprehension ability influences growth in phon
A major goal of explicit phonics instruction is to teach
ics knowledge. Of the two models, Model B provided the
students how to segment and blend sounds in words. Sev
best fit (Model B: x2 = 296.55, df=7,p< .0001, RMSR
eral studies have demonstrated that both processes?seg
= .087, GFI = .833, AGFI = .562; and Model C: x2 =
mentation and blending?must be mastered before the re
496.43, df=79p< .0001, RMSR = .157, GFI = .777,
sults of phonics instruction is transferable to the reading
AGFI = .416).
of unfamiliar words (Fox & Routh, 1976; Jeffrey & Sam
Model D is based on the assumptions that (a) vocabu uels, 1967; Jenkins, Bausell, & Jenkins, 1972; M?ller,
lary knowledge influences growth in both phonics knowl 1973). There is evidence that students learn the grapho
edge and comprehension ability; (b) phonics knowledge phonic patterns in words quickly in the early grades when
influences growth in both vocabulary knowledge and they are taught how to segment and blend sounds in words
comprehension ability; and (c) comprehension ability in (Dank, 1976). This knowledge may result in improved
fluences growth in both vocabulary knowledge and phon word recognition skills, which, in turn, results in im
ics knowledge. This model is a full causal one, assuming proved comprehension. An attempt was made to test this
that all of the variables have a causal impact on each hypothesis.
other. Although Model D was not the best fitting model Phonics skills, including graphophonic knowledge, seg
of the five (x2 = 257.69, df = 3, p < .0001, RMSR = mentation of sounds, and blending of sounds, can be
.070, GFI = .847, AGFI = .732), it did indicate that the tested by giving readers a list of nonsense words created
strongest causal paths were going from phonics knowl according to the structure of real words and asking them
edge to vocabulary knowledge; from phonics knowledge to to read them (Doehring et al., 1981; Jorm & Share, 1983).
comprehension ability; and from comprehension ability to The assessment of phonics achievement used in this study
vocabulary knowledge. The weak causal path extending attempted to test segmentation, blending, and grapho
from vocabulary knowledge to comprehension ability (.08) phonic skills through an author-developed group test. The
suggested that the best fitting model would probably have a test was validated before it was used in this study by com
causal path going in the opposite direction. paring students' scores on the test with the scores they ob
Model E proved to be optimal in terms of statistical tained by reading the nonsense words in isolation.
goodness-of-fit (x2 = 9.09, df = 3,p < .0001, RMSR = One of the limitations of this study may be the use of an
.023, GFI = .994, AGFI = .990). This model had the author-developed phonics instrument that is relatively un
lowest residuals (error), the smallest chi-square, and the known. The use of single indicators to assess all of the var
best goodness-of-fit indices of the five models tested. iables in the study is another limitation. Further research
Model E is based on the assumptions that (a) phonics regarding the issues raised in this study needs to be con
knowledge influences growth in vocabulary knowledge ducted using multiple measures of the variables under
and reading comprehension ability at the second-grade study.
level and (b) reading comprehension ability influences
This study tried to explore possible causal relationships
growth in vocabulary knowledge. These assumptions are
between phonics, vocabulary knowledge, and reading
consistent with the findings obtained from the cross comprehension at the second-grade level. It was not
lagged panel analysis.
assumed that these relationships would be the same at
Replication of path analysis with a second data sample. higher grade levels. Comprehension and vocabulary
We collected, over 8 months, identical vocabulary, com issues at the second-grade level probably differ at higher
prehension, and phonics measurements from another grade levels where students encounter more words and
group of second-grade students (n = 1,585), following concepts unfamiliar to them. The question under study is,
the same testing procedure as that followed with the sam "Do phonics skills contribute to better word recognition
ple described in this study. Means and standard deviations skills, which, in turn, contribute to improved reading
and intercorrelations between vocabulary, phonics, and comprehension?" The question is relevant only before
comprehension measurement variables obtained from word recognition skills are fairly well developed. After
this data source are shown in Table 4. Note that intercor readers develop fluent decoding skills, the issue is irrele
relations between the measurement variables are similar vant.
to those obtained from the first set of data (see Table 3). The causal impact of phonics knowledge on reading
The best fitting model (Model E) was applied to this sec comprehension implied in this study is consistent with the
ond data sample (see Figure 3). This model again proved to findings of other studies. For example, when comparisons
be a good fit (x2 = 20.18, df= 3,p < .0001, RMSR = of initial reading approaches are based on standardized
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
March/April 1990 [Vol. 83(No. 4)1 211
.381 uv
.222
Vocabulary Vocabulary
.252
.721
.642
Comprehension Comprehension
Figure 3. "Best Fit" Model Applied to Second Data Sample (Phonics Causes Growth in Vocabulary
Knowledge and Reading Comprehension. Reading Comprehension Causes Growth in
Vocabulary Knowledge)
Table 4.?Means and Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Vocabulary, Comprehension, and
Phonics Measurement Variables
V 22.4751 9.2549
Pre C 20.8416 8.8347 .7829
p 55.0883 14.4960 .7208 .6422
V 33.1394 8.3705 .7131 .6633 .7321
Post C 31.0612 7.2764 .5818 .6030 .6154 .7753
p 68.4662 10.9101 .5605 .5150 .7244 .7657 .6658 ?
semantic,
test scores, explicit phonics instruction, background, discourse,
emphasizing seg and graphophonic
mentation and blending, appears to be knowledge.
superior to the im
plicit phonics instruction (Anderson, etTheal., 1985;
findings Becker,
regarding the vocabulary-comprehension
1977; Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Calfeeconnection
& Piontkowski,
are not easy to explain. The hypothesis sug
1981; Chali, 1967; Guthrie & Tyler, 1978;
gestingPflaum
that improvedetwordal.,
knowledge will result in im
1980; Samuels, 1981; Williams, 1980; Williams,
proved 1985).cannot be supported from
reading comprehension
the data
Research findings also indicate that good obtained. use both
readers
graphophonic and contextual cues whenMost reading, whereas
of the research literature regarding the vocabu
inadequate phonological recoding seems to be a hallmark
lary-comprehension relationship suggests that vocabulary
of poor readers (Camine, et al., 1984; Jorm
instruction & Share,
improves reading comprehension, but it also
1983; Lesgold & Curtis, 1981). The ability to use
seems logical grapho
to suggest that the individual who reads and
phonic cues may be more important tocomprehends
beginning readers
well can increase his or her vocabulary by
than was previously supposed. This study suggests
wide reading. that
This comprehension-vocabulary relation
growth in reading comprehension andship word
deserves knowledge,
more attention. The findings of the study
as measured by standardized test scores, suggest
is influenced
that wide readingbyinfluences
a general vocabulary
student's graphophonic knowledge?at least at than
growth more thevocabulary
second instruction influences read
grade level. ing comprehension, at least at the second-grade level.
Approaches to phonics teaching and reading instruc Cross-lagged path analysis does not rule out the possibil
tion differ. Some approaches seem to encourage children ity that both variables have some causal influence on each
to focus on the individual words in text material at the ex other, but only the likelihood that between the two varia
pense of reading for meaning. Those who read this discus bles, one is a stronger cause of the other. The findings of
sion should not imply support for this type of reading in the path analysis offer support for this position. This
struction. An analysis of the decoding literature suggests study suggests that reading comprehension is a stronger
that beginning reading programs should teach children cause of general vocabulary growth than vice versa.
how to use all available knowledge sources: syntactic, Anderson and Freebody (1979) offered three alter
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
212 Journal of Educational Research
native views to explain why vocabulary knowledge is such grades. However, if concept-driven reading affects vocab
an extraordinary correlate of linguistic competence. The ulary development as much or more than text-driven read
instrumentalist position suggests that vocabulary knowl ing affects reading comprehension, as the vocabulary
edge causes growth in text comprehension. The aptitude comprehension relationship found in this study suggests,
position indicates that vocabulary test performance is then phonics instruction should be provided in a compre
merely another reflection of mental ability rather than a hension-focused reading environment. Young children
direct cause of reading comprehension (i.e., persons with should be provided with many holistic reading experi
large vocabularies comprehend better because they pos ences, and they should be encouraged to make sense out
sess superior mental agility). The knowledge hypothesis of everything that they read.
emphasizes the importance of conceptual frameworks or It is hoped that the findings of this study will influence
schemata. Performance on a vocabulary test is seen as a educators to ask additional questions about the reading
reflection of the extent of exposure to the culture. The process. The relationships examined in this study should
person who scores high has deeper and broader knowl be examined further using other measurement devices and
edge of the culture, and this knowledge is crucial for text children of various ages.
comprehension. Anderson and Freebody hastened to
point out that no serious scholar in reading rigidly adheres
to any one of these positions (i.e., no one position is prob REFERENCES
ably entirely right and the other two entirely wrong). The
results of this study might suggest, however, that the
Anderson, R. C, & Freebody, P. (1979). Vocabulary knowledge and
knowledge hypothesis deserves particular attention. reading. (Reading Ed. Report No. 11). Urbana, IL: Center for the
If the comprehension scores on a standardized test re Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
177 470)
flect a student's ability to use prior knowledge and reason Anderson, R. C, & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In
ing skills to understand text (Johnston, 1984), then maybe J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research re
the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to relate that views. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, R. C, Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G.
knowledge to comprehend text occurs before measures of
(1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commis
general vocabulary show a substantial increase. Maybe sion on Reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Educa
the more one reads, sees, and hears influences vocabulary tion.
Barr, R. C. (1972). The influence of instructional conditions on word
growth more than vocabulary instruction influences read
recognition errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 7, 509-529.
ing comprehension. The study raised important questions Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). The effects of
about the reading comprehension-vocabulary relation long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading com
prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.
ship, most of which cannot be answered without further Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvan
research. taged. What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educa
tional Review, 47, 518-543.
The relationship identified between phonics and vocab
Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and con
ulary also is interesting. Decoding research suggests that textual information as children learn to read. Reading Research
fluent sight word recognition and the slower decoding Quarterly, 6, 75-96.
Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program
process (sometimes referred to as word identification) are
in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2,
both influenced by phonics instruction. This study sug 5-142.
gests that a child's ability to decode words in print in Botzum, W. A. (1951). A factorial study of reasoning and closure fac
tors. Psychometrika, 16, 361-386.
fluences growth in word knowledge. One explanation for
Calfee, R., & Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In
this finding is that the test items used to measure word M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 804
knowledge are embedded in print; therefore, children 849). New York: Macmillan.
Calfee, R. C, & Piontkowski, D. C. (1981). The reading diary: Ac
must be able to decode the words in the test before they
quisition of decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 346-373.
can adequately respond to the options presented. Another Camine, L., Camine, D. & Gertsen, R. (1984). Analysis of oral read
explanation is that phonics knowledge positively affects ing errors made by economically disadvantaged students taught
with a synthetic-phonics approach. Reading Research Quarterly,
sight word recognition, which positively affects reading 19, 343-356.
fluency, which positively affects reading comprehension, Chali, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York:
which positively affects vocabulary growth. This explana McGraw-Hill.
Chali, J. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate (2nd ed.). New
tion is based on the assumption that the more an individ York: McGraw-Hill.
ual reads with understanding, the more his vocabulary Clark, N. L. (1972). Hierarchical structure of comprehension skills
grows. This explanation also must be tested by further (2 vols.). Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: A.C.E.R.
research. Cohen, A. S. (1974-1975). Oral reading errors of first-grade children
taught by a code-emphasis approach. Reading Research Quarterly,
//* the relationships outlined in this article are accurate, 10, 616-650.
phonics instruction designed to help students recognize Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design and conduct of
quasi-experiments and time experiments in field settings. In M. D.
the consistent graphophonic patterns in the English lan Dunnett (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol
guage should be emphasized in the early elementary ogy. Chicago: Rand McNally.
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
March/April 1990 [Vol. 83(No. 4)] 213
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: De LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic
sign and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally. information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6,
Curtis, M. E. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. 293-323.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 656-669. Lesgold, A. M., & Curtis, M. E. (1981). Learning to read words effi
Dahl, P. R. (1979). An experimental program for teaching high speed ciently. In A. M. Lesgold & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Interactive proc
word recognition and comprehension skills. J. J. E. Button, T. C. esses in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lovitt & T. D. Rowland (Eds.), Communications research in learn Lieberman, J. (1967). The effect of direct instruction in vocabulary
ing disabilities and mental retardation. Baltimore: University Park concepts on reading achievement. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clear
Press. inghouse on Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
Dank, M. E. (1976). A study of the relationship of miscues to the ED 010 985).
mode of formal reading instruction received by selected second Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1979). Speech, the alphabet, and
graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massa teaching to read. In L. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and
chusetts. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 126 431). practice of early reading (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in read Locascio, J. J. (1982). The cross-lagged correlation technique: Recon
ing. Psychometrika, 9, 185-197. sideration in terms of exploratory utility, assumption specification,
Davis, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading and robustness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42,
Research Quarterly, 3, 499-545. 1,023-1,036.
Davis, F. B. (1971). Psychometric research in reading comprehension. Lomax, R. G. (1982). A guide to LISREL-type structual equation
In F. Davis (Ed.), Literature of research in reading with emphasis modeling. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 15,
upon models. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 580-584.
DeLawter, J. A. (1975). Three miscue patterns: The relationship of Leu, D. J., JR. (1981). Differences between oral and written discourse
beginning reading instruction and miscue patterns. In W. D. Page and the acquisition of reading proficiency. Journal of Reading Be
(Ed.), Help for the reading teacher: New directions in research. Ur havior, 14, 111-125.
bana, 111.: National Conference on Research in English, ERIC MacGinitie, W. H. (1978). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests. Level B,
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National In Form 1. New York: Riverside Publishing.
stitute of Education. McKeown, G. M., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C, & Perfetti, C. A.
Doehring, D. G., Trites, R. L., Patel, P. G., & Fiedorowicz, C. A. M. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading
(1981). Reading disabilities: The interaction of reading, language, comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15,
and neuropsychological deficits. New York: Academic Press. 3-18.
Eldredge, J. L., & Butterfield, D. (1986). Alternatives to traditional McNeill, D. (1968). Production and perception: The view from lan
reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 40, 32-37. guage. Ontario Journal of Educational Research, 10, 181-185.
Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1976). Phonemic analysis and synthesis as Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge:
word-attack skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 70-74. Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects on text comprehen Educational Research, 53, 253-279.
sion of differing proportions and locations of difficult vocabulary, Muller, D. (1973). Phonic blending and transfer of letter training to
Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 19-39. word reading in children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5, 13-15.
Guthrie, J. T., & Tyler, J. J. (1978). Cognition and instruction of Norton, D. (1976). A comparison of the oral reading errors of high and
poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 57-78. low ability first and third graders taught by two approaches?synthet
Haddock, M. (1976). The effects of an auditory and auditory-visual ic phonic and analytic-eclectic. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
method of blending instruction on the ability of prereaders to de Wisconsin-Madison). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37,
code synthetic words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 3399A.
825-831.
Norton, D. E., & Hubert, P. (1977). A comparison oj the oral reading
Jeffrey, W. E., & Samuels, S. J. (1967). The effect of method of read strategies and comprehension patterns developed by high, average,
ing training on initial learning and transfer. Journal of Verbal and low ability first grade students taught by two approaches?phon
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 354-358. ic emphasis and eclectic basal. College Station: Texas A & M Univer
Jenkins, J. R., Bausell, R. B., & Jenkins, L. M. (1972). Comparison sity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 393)
of letter name and letter sound training as transfer variables. Amer Pany, D., & Jenkins, J. R. (1978). Learning word meanings: A compar
ican Educational Research Journal, 9, 75-86. ison of instruction procedures and effects on measures of reading
Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. (1981). Instructional variables in reading comprehension with learning disabled students. Learning Disability
comprehension. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teach Quarterly, 1, 21-32.
ing: Research reviews. Newark, DE: International Reading Asso Pany, D., Jenkins, J. R., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction:
ciation.
Effects on word knowledge and reading comprehension. Learning
Johnson, D. D., & Baumann, J. F. (1984). Word identification. In Disability Quarterly, 5, 202-214.
P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York:
Longman. Perfetti, C. A., & Lesgold, A. M. (1979). Coding and comprehension in
skilled reading and implications for reading instruction. In L. B. Res
Johnston, P. (1984). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test
bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 219-239. nick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice in early reading (Vol.
1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Joreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correla
tion matrices. Psychometrika, 43, 443-447. Peters, C. C, & Van Voorhis, W. R. (1940). Statistical procedures and
their mathematical bases. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear
structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental varia Pflaum, S. W., Walberg, H. J., Karegianes, M. L., & Rasher, S. P.
bles and least squares methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Soft (1980). Reading instruction: A quantitative analysis. Educational Re
ware. searcher, 9, 12-18.
Resnick,
Jorm, A. F., & Share, D. L. (1983). Phonological recoding and readL. B. (1977). Theory and practice in beginning reading instruc
ing acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103-147. tion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. (ERIC Document Repro
duction
Kameenui, E. J., Camine, D. W., & Freschi, R. (1982). Effects of Service No. ED 149 292)
Rogosa,
text construction and instructional procedures for teaching word D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 245-258.
meanings on comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quar
terly, 17, 367-388. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading.
Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlations: A test for spuri
In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp 745-798).
ousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 88-90. New York: Longman.
Kenny, D. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1979). Cross-lagged Rozelle,
correla R. M. (1965). Causal relations in attitude change as demon
tion: Practice and promise. Journal of Applied Psychology,strated64, through cross-lagged panel correlation (Report No. C-998).
372-379. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
214 Journal of Educational Research
Samuels, S. J. (1981). Some essentials of decoding. Exceptional Educa Weber, R. M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first-grade reading errors.
tion Quarterly, 2, 11-25. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 427-451.
Stahl, S. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading comprehen Williams, J. P. (1980). Teaching decoding with an emphasis on phoneme
sion. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 33-50. analysis and phoneme blending. Journal of Educational Psychol
Stanovich, K. E., Nathan, R. G., & Vala-Rossi, M. (1986). Develop ogy, 72, 1-15.
mental changes in the cognitive correlates of reading ability and the Williams, J. P. (1985). The case for explicit decoding instruction. In
developmental lag hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 267 J. Osborn, P. T. Wilson, & R. C. Anderson (Eds.), Reading educa
283. tion: Foundations for a literate America (pp. 205-213). Lexington,
Tuinman, J. J., & Brady, M. E. (1974). How does vocabulary account MA: Lexington Books.
for variance on reading comprehension tests? In P. Nacke (Ed.), Wixson, K. K. (1986). Vocabulary instruction and children's com
Twenty-third national reading conference yearbook. Clemson, SC: prehension of basal stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 317
The National Reading Conference. 329.
JUST ASK
If you want to reprint one of our articles, we can usually
give you permission to do so. Charges will vary, depend
ing on your proposed use of the copyrighted materials.
We will be happy to consider your request. Write to
Heldref Publications, Copyright and Permissions
Manager, 4000 Albemarle Street, NW, Washington, DC
20016, or call (202) 362-6445.
This content downloaded from 36.73.46.78 on Thu, 18 May 2017 15:03:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms