Designing for diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for fifth-grade monolingual English and Bilingual students

Journal of Literacy Research

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 68-100

  Dalton, Bridget ^a   Proctor, C Patrick ^b   Uccelli, Paola ^c   Mo, Elaine ^c   Snow, Catherine E ^c  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bilingual; Comprehension; E text; English language learner; Technology; Universal design for learning; Vocabulary

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959249200     PISSN: 1086296X     EISSN: 15548430     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1086296X10397872     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. ACT. (2010). The condition of college and career readiness 2010. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr10/pdf/ConditionofCollegeandCareerReadiness2010.pdf
2. Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 16(4), 14-18, 44-47.
3. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15-43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children And Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(3), 341-348. doi:10.1080/10862 96X.2010.503745.
5. ugust, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E., Olejnik, S., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students' ability to derive and infer word meaning. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 447-494.
7. Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8. Blachowicz, C. Z., Fisher, P. L., Ogle, D., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 524-539.
9. Block, C. C., & Duffy, G. G. (2008). Research on teaching comprehension: Where we've been and where we're going. In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 19-37). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10. Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N.,... White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.
11. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
12. Cognition and Technology Group, Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center. (1993). Examining the cognitive challenges and pedagogical opportunities of integrated media systems: Toward a research agenda. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(2), 118-124.
13. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. Reading Teacher, 56(6). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/RT/2-03_column/ index.html
14. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 264-274.
15. Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded digital learning environment. Final report to U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Washington, DC.
16. Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Integrating strategy instruction in a universally designed digital literacy environment. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 423-442). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 297-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers' comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Keiffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (2nd ed., pp. 75-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Davis, D. S. (2010). A meta-analysis of comprehension strategy instruction for upper elementary and middle school students (Doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Retrieved from http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-06162010-100830/
20. Davis, F. B. (1942). Two new measures of reading ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 33(5), 365-372.
21. Edyburn, D. L. (2002). Cognitive rescaling strategies: Interventions that alter the cognitive accessibility of text. Closing the Gap, 1, 10-11, 21.
22. Foorman, B. F., & Schatschneider, C. (2003). Measuring teaching practice during reading/ language arts instruction and its relation to student achievement. In S. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Systems for observing teaching and learning (pp. 1-30). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.
23. García, G. E. (1996, December). Improving the English reading of Mexican-American bilingual students through the use of cognate recognition strategies. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC.
24. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave/St. Martin's.
25. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
26. Handsfield, L. J., & Jiménez, R. T. (2009). Cognition and misrecognition: A Bourdieuian analysis of cognitive strategy instruction in a linguistically and culturally diverse classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 4(2), 151-195.
27. Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 402-412.
28. Jiménez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 224-243.
29. Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90-112.
30. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
31. Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
32. Koren, S. (1999). Vocabulary instruction through hypertext: Are there advantages over conventional methods of teaching? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 4(1), 1-13.
33. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
34. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323.
35. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
36. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies: Emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
37. Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effects of comprehensive vocabulary instruction on Title 1 students' metacognitive word-learning skills and reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 163-199.
38. MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273-302.
39. MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (salt): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 50-59.
40. Mace, R. L. (1998). Universal design in housing. Assistive Technology, 10(1), 21-28.
41. MacGinitie, W., MacGinitie, R., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. (2002). Gates MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
42. Maria, K., & Hughes, K. E. (2008). Gates MacGinitie reading tests: Technical report supplement forms S and T. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
43. McKenna, M. C. (1998). Electronic texts and the transformation of beginning reading. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a posttypographic world (pp. 45-59). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44. McKenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 111-126.
45. McKenna, M. C., & Zucker, T. A. (2009). Use of electronic storybooks in reading. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 254-272). New York, NY: Routledge.
46. McNamara, D. S., O'Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students' reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147-171.
47. Meyer, B. F., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P., Meier, C., & Spielvogel, J. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 62-92.
48. Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2008). Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6-58.
49. Nagy, W. E., García, G. E., Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual students' use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 241-259.
50. Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of English language learners' reading comprehension in English and Spanish. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(4), 351-371.
51. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). The nation's report card: Reading 2009 (NCEC 2010-458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
52. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
53. National Education Association & American Federation of Teachers. (2008). Access, adequacy, and equity in education technology: Results of a survey of America's teachers and support professionals on technology in public schools and classrooms. Washington, DC: Author. Available from http://www.nea.org/
54. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
55. Pearson, P., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282-296.
56. Plass, J. L., & Chun, D. M.(1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a secondlanguage multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.
57. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
58. Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M. S., August, D., & Snow, C. E. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246-256.
59. Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a multimedia hypertext environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71-93.
60. Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C. E., & Neugebauer, S. (2009). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9218-2
61. Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Dalton, B., & Snow, C. E. (2009). Understanding depth of vocabulary online with bilingual and monolingual children. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25(4), 311-333.
62. Rand Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
63. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 536-552.
65. Reinking, D., & Rickman, S. S. (1990). The effects of computer-mediated texts on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of intermediate-grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 395-411.
66. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
67. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
68. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognition from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620-627.
69. Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. (2004). Developing word consciousness. In J. Baumann & E. Kame'enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 201-217). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
70. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
71. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32-71.
72. Vitale, M., & Romance, N. (2008, April). A multi-part instructional strategy for accelerating vocabulary acquisition as an inductive process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
73. What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). Procedures and standards handbook: Version 2.0. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1
74. Woodcock, R. W., Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F., Ruef, M., & Alvarado, C. F. (2005). Woodcock Muñoz Language Survey-Revised. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
75. Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. In Information technology in childhood education annual (pp. 87-104). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.