Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words as They Read Expository Text

Abstract

p> An experiment was conducted to investigate methods that enable college students to learn the meaning of unknown words as they read discipline-specific academic text. Forty-one college students read specific passages aloud during three sessions. Participants were randomly assigned to three vocabulary learning interventions or a control condition. The interventions involved applying context, morphemic, and syntactic strategies; applying definitions; or applying both strategies and definitions to determine word meanings. Word learning and comprehension were measured during the interventions and in a transfer task to assess treatment effects on independent text reading. Results revealed that students in all three intervention groups outperformed controls in learning words and comprehending passages. However, the treatment groups did not differ from controls on the transfer task. Teaching both strategies and definitions was especially effective for learning unknown words and comprehending text containing those words. </p

Full text

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
*Author correspondence: Lcraigo@bmcc.cuny.edu
Suggested Citation: Craigo L., Ehri, L. C., & Hart, M. (2017). Teaching community college students strategies for
learning unknown words as they read expository text. Higher Learning Research Communications, 7(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v7i1.350
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown
Words as They Read Expository Text
Leslie Craigo*, a, Linnea C. Ehri a, and Manijeh Harta
aGraduate Center, City University of New York, United States
Submitted: November 16, 2016 | Peer-reviewed: March 16, 2017 | Revisions Required: April 9, 2017 |
Accepted: April 27, 2017 | Published: May 24, 2017
Abstract: An experiment was conducted to investigate methods that enable college students to
learn the meaning of unknown words as they read discipline-specific academic text. Forty-one
college students read specific passages aloud during three sessions. Participants were randomly
assigned to three vocabulary learning interventions or a control condition. The interventions
involved applying context, morphemic, and syntactic strategies; applying definitions; or applying
both strategies and definitions to determine word meanings. Word learning and comprehension
were measured during the interventions and in a transfer task to assess treatment effects on
independent text reading. Results revealed that students in all three intervention groups
outperformed controls in learning words and comprehending passages. However, the treatment
groups did not differ from controls on the transfer task. Teaching both strategies and definitions
was especially effective for learning unknown words and comprehending text containing those
words.
Keywords: academic vocabulary learning; reading comprehension; college students; reading
academic text; use of context; use of morphemic word parts; use of syntactic clues
Introduction
“I have no clue!” replied one early childhood education student when asked to explain
what was just read in the assigned textbook. Although the student demonstrated fluent oral
reading of the passage, and had correctly located in the text the answer to a question about
differing views of learning disability, the student showed no comprehension of what was just read.
This interchange occurred in a class taught by the lead author, and the reaction is typical of many
community college students taking courses whose textbooks are difficult to read. Students come
to class without completing the assigned readings and are challenged when asked to read the
material in class. This prompted the present research to investigate methods enabling community
college students to access academic text.
Overview of Community Colleges
Many students who attend community colleges are nontraditional students: they may be
first-generation college students, students of low socio-economic status, minorities, immigrants,
students needing remedial help, older students desiring to upgrade their employment
opportunities, and students with learning disabilities (Dougherty & Townsend, 2006). As these
students pursue their goals in college, one of their challenges is reading and comprehending
information in textbooks. Macdonald-Ross and Scott (1997) found a strong correlation between

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
reading ability and course completion. However, approximately 20% of first-year community
college students enter with less than adequate reading skills (Falk-Ross, 2001). Additionally,
according to data from the American Association of Community Colleges, only 36% of community
college students obtain an associate’s degree, only 13% of these attend a four year college, and
of these, only 40% attain a degree there (American Association of Community Colleges, n.d.).
Without the ability to read and comprehend text, students’ success is thwarted. One block
to comprehension arises from limited knowledge of academic vocabulary terms. As Nagy (1988)
stated, “One cannot understand text without knowing what most of the words mean” (p. 1). The
purpose of the present study was to explore ways to improve college students’ ability to learn the
meaning of unknown words as they read academic text. Reading processes are differentiated for
specific disciplines (Neal, 2015; Pearlman, 2013; Anderson & Kim, 2011; Shanahan, Shanahan,
& Misichia, 2011). The discipline of interest in this study was education. It was expected that
prospective teachers’ ability to learn unknown words while reading passages from early childhood
education texts would strengthen their reading comprehension of the texts.
Theoretical Framework and Review of Relevant Literature
The basis for designing strategies that would help students learn unfamiliar words as they
read was drawn from the theories of Chall (1983), Ehri (1998), Pressley and Afflerbach (1995),
and Scarborough (2002), who offer detailed analyses of the components contributing to skilled
reading. Based on Scarborough’s component strands model, students need to acquire discipline-
specific academic vocabulary, and they need to become familiar with the genre of expository text.
Language comprehension processes need to become increasingly more strategic, word level
strands need to become increasingly more automatic, and both of these processes need to
become tightly interwoven in order for college students to comprehend challenging text
(Scarborough, 2002).
According to Ehri’s (1998) interactive model of reading, a central processing space allows
readers to construct meaning by drawing from their background knowledge, linguistic knowledge,
metacognitive strategies, memory for text, lexicon of written and spoken words, and knowledge
of the writing system. Vocabulary and background knowledge were focal elements in the current
study. When unfamiliar words are encountered in text, readers’ comprehension is interrupted
while they stop to figure out the word. They apply their knowledge of the writing system to
pronounce the letters. They check their lexicon for a match to a known word. If no match is found,
the word is regarded as a new vocabulary word. Various strategies might be applied to determine
its meaning: examining other words in the passage for clues, inspecting morphological parts of
the word, determining the function of the word in the sentence, or checking the dictionary
definition. One or more sources help to clarify the word’s meaning. As a result the spelling,
pronunciation, and meaning of the new word are added to the reader’s lexicon of known words.
Several studies reviewed below examined effects of these strategies. In the current study, one or
another of these strategies was taught to students, and the impact on word learning and reading
comprehension was assessed.
Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) examined the processes that expert readers use as they
read text. Students were instructed to think aloud as they read text. Pressley and Afflerbach
showed that expert readers consciously construct meaning as they engage with text. Results
revealed the use of context, morphology, syntax, and definitions; identification of domain specific
words and unknown words; and meaning generation and evaluation. To investigate the merits of
theories such as Pressley and Afflerbach’s, Cromley and Wills (2014) used think aloud
procedures to investigate the comprehension of 24 undergraduate students in a geology course.

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
These authors found that students who verbalized more background knowledge, important
vocabulary, and high level strategy-use gained significantly more information from text than those
students who verbalized less about the above components. Flexible use of high level strategies
was also a hallmark of good comprehenders.
According to Chall’s (1983) stage theory of reading, college students need to have
acquired the mechanics of reading and passed through the reading-to-learn stage so that they
are competent to understand multiple viewpoints and to critically analyze what they read. In the
beginning of the reading-to-learn stage, readers first start to read for knowledge, especially in the
content areas. Readers in this stage use prior knowledge to relate print to procedural knowledge,
concrete information, and abstract ideas. Readers in this stage also need to focus on the meaning
of words, especially academic vocabulary and abstract words. Some college professors may think
that students have already developed skills in earlier grades, but in actuality, the need for
continued development of content-area reading continues in college (Neal, 2015; Pearlman,
2013; Anderson & Kim, 2011). With the ability to integrate prior knowledge with ideas in print and
the ability to understand domain-specific vocabulary, readers possess the necessary tools to
become critical and analytical readers. Chall offers a stage theory which is similar to Ehri’s (1998)
theory. The advantage of Ehri’s theory is that it is a more flexible framework with the potential to
“serve researchers well for some time to come” (Beech 2005, p. 56).
A study of vocabulary development for post-secondary students is strongly needed given
the lack of quality research in this area (Carlisle, 2010; Kelly, Lesaux, Kiefer, & Faller, 2010; Nist
& Holschuh, 2002; Nist & Olejnik, 1995; Simpson & Randall, 2000). In its search for studies, the
National Reading Panel (2000) found several surveys, case studies, and weak experimental
designs lacking control groups and random assignment. There were few quality studies. Since
then other studies have appeared, and some of this research is summarized below.
In their report on a program that helps prepare minority students from educationally
disadvantaged backgrounds for the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), Paul and Verhulst
(2010) addressed students’ need for an adequate vocabulary to support comprehension. Their
program included vocabulary building assignments using context cues. Students who had taken
the MCAT prior to participating in the program demonstrated significant gains on the MCAT after
participation. A large majority of the participants (82% to 93% over 3 years) were accepted into
at least one medical school.
Using structural equation modeling, Guo, Roehrig, and Williams (2011) investigated the
relationships among vocabulary, morphological awareness, syntactic awareness, and reading
comprehension. Gathering data from 151 English-speaking adults, the authors found that
vocabulary knowledge played an important role in explaining individual differences in reading
comprehension. Syntactic cues, morphological awareness, and context cues were especially
helpful in learning vocabulary words during reading. The authors suggest that these vocabulary
learning skills need to be part of instruction and curriculum design to support reading
comprehension. Wilson-Fowler and Apel (2015) also offer support for morphological analysis.
Using path analysis they found that morphological awareness was a moderate predictor of
sentence comprehension among college students.
Taraban, Rynearson, and Kerr (2000) surveyed 1,149 college freshmen about their
strategic reading skills. Two findings of interest were that nearly half of the respondents reported
use of independent word learning skills and that this ability correlated positively with scores on
the ACT English exam.

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
Hadley, Eisenwine, and Sanders (2005) used a nonexperimental design to investigate the
effectiveness of an interactive reading intervention. Their goal was to increase the passing rate
of college seniors on the Texas teacher certification exam. They hypothesized that students were
having difficulty with the test because of poor reading skills, specifically lack of vocabulary.
Drawing on the work of Pressley and Afflerbach (1995), the researchers guided 22 participants
through word learning activities using naturalistic reading passages that were similar to passages
on the exam. Upon completion of the intervention, students demonstrated increased ability to
pass the exam.
Falk-Ross (2001) used a case study design to examine components of effective reading
instruction. Four college students engaged in a variety of reading and writing activities. Of
importance to the present study were the qualitative data that supported inclusion of morphemic
analysis and teacher modeling as part of effective instruction.
The value of morphemic analysis and teacher modeling, as well as context cues and
discussion, for word learning received support in a study by Kelly, Lesaux, Kiefer, and Faller
(2010). Using a quasi-experimental design, they assessed the impact of vocabulary instruction
that included these components on the comprehension of 476 students in an urban middle school.
Students in the intervention group performed better than students in the control group on
experimenter-designed tasks and on a standardized test. Two other studies also provided
empirical support for the use of context, morphology, definitions, and teacher modeling with fifth
graders (Baumann et al., 2002; Baumann, Edwards, Boland, Olejnik, & Kame'enui, 2003).
Fukkink and De Glopper (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 21 studies. They found a
significant, positive effect on students’ ability to learn unknown vocabulary words when they were
instructed to use context clues. In a meta-analysis by Stahl and Fairbanks (1986), significant
effect sizes were reported on comprehension of vocabulary words taught and on comprehension
measures in general. These studies plus many mentioned above were conducted with younger
students. The current study extended this research to college students.
Because there are too many words to be taught explicitly by teachers in schools, students
need to be taught intentional, strategic, and independent word-learning skills in order to build their
vocabularies as they read text. The theories and research discussed above suggest the value of
several components for teaching independent word learning. Instructor modeling with time for
student practice and instructor feedback were found to be crucial components for student learning
and engagement. Students need a repertoire of strategies that include the use of context cues,
morphological analysis, and understanding of syntax. Teaching the application of definitions that
are sufficiently elaborate (such as those in glossaries) during text reading is valuable. Students
must learn to monitor their comprehension and to address problems when unfamiliar words create
gaps in text meanings. Use of naturalistic texts would be expected to facilitate transfer of the
strategies taught when students read on their own.
The present study investigated the effects of alternative vocabulary learning interventions
and their impact on reading comprehension. A pretest-posttest experimental design was used.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) instruction in the use of strategies
(Strategies group); (2) instruction in the application of definitions (Definitions group); (3) instruction
in both strategies and definitions (Strategies plus Definitions group); and (4) Control group.
Participants in the Strategies group were prompted to use contextual, morphological, and
syntactical analysis to derive the meanings of vocabulary words appearing in the passages.
Participants in the Definitions group applied researcher-supplied definitions to understand the
meanings of vocabulary words in the passages. Participants in the Strategies plus Definitions

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
group used both methods to determine the meaning of vocabulary words. Participants in the
Control group engaged only in a discussion of the passages. Definition, spelling recall, and
reading comprehension were assessed following the interventions. The following questions were
addressed: (1) Does instruction in strategy use, definition application, or a combination of both
help community college students learn unknown words as they read expository text? (2) Will
participants demonstrate increased use of strategies and/or definitions with practice? (3) Will
these methods of word learning impact reading comprehension? (4) Will the word learning
methods transfer and facilitate word learning when students read text independently?
Method
Participants
Students were recruited from the teacher education department of a large northeastern-
U.S. public community college and provided informed consent to participate. They were at least
18 years old and were proficient in English as measured by a passing grade on the ACT test in
reading and writing or successful completion of all remedial reading and writing courses. Students
ranged in age from 18.9 to 60 years (M = 28.5 years). There were 36 females and 5 males.
Participants self-identified as follows: 5 black, 13 white, 10 Latino/Hispanic, 8 Asian/Pacific
Islander, and 5 in two or more categories; 18 bilingual and 23 monolingual. The mean number of
college credits completed was 33.6. Students were assigned randomly to four treatment groups.
There were 48 participants who began the study. Seven dropped out midway, one from the
Strategies plus Definition group and two from each of the other three groups. Characteristics by
group are summarized in Table 1. Upon completion, students received a $20 bookstore gift
certificate.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Four Instructional Groups
S+D
S
D
Control
F(p)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Age
32.69 (11.4)
24.36 (4.5)
24.44 (4.3)
31.99 (10.7)
2.99* (.04)
College Credits
37.27 (20.1)
38.30(14.0)
25.10 (14.0)
33.40 (22.0)
1.13 ns (.35)
Gender (F/M)
10/1
9/1
9/1
8/2
Ethnicity
White
3
1
0
1
Black
3
1
5
4
Latino/Hispanic
2
3
2
3
Asian/Pacific
Islander
0
3
3
2
Other
3
2
0
0
Mono/Bilingual
8/3
5/5
4/6
6/4
Note. *p = .04; ns not statistically significant. S+D = Strategies plus Definition group (N = 11);
S = Strategies Only group (N = 10); D = Definition Only group (N = 10); Control group (N = 10). Degrees of
freedom F(3,37). ns not statistically significant at p < .05. *---p
Materials and Procedures
Vocabulary pretest. Participants completed the 80-item multiple choice Vocabulary
subtest of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Form G (Brown, Fishco, & Hanna, 1993). According
to the manual, the KR-20 reliability for college students in the first 2 years is 0.94.

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
Intervention passages. Participants were trained and tested individually in three
sessions. They were given content area passages to read aloud. The passages were drawn from
textbooks and practitioner journals not used at this college. Passages contained target words that
were not known to students based on field testing at this college. The first passage contained five
target vocabulary words, and the other passages each contained seven target words. Passages
covered topics on child development, the major field of study of the participants, and ranged from
140 to 343 words, with readability estimates ranging from 9.4 to 16.3, depending on the formula
applied.
The first text was published in the practitioner journal Young Children and focused on the
importance of play (Honig, 2007). The second text was obtained from a trade book published by
Teachers’ College Press and concerned the primacy of children’s needs in curriculum planning
(Ayers, 1995). The third text provided information about children’s handwriting and was published
in American Educator (Graham, 2010). The fourth text was used to assess transfer. It discussed
scientific knowledge and was taken from Child Development and Education (McDevitt & Ormrod,
2009).
Interventions. Three vocabulary learning interventions were administered. The following
procedures were common to all the treatments. During the first session, students read a passage
orally and identified any unfamiliar words. Oral rather than silent reading was required to make
sure that students read the complete text and processed all the words. Oral reading also allowed
the researcher to “know which segment they were reacting to when they verbalized a thought”
(Cromley & Wills, 2014, p.57). Then the researcher directed students’ attention to the first target
word and modeled the word learning procedure being taught. The researcher pointed to
subsequent target words and coached students in applying the specific learning procedure for
each word. During the second and third sessions, students applied the learning procedure
independently and were coached when necessary. Errors were corrected, and re-modeling of the
procedure was provided as needed. Participants were prompted to speak aloud their thought
processes as they used the strategies and/or definitions. This think aloud was intended to expose
students’ use of strategies and/or definitions. Students’ responses were recorded and the
recorded responses were used for accuracy in scoring. When all of the target words had been
treated in a passage, students read the passage aloud again. This was followed by posttests
measuring what students had learned about the target words, including their definitions and
spellings, and their comprehension of the passage. The specific learning procedures that were
taught are described below:
Strategies only treatment. Students were provided with a chart that prompted them to
use context, morphology, and syntax cues to discover the meaning of each target word as well
as any other words identified as unknown:
For context: “Find other words in the text that help you understand this word.”
For morphology: “How is this word or part of the word similar to other words you know?”
For syntax: “What is the function of this word in the sentence? Does this word name
something, is it a noun, describe something, is it an adjective, or is it an action, a verb?”
The experimenter followed a script to guide students in understanding and applying these
questions. She used modeling, scaffolding, prompting, and feedback to support students. The
script offered alternatives dependent on students’ responses. An example of modeling for the
word temperament is given in Appendix A. Students were told to think aloud and reveal their
thoughts as they were figuring out meanings. After applying the prompts, students were asked to
deduce the meaning of the word. If students’ meanings were incomplete, the experimenter

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
provided the missing information. The same procedures were applied to any nontarget words that
the student had identified. Students were scored on the number of target words whose meanings
were derived correctly and independently without the experimenter’s help.
Definition only treatment. After reading each passage and identifying unknown words,
students were shown a definition chart. One side of the page listed each target word. On the other
side, an elaborated version of the word’s dictionary definition was given. The experimenter
pointed to each successive target word in the passage and told students, “Use the definition.
What does the sentence mean?” The experimenter modeled the learning procedure with the first
word in the first passage. This consisted of applying the definition to restate the sentence using
words that demonstrated understanding of the target word’s meaning in the sentence. For
example, temperament was modeled in the following way.
What does temperament mean? The definition tells us that temperament means inborn
patterns of response, the way a person usually responds to situations. So in the sentence:
Some children are slow and cautious in temperament while others tend to be more
impulsive, temperament means that some children have an inborn response in that they
may be slow and cautious when responding to situations. This is how they respond in
general to lots of situations. It is their typical reaction. Other children respond more quickly,
more impulsively. This is their typical reaction. These are the words that I would use to
help me understand the word temperament and to help me understand this sentence.
The experimenter encouraged students to verbalize their thoughts as they worked out their
explanation. Errors and incomplete explanations were corrected. If students struggled, the
experimenter modeled use of the definition to interpret the sentence’s meaning. Students were
credited with a correct explanation if they accurately and independently applied the definition to
demonstrate understanding of a target word in its sentence.
Strategies plus definition treatment. The strategies procedures and definition
procedures described above were combined in this intervention. For each target word, first
students used the strategies of identifying context, morphology, and syntax cues to derive the
word’s meaning. The experimenter modeled, corrected errors, and provided feedback as needed.
Then students were shown the word’s definition and asked to compare the derived and supplied
meanings. Then they applied both to understand the target word’s meaning in the passage
sentence. Again, the experimenter modeled, corrected errors, and provided feedback as needed.
Students were credited with correct responses if they were produced accurately and without the
experimenter’s help. This was scored separately for strategy use and for definition application to
sentence meanings.
Control group. The Control group received a different intervention unrelated to
vocabulary instruction. Students read the treatment passages aloud once, identified unknown
words, and then engaged in discussion guided by three tangential questions. For example,
questions about the passage on play elicited memories about students’ childhood in school. The
experimenter provided written copies of the questions she presented orally, as well as additional
prompts to engage students in the discussion. The students then read the passage orally again,
and posttests were administered.
Assessments during the interventions. The intervention centered around students’
reading of three passages. They read each passage aloud twice. After the first reading, students
were asked to identify any words whose meanings were not known. This was followed by a
vocabulary learning intervention or Control group discussion. Then students read the passage

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
orally again. Any decoding errors were noted. Following this reading, several posttests were
administered in the following order.
1. Comprehension questions. Students were presented with questions assessing their recall
of information in each passage. The number of questions (Q) and number of possible
responses (R) on each of the passages were 4 Qs, 15 Rs (1st passage); 4 Qs, 13 Rs (2nd
passage); 5 Qs, 12 Rs (3rd passage); and 5 Qs, 12 Rs (4th passage). Students’ oral
responses were recorded and scored using a rubric. Comprehension rubrics consisted of
comprehension prompts and or questions with acceptable answers. An example of a
question and possible answers from the passage on play is as follows.
Question: Tell me several ways that temperament affects children’s play.
Scoring Rubric (one point for each bullet)
 Different temperaments cause children to respond to play in different ways.
 Children with impulsive temperaments may have shorter attention spans
during play.
 Children may play for different durations of time
 Children with slow and cautious temperaments or impulsive temperaments
may need encouragement to become engaged in prolonged play.
2. Cloze task. Students were given the written passage with the first occurrences of the target
words replaced by blank spaces. They were told to write in the missing words. To receive
credit, the exact target word had to be recalled. Close approximations to correct spellings
that were phonetic were accepted, for example, temperment for temperament. This task
was regarded as measuring both vocabulary learning and reading comprehension.
3. Spelling. When vocabulary words are learned from text, spellings of the words enter
memory along with pronunciations and meanings (Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008). Additionally,
spelling is moderately correlated with sentence comprehension (Wilson-Fowler & Apel,
2015). To assess this aspect of vocabulary learning, students’ memory for target spellings
was assessed. The experimenter dictated the target words and students wrote them. The
score was the number of correct spellings.
4. Definition recall. Students were shown each target word written on a card and were asked
to define the word as it was used in the passage just read. The oral responses were
recorded and scored according to a rubric. Definition rubrics consisted of the meaning of
each target word as it was used in the passage. For example, in the passage on curriculum
planning, the acceptable definition for the word cast was to direct the eyes or a look toward
somebody or something, often in a disapproving, or anxious manner. Answers to
definitions were marked as acceptable or unacceptable.
5. Transfer task. Students read the passage the first time silently and the second time aloud.
No intervention occurred. The same posttests that were administered during intervention,
were administered at the end of the transfer task.
Scoring System. Students’ responses to comprehension and definition recalls during the
interventions and on posttests were audio recorded and transcribed. These were used to develop
rubrics distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable answers. Once developed, responses were
rescored based on the rubrics. Responses to spelling and cloze were scored as noted above.
Performance was evaluated by two researchers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion
and review of rubrics, audiotapes, and transcriptions.

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
Results
Characteristics of Participants
Students were pretested on measures that included the vocabulary subtest of the Nelson-
Denny Reading Test, the percentage of words decoded correctly during the first reading of the
first passage when instruction began, and the number of words identified as unknown after the
first reading of the first text. Results of ANOVAs revealed no significant differences between the
group means on these measures as shown in Table 2. Mean vocabulary scores on the Nelson-
Denny test favored the Strategies plus Definition and the Control groups over the other groups,
with large standard deviations showing substantial individual differences among students. On
average, students’ vocabulary scores were well below the mean of the normative sample: M =
64.52, SD = 11.46 (norm) versus M = 44.34, SD = 19.87 (present sample). Students decoded the
passage at a high accuracy level (M = 98%). They identified fewer unknown words (Ms = 1 to 3.9)
than the number of targeted words (5) in this passage.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Test Statistics of Instructional Groups on Pretests
Pretests
S + D
S
D
C
F(p)
Vocabulary Test
49.73 (20.5)
39.20 (21.3)
36.40 (14.1)
51.50 (21.1)
1.51 ns (.23)
Decoding Passage
98% (.02)
97% (.02)
97% (.01)
98% (.04)
1.23 ns (.31)
Words Unknown
1.09 (1.4)
3.10 (2.7)
3.90 (4.7)
1.30 (2.2)
2.21 ns (.10)
Note. S + D = Strategies plus Definition group (N = 11); S = Strategies Only group (N = 10); D = Definition
Only group (N = 10); Control group (N = 10). Degrees of freedom F(3,37). ns not statistically significant at p
< .05.
ANOVAs were calculated to compare the treatment groups on age and number of college
credits. Results revealed a significant main effect of age but no significant main effect of credits.
From means in Table 1, it is apparent that the Strategies plus Definitions and Control groups were
older and showed larger standard deviations than the Strategies and Definitions groups. However,
post hoc comparisons between pairs of group means revealed no significant differences.
Correlations calculated between age and pretest measures revealed no significant relationships,
with all rs < .28, p > .05, indicating that age was not a relevant factor affecting the performance
under study.
Performance During the Interventions
Each of the three treatment sessions began with the student reading a passage aloud and
then identifying any unknown words. Following the intervention plus a second reading of the
passage, students completed several posttests assessing text comprehension, memory for
spellings, and memory for definitions of the vocabulary words in that passage. At the end of the
third session, students completed a transfer task without any intervention. They read a new
passage once, identified any unfamiliar words, read the passage again, and then completed the
same posttests.
Analyses comparing the treatment groups were conducted on treatment posttests
separately from the transfer posttests. Because the groups differed on the Nelson-Denny
vocabulary pretest, ANCOVAs were conducted with scores on this test as the covariate. The
independent variables were treatment (four conditions) and passage (three intervention texts) in
the ANCOVA on treatment passages. The independent variable in the ANCOVA on the transfer
passage was treatment. The dependent variables were text comprehension assessed by answers

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
to questions and cloze, definition recall, and spelling memory. Mean performance is reported in
Table 3 and results of the ANCOVAs are reported in Table 4.
Table 3. Adjusted Mean Percentage Correct, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes During Training and
Posttests as a Function of Treatment Condition
Posttest
Treatment Passages
Transfer Passage
M (SD)
da
M (SD)
db
Comprehension Questions
Strategy + Definitions (S+D)
.34 (.23)
1.12*
.48 (36)
.03
Strategy (S)
.33 (.17)
1.29
.48 (.30)
.03
Definitions (D)
.33 (.19)
1.20
.47 (.26)
.00
Control
.15 (.11)
.47 (.31)
Cloze
Strategy + Definitions
.86 (.16)
2.00*
.29 (.24)
-.43
Strategy
.87 (.19)
1.90*
.32 (.17)
-.36
Definitions
.86 (.18)
1.90*
.33 (.23)
-.27
Control
.47 (.23)
.39 (.22)
Spelling
Strategy + Definitions
.91 (.09)
.73
.77 (.17)
.41
Strategy
.88 (.13)
.47
.69 (.25)
.10
Definitions
.90 (.15)
.56
.68 (.19)
.07
Control
.80 (.21)
.66 (.37)
Definition Recall
Strategy + Definitions
.62 (.25)
2.14*
.17 (.21)
-.42
Strategy
.36 (.24)
.95
.27 (.27)
.09
Definitions
.63 (.26)
2.19*
.23 (.24)
-.10
Control
.17 (.16)
.25 (.17)
Strategy Use
Strategy + Definitions
.65 (.22)
.38
Strategy
.51 (.48)
Definitions Use
Strategy + Definitions
.66 (.22)
.67*
Definitions
.53 (.17)
Note. Number of students: 11 (S+D), 10 (S), 10 (D), 10 (C). *p < .05 (See Table 4 for exact p values.)
aCohen’s effect size d = mean of treatment minus mean of control divided by pooled SD.
bCohen’s effect size d = mean of treatment on transfer text minus control mean divided by pooled SD.
cProportion of target words whose meanings were figured out correctly by using context strategies.
dProportion of target words used correctly to understand the words’ use in sentences.
Table 4. Results of ANCOVA Conducted on Posttests and Treatment Measures as a Function of Treatment
Group and Reading Passages
Source
df
MS
F
p
Partial Eta2
Paired Comparison
Posttests
Comprehension Questions on Treatment Passages
Treatment (T)
.3
.241
5.34
.004
.31
S+D > C
Error
36
.045
Passage (P)
2
.028
1.61
.21
.04
P × T
6
.030
1.74
.13
.13

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
Error
72
.018
Comprehension Questions on Transfer Passages
Treatment (T)
3
.000
0.00
1.00
.00
Error
36
.078
Cloze on Treatment Passages
Treatment (T)
3
1.095
17.45
.00
.59
S+D > C
Error
36
0.63
S > C
Passage (P)
2
.005
0.26
.78
.01
D > C
P × T
6
.052
2.47
.03
.17
Error
72
.021
Cloze on Transfer Passages
Treatment (T)
3
.018
0.40
.75
.03
Error
36
.044
Spelling on Treatment Passages
Treatment (T)
3
.072
2.05
.12
.15
Error
36
.035
Passage (P)
2
.017
1.07
.35
.03
P × T
6
.01
0.56
.76
.05
Error
72
.016
Spelling on Transfer Passages
Treatment (T)
3
.021
0.43
.73
.04
Error
36
.048
Definition Recall on Treatment Passages
Treatment (T)
3
1.473
15.42
.00
.56
S+D > S, C
Error
36
.096
D > S, C
Passage (P)
2
.043
1.41
.25
.04
P × T
6
.051
1.68
.14
.12
Error
72
.030
Definition Recall on Transfer Passage
Treatment (T)
3
.021
0.54
.66
.04
Error
36
.039
During Treatments
Strategy Use – Comparison of S+D vs. S Treatment
Treatment (T)
1
.297
3.66
.07
1.69
Error
18
.081
Passage (P)
2
0.60
1.42
.26
.07
P × T
2
.006
0.14
.87
.01
Error
36
.042
Definition Use – Comparison of S+D vs. D Treatment
Treatment (T)
1
.253
5.68
.03
.24
S+D > D
Error
18
.045
Passage (P)
2
.161
5.16
.01
.22
P × T
2
.162
5.20
.01
.22
Error
36
.031
aS+D = Strategies plus Definitions treatment; S = Strategies Only treatment; D = Definitions Only
treatment; C = Control treatment. Bonferroni correction for multiple pairwise comparisons.
Comprehension. In the first posttest on each passage, students gave oral answers to
questions tapping their recall of passage information. Because the numbers of questions and
correct answers differed across passages, scores were converted to percentages. Results of the
ANCOVA showed a significant main effect of treatment but no effect of passage and no interaction
(see Table 4). Bonferroni pairwise comparisons revealed that the Strategies plus Definition group
comprehended the text significantly better than the Control group but differences favoring the
other treatment groups over controls fell short of significance. Cohen’s effect sizes reported in

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
Table 3, however, indicate large differences favoring all three treatment groups over controls (ds
ranging from 1.12 to 1.29) in their comprehension of the treatment texts.
Superior comprehension of the texts was evident also in performance on the cloze task
requiring students to fill in the missing vocabulary words as they reread the text. Results of the
ANCOVA revealed a significant main effect of treatment and a significant interaction between
treatment and passage but no main effect of passage (see Table 4). Bonferroni tests showed that
all three treatment groups significantly outperformed the Control group but did not differ from each
other. Inspection of mean performance across the three passages revealed the source of the
interaction. Whereas the three treatment groups performed very similarly with means across
passages ranging from 81% to 92% correct, the Control group means were more variable: Ms =
35% (1st text), 67% (2nd text), 40% (3rd text). Why this happened is not clear. From these results
we conclude that the vocabulary interventions helped students learn the vocabulary words and
comprehend the text better than the non-vocabulary control intervention.
At the end of the intervention students read a text independently to determine whether
they might apply the strategies taught. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the treatment groups
performed no better than controls on the two comprehension measures involving questions and
cloze. Effect sizes were close to zero.
Spelling. The ANCOVA revealed no significant main effects or interactions on the posttest
assessing students’ memory for the spellings of vocabulary words that the treatment groups had
studied during the interventions (see Table 4). As evident in Table 3 students recalled many of
the words, with the control group remembering 80% correct on average, a value close to the
means of the treatment groups ranging from 88% to 91%. This suggests that the closer attention
paid to the vocabulary words during the treatments did not enhance memory for the words’
spellings. On the spelling transfer task, no significant differences between groups were observed
(see Tables 3 and 4).
Definition recall. As shown in Table 4, the ANCOVA revealed a significant main effect of
treatment on the measure of recalling definitions of the vocabulary words, but no effect of passage
and no interaction. Bonferroni tests indicated that both the Strategies plus Definition and the
Definition Only groups significantly outperformed the Strategies group and the Control group but
did not differ from each other. This no doubt arose because both of these groups were provided
with explicit definitions of the words whereas the strategies group had to figure out the meanings
of words using morphological, syntactic, and contextual cues but never saw definitions, and the
Control group paid no special attention to meanings but just read the passages. Seeing and
applying definitions to the text produced a big jump in definition recall scores. When students
worked with definitions, they recalled on average 62% to 63% of the words’ meanings and showed
very large effect sizes of d = 2.14 (Strategies plus Definitions group) and d = 2.19 (Definitions
group). When students used cues to induce word meanings, they recalled only 36% of the
definitions on average but substantially more than the Control group mean of 17%, with a large
effect size (d = 0.95).
The ANCOVA of transfer task performance revealed no significant main effect of
treatment, indicating that word learning strategies were not utilized when participants read text
independently. In fact, the two groups who had been provided with definitions during training did
slightly worse than the Strategies and Control groups on definition recall (see Table 3). Since
definitions were not provided on the transfer task, it was not possible to use the definition
application strategy.

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
The pattern of definition recall favoring the Strategies plus Definition and the Definition
Only groups over the other two groups was examined for individual words in the treatment
passages (see list of words in Appendix B). In every case but two out of 19 words total, students
who were taught to apply explicit definitions recalled more definitions than students who were not
given definitions. These results show that findings generalized across words as well as students.
Strategy use during the interventions. Two of the treatment groups (Strategies plus
Definitions and Strategies) were taught to use strategies to determine the meanings of the target
words. These included using context, morphological, and syntactic cues. The score was the
number of times that students applied strategies to correctly and independently explain the
meanings of vocabulary words. An ANCOVA applied to performance of the two groups revealed
no significant main effects or interaction involving treatment and passage variables (see Table 4).
Although mean performance favored the Strategies plus Definitions group (see Table 3), the
difference fell short of significant (p = .07). These findings show that both groups were able to
apply this strategy to figure out over half of the words’ meanings on average.
Definition use during the intervention. Two of the treatment groups were provided with
definitions of the target words and applied them to explain the meanings of the words in their
sentence contexts. Students’ explanations were scored using a rubric requiring inclusion of all the
components of the definition. Results of the ANCOVA revealed significant main effects of
treatment and passage and a significant interaction (see Table 4). Regarding the source of the
interaction, means showed that performance of the Strategies plus Definitions group and the
Definitions group were similar on the first passage (Ms = 52% and 48% correct, respectively). On
the second passage the Strategies plus Definitions group mean rose to 75% while the Definitions
group mean declined to 39%. On the third passage, both means were again very similar (72% for
Strategies plus Definitions and 70% for Definitions). This suggests that the Definitions group took
longer to learn to apply definitions when interpreting words in their contexts than the Strategies
plus Definitions group. Receiving both strategies and definition training provided an early boost
to students’ ability to apply definitions to understand their meanings in context.
Unknown word identification. After reading each passage aloud for the first time,
students pointed out words whose meanings they did not know. Relatively few words were
identified in each passage with several students identifying no words. The number of words was
summed across the four passages (26 maximum) and subjected to an ANCOVA with Nelson-
Denny vocabulary scores as the covariate. Results revealed no main effect of treatment, F(3,36)
= 1.66, p = .19, M = 10.51 (SD = 10.4). The covariate was significantly related to scores (p =
.003). The correlation between Nelson-Denny vocabulary scores and the number of unknown
words identified was r = -.53, p < .001, indicating that students with larger vocabularies identified
fewer unknown words. The fact that students identified as unfamiliar no more than 40% of the
words on average was an unexpected finding. On the transfer task posttest when no definitions
had been studied, students were able to define no more than 23% of the words on average,
indicating low knowledge of word meanings. Perhaps students felt they had some knowledge of
the words, having just read them in the treatment passages. Perhaps they knew other meanings
of polysemous words such as cast. These findings suggest that students may need training to
become aware of words whose meanings are unfamiliar.
Performance during sessions. Some additional measures were recorded during the
training sessions. Students’ word reading accuracy during the second reading of the passages
was examined. Mean performance of the four groups on each of the four passages was very high
ranging from 97.3% to 99.4% correct except in one case where the Control group read the third

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
passage at 90% accuracy. This shows that students did not have difficulty reading these
passages. Hence differences in reading accuracy did not explain any differences on the posttests.
The duration of the three sessions was recorded for each student. An ANOVA applied to
minutes revealed no main effect of treatment group, F(3,37) = 1.57, p > .05. Sessions ranged
from 40 to 54 minutes on average. This indicates that any differences produced by the treatments
on posttests did not arise from greater time in training.
Anecdotal comments from individual students revealed some effects of the treatments.
During interventions, some participants in the Strategies group and the Strategies plus Definitions
group commented that they related some words to cognates in their native language. For
example, they identified facilitate with fasil, Spanish for easy. Some participants in the Definitions
group remarked that they liked the definitions that were provided better than dictionary definitions,
because sometimes there were too many definitions in the dictionary, and sometimes these
definitions did not make sense to them. Some participants in the Strategies plus Definitions group
stated that examining the context first made it easier to understand the definitions when they were
subsequently provided, thus revealing the advantage of processing both sources of information.
Several participants in the Strategies plus Definitions group were excited when their use of
strategies yielded a result similar to the supplied definition. Some participants in the intervention
groups came to the second and third sessions with reports of using the strategies while completing
assigned readings in their courses. Some asked why these methods were not taught all the time.
Others stated that they would now pay attention to and use the definitions given in their textbooks
and wished that all textbooks had definitions.
When students were unable to attend a session, they expressed their eagerness to
reschedule. When participants completed the three sessions, many asked if they could continue
with more sessions or contact the researcher if they needed further assistance. These examples
reveal that participants valued the interventions.
Correlations. Pearson product moment correlations were calculated to assess
relationships between the various pretest and posttest measures. Results presented in Table 5
show that performance on the Nelson-Denny vocabulary test was negatively related to the
number of words identified as unknown in passages, as noted previously. This provides some
validity for our task of asking students to identify unknown words, by showing that those with lower
vocabulary scores identified more unknown words. Nelson-Denny vocabulary scores were
positively correlated with all the posttest scores, indicating the benefit of having a larger
vocabulary for learning new words. The correlation was especially strong between vocabulary
and students’ memory for the spellings of target words, possibly because the Nelson-Denny
vocabulary test required selecting written word answers. This is consistent with other studies
showing a strong relationship between vocabulary and spelling ability (Wilson-Fowler & Apel,
2015; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992). Lower correlations between Nelson-Denny vocabulary
scores and the cloze and definition recall posttests may have resulted from the strong influence
of the vocabulary learning treatments on performance in these tasks. Very likely the interventions
severely reduced the impact of individual differences in vocabulary knowledge on these posttest
measures.
The four posttests were positively correlated. The fact that the cloze test was strongly
correlated with both comprehension question and definition recall tests (rs = .54 and .68,
respectively) indicates that the cloze task assessed both comprehension and vocabulary in
support of the interpretation of cloze performance by Greene (2001) and Simpson and Randall
(2000). The correlation between cloze and vocabulary is not surprising, since students were

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
required to fill in the blanks with the target vocabulary words that were taught. The strong
relationship between cloze and spelling most likely arose because students had to write the words
in the cloze task. Spelling was less strongly correlated with the oral tasks involving comprehension
questions and definition recall.
Table 5. Correlations Between Tests (N = 41)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Nelson-Denny Vocabulary Pretest
Unknown Words Identified
-.53**
Comprehension Questions
.38*
-.01
Cloze
.25
-.12
.54**
Spelling
.51**
-.15
.37*
.48**
Definition Recall
.30
-.11
.61**
.68**
.29
M
44.34
10.51
14.66
17.00
21.71
10.39
SD
19.87
10.41
7.01
4.56
3.77
5.50
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01. Scores on posttests are summed across the four passages.
Discussion
The present study explored alternative methods to help community college students learn
unknown words as they read discipline-specific academic text. Two questions addressed were
whether vocabulary learning treatments would enhance memory for the meanings of the words
studied and whether this would facilitate reading comprehension of the text containing the words
compared to performance of a control group. Results were positive. Effect sizes were large or
very large on the posttests assessing comprehension with questions, cloze, and definition recall.
Of additional interest was whether effects of the word learning procedures would improve with
practice and would be evident on a transfer task where participants read text independently.
Results were not supportive. The mean percentage of correct responses did not increase from
the first to the third treatment session. On the final transfer passage, none of the treatment groups
outperformed the Control group. Effect sizes were close to zero or negative on the comprehension
questions, cloze, and definition recall posttests.
The most effective way for students to establish the meanings of target words in memory
was to be provided with explicit definitions. Effect sizes favoring the Definitions and the Strategies
plus Definitions groups over the Control group on the definition recall posttest were very large
with ds > 2.00. Less effective for definition recall was the procedure of teaching students to figure
out meanings of target words by using morphological, syntactic, and contextual cues. However,
this procedure did yield a large effect size, with d = 0.95, indicating that it boosted memory for
meanings compared to controls. Recall may have been diminished because the strategy
procedure never showed students complete, written definitions. Definitions were induced and
expressed orally with the experimenter adding any information left out by students. Although
students receiving the strategies plus definitions treatment were taught both strategies and explicit
definitions, adding the strategies procedure did not enhance memory for definitions over that of
teaching definitions but no strategies. Effect sizes were very similar. This indicates that memory
for definitions on the posttest arose primarily from exposure to explicit definitions. Further support
was evident on the transfer task where explicit definitions were not provided and students who
had received vocabulary learning treatments defined many fewer words, with no differences
between groups.

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
Findings are similar to the results found by Baumann, Edwards, Boland, Olejnik, and
Kame'enui (2003). In that study participants were assigned to a Text Book Vocabulary group or a
Strategies group; participants in the Text Book Vocabulary group outperformed participants in the
Strategies group on the vocabulary posttest. With more training and a larger sample size,
significance may have been reached for the Strategies group over the Control group in the present
study. The Baumann et al. (2003) study did find that students were able to use the context and
morphological strategies to learn words when context supported word learning or affixes had been
taught. However, that study included a much longer training period (thirty 45-minute lessons).
The vocabulary learning procedures also enhanced students’ reading comprehension of
the treatment passages compared to a control condition where the words were read in text but
their meanings were not analyzed. Two measures of comprehension, on the cloze and the
question tasks, showed effect sizes ranging from large to very large (ds from 1.12 to 2.00). All
three treatments produced equivalent effects. These results reveal that students’ comprehension
of academic text can be enhanced when reading is enriched either by applying strategies to figure
out meanings of unfamiliar words, by applying definitions of unfamiliar words to analyze their
meanings in sentences in the text, or by applying both procedures. In contrast, on the transfer
task when students read a passage independently without being prompted to analyze word
meanings, comprehension was not boosted above that of control students.
Although students in the treatment groups are likely to have examined the spellings of
target words more than control students as a result of analyzing their meanings, their memory for
spellings of the words did not differ statistically from controls. However, effect sizes suggested a
moderate advantage of vocabulary training, with ds ranging from .47 to .73. Differences may have
been suppressed by ceiling effects, as all the groups spelled 80% to 91% of the target words
correctly on average. Although greater exposure to spellings of the words during vocabulary
learning did not affect spelling memory, correlations revealed that vocabulary knowledge affected
spelling memory. Students with larger vocabularies spelled more words correctly than students
with weaker vocabularies, with r = .51. Among adults, larger vocabularies may arise from greater
exposure to printed words in text, which enhances students’ knowledge of the morphological and
orthographic structure of written words (Ocal & Ehri, 2017; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992). This
in turn helps students remember the spellings of new words (Ehri, 1998).
During the treatments students’ use of the vocabulary learning procedures to respond
correctly and independently was monitored, and the groups taught the procedures were
compared. Use of the strategy of figuring out meanings from morphological, syntactic, and context
cues did not distinguish the Strategies plus Definitions group from the Strategies group
statistically, although the mean of the former group was somewhat higher. Similar performance
may have resulted from the fact that students in the Strategies plus Definitions group applied the
strategy procedure to figure out target word meanings first, before they were shown explicit
definitions. So, they gained no advantage over the Strategies group from the definition application
procedure at this point in the treatment. In contrast, the Strategies plus Definitions group
significantly outperformed the Definitions group in applying explicit definitions of the target words
to explain their meanings in sentences. Superior performance was evident only during the second
treatment session, when the Strategies plus Definitions group’s mean performance increased
much more than the Definitions group from a low level during the first session to a high level in
the third session. The two groups performed similarly during the first and third sessions. One
possible explanation for the earlier gain of the Strategies plus Definitions group is that, as a result
of having already analyzed context cues for word meanings, they required less practice to attain
skill in applying explicit definitions to explain word meanings in sentences. An alternative

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
possibility is that the specific text read during the second session produced the difference. These
possibilities await further study.
After they read the treatment passages once, students were asked to point out words
whose meanings were unfamiliar. Students were not very good at this, suggesting that they may
need training to become aware of how much or little they know about the meanings of words. This
is an important direction for future research. Very likely, the first step required of students in
building their vocabularies independently as they read text is noticing unfamiliar words. The
second step is doing something about it, particularly when this information is needed to
understand the text.
Educational Implications
Many community colleges offer tutoring support for students. The training examined in the
current study provides evidence for effective methods to utilize with students in one-on-one
tutoring sessions. Word learning included multiple word identities, pronunciations, spellings, and
meanings, in accordance with Ehri’s (1998) connectionist theory of word learning. Words were
learned in context as proposed by Simpson and Randall (2000) and Whitt (1993). Consistent with
Pressley and Afflerbach’s (1995) theory of consciously constructive readers, participants were
engaged in tasks that required active engagement with the text. Participants benefited from
modeling, coaching, and support from an expert reader as they learned a limited but flexible use
of strategies. While Pressley and Afflerbach would propose a more extensive use of strategies,
the strategies used here were in accordance with the scope of this study.
Current findings supported the importance of providing students with training in sensitivity
to unknown words, use of a glossary containing elaborated definitions that are more informative
than dictionary definitions, and strategies such as context clues, morphological cues, and
syntactic cues. The current training consisted of instructor modeling, student oral participation,
and instructor coaching and feedback. Findings also supported the inclusion of glossary
definitions in textbooks. Encouraging students to use glossary definitions in relation to text content
provides access to word meanings and, as a result, impacts comprehension. Qualitative analysis
of performance indicated that participants in the intervention groups found the strategies,
definitions, and time spent reading with the researcher useful not only for building their academic
vocabularies and comprehending text during the sessions but also in their college course work.
Maintaining a positive attitude to academic reading should prove beneficial to students as they
progress through their college careers (Datta & Macdonald-Ross, 2002; Macdonald-Ross & Scott,
1997).
Future research might investigate the use of strategy training and elaborated definitions
with small groups or whole classes. Activation of background knowledge, explication of the
grammatical features of academic text, and flexible use of strategies are other considerations for
future research (Cromley & Wills, 2014; Neal, 2015). In the study reported here, participants
engaged in three training sessions. There was extensive modeling for the first word in the first
session. After that participants were directed to use the strategies independently with coaching
and feedback as needed. Future studies might utilize more instructor modeling and continue for
more than three sessions. This may allow more thorough learning of skills and facilitate transfer
to independent reading. Delayed testing also needs to be investigated to determine the long term
effects of word learning and increased comprehension. In the Kelly, Lesaux, Kiefer, and Faller
(2010) study, participants engaged in training for 18 weeks. Other studies reported improvement
after semester-long work (Hadley, Eisenwine, & Sanders, 2005; Falk-Ross, 2001). Baumann et
al. (2003) investigated the use of context-plus-morphology and definitions separately with fifth

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
grade students. The current study investigated a combination of these methods with community
college students. Research could be extended to use of the combined methods with middle school
and high school aged children, various age groups of adult learners, bilingual students, and
English language learners.
While this study was limited in its scope, it does provide support for the use of specific
methods to help community college students access academic text. With the current political
focus on the importance of community colleges, methods that enable students to succeed are
needed (Kolesnikova, 2009). As Pugh, Pawan, and Antommarchi (2000) have noted, “Reading is
the platform from which critical thinking, problem solving and effective expression are launched
… Literacy is the means by which postsecondary learners can achieve success” (pp. 25–26).
References
American Association of Community Colleges. (n.d.). Degree attainment. Retrieved July 13, 2015, from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/degreeattainment.aspx
Anderson, T., & Kim, J. Y. (2011). Strengthening college students’ success through the RAC. Journal of
College Reading and Learning, 42(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2011.10850348
GS Search
Ayers, W. (1995). To become a teacher: Making a difference in children’s lives. New York: Teachers’
College Press.
Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Boland, E.M., 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 meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 401(2), 447–494.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002447 GS Search
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinksi, C. A., Kame’enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S. (2002).
Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth grade students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 37(2), 150–176. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.2.3 GS Search
Beech, J. R. (2005). Ehri’s model of phases of learning to read: A brief critique. Journal of Research in
Reading, 28(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00252.x GS Search
Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny reading test: Technical report, forms G&H.
Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An
integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–524.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5 GS Search
Chall, J. (1983). A proposal for reading stages. In J. Chall, Stages of reading development (pp. 9–39).
New York: McGraw Hill.
Cromley, J. G., & Wills, T. W. (2014). Flexible strategy use by students who learn much versus little from
text: Transitions within think-aloud protocols. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(1), 50–71.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12026 GS Search
Datta, S., & Macdonald-Ross, M. (2002). Reading skills and reading habits: A study of Open University
undergraduate reservees. Open Learning, 17(1), 68–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510120110193 GS Search

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
Dougherty, K. J., & Townsend, B. K. (2006). Community college missions: A theoretical and historical
perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 136 (5–13). https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.254
GS Search
Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J.
L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word Recognition in Beginning Literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. GS Search
Falk-Ross, F. C. (2001). Toward the new literacy: Changes in college students’ reading comprehension
strategies following reading/writing projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(4), 278–
288. GS Search
Fukkink, R. G., & de Glopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning from context: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68(4), 450–469.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068004450 GS Search
Graham, S. (2010, Winter). Want to improve children’s writing? Don’t neglect their handwriting. American
Educator, 33(4), 20–23.
Greene, B. (2001). Testing reading comprehension of theoretical discourse with cloze. Journal of
Research in Reading, 24(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00134 GS Search
Guo, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Williams, R. S. (2011). The relationship of morphological awareness and
syntactic awareness to adult’s reading comprehension: Is vocabulary a mediating factor? Journal
of Literacy Research, 43(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11403086 GS Search
Hadley, N. J., Eisenwine, M. J., & Sanders, M. G. (2005). Teaching reading strategies to adult learners:
An interactive approach addressing standardized testing. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 7,
65–78. GS Search
Honig, A. S. (2007). Play: Ten power boosts for children’s early learning. Young Children, 62(5), 72–78.
GS Search
Kelly, J. G., Lesaux, N. K., Kiefer, M. J., & Faller, E. (2010). Effective academic vocabulary instruction in
the urban middle school. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.64.1.1
GS Search
Kolesnikova, N. A. (2009, Fall). The changing role of community colleges. Bridges. Retrieved from
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/bridges/fall-2009/the-changing-role-of-community-colleges
McDevitt, T., & Ormrod, J. (2009). Child development and education (4th ed.). New York: Pearson. GS
Search
Macdonald-Ross, M. & Scott, B. (1997). A postal survey of OU students’ reading skills. Open Learning,
12(2), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051970120204 GS Search
Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Urbana, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. GS Search
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 (NIH
Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: National.
Neal, H. N. (2015). Theory to practice: Cultivating academic language proficiency in developmental
reading classrooms. Journal of Developmental Education, 39(1) 12–34. GS Search

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. L. (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college level. In R. F. Flippo & D. C.
Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research (pp. 25–42).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nist, S., & Olejnik, S. (1995). The role of context and dictionary definitions on varying levels of word
knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/748031 GS
Scholar
Ocal, T., & Ehri, L. (2017). Spelling ability in college students predicted by decoding, print exposure, and
vocabulary. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 47(1), 58–74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2016.1219242 GS Search
Paul, G. & Verhulst, S. (2010). Improving the reading comprehension skills of adults from educationally
disadvantaged backgrounds. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(2), 131–140.
https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.2.5 GS Search
Pearlman, S. J. (2013, December 11). It's not that they can't read; It's that they can't read: Can we create
"citizen experts" through interactive assessment? Across the Disciplines, 10(4). Retrieved from:
https://wac.colostate.edu/atd/reading/pearlman.cfm GS Search
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive
reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. GS Search
Pugh, S., Pawan, F., & Antommarchi, C. (2000). Academic literacy and the new college learner. In R. F.
Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research (pp
25–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. GS Search
Rosenthal, J. & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(1), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.175 GS
Search
Scarborough, H. S. (2002). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities:
Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Nueman & D. K. Dickenson (Eds.), Handbook of early
literacy research (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford Press. GS Search
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misichia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines:
History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11424071 GS Search
Simpson, M. L., & Randall, S. L. (2000). Vocabulary development at the college level. In R. F. Flippo & D.
C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research (pp. 43–61).
Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056001072 GS Search
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate
society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20(1), 51–68.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208254 GS Search
Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2000). College Students’ academic performance and self-reports
of comprehension strategy use. Reading Psychology, 21(4), 283–308.
https://doi.org/10.1080/027027100750061930 GS Search

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 7, Num. 1 | June 2017
Teaching Community College Students Strategies for Learning Unknown Words …
Whitt, M. (1993). The effect of reading rate on vocabulary. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(1), 72–
78. GS Search
Wilson-Fowler, E. B.; & Apel, K. (2015). Influence of morphological awareness on college students' literacy
skills: A path analytic approach. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(3), 405–432.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15619730 GS Search
Appendix A
Intervention Script to Illustrate Vocabulary Learning Strategy Instruction
A chart displayed a title: “Use These Clues to Figure Out the Meaning of Unknown Words.”
Below the title were prompts for the use of context, morphology, and syntax. The prompt for
context was “Find other words in the text that help you understand this word.” The prompt for
morphology was “How is this word or part of this word similar to other words you know?” The
prompt for syntax was “What is the function of this word in the sentence? Does this word name
something, is it a noun, describe something, is it an adjective, or is it an action, a verb?” The
researcher modeled how to use the chart by thinking aloud, using each of the strategies. The
researcher pointed to the first target word and said, “Let’s figure out what this word means.” The
following illustrates the modeling of strategy use for the first target word in the first passage. The
target word is underlined here: “Some children are slow and cautious in temperament while others
tend to be more impulsive.” The researcher stated the following:
The first clue listed here, context clues, says, “Find other words in the text that help you
understand this word.” The words that may help are: Some children are slow … while
others tend to be more impulsive. The word temperament can be seen as labeling the way
children may respond or react. Reacting slowly and thoughtfully is one way. Reacting
quickly and impulsively without thinking it through is another way.
The second clue, similar words, asks, “How is this word or part of this word similar to other
words you know?” The word temperament has two parts, temper and ment. Temper is
similar to temper, as in what kind of temper does the child have? Tempera is also similar
to temperature as in a measurement of heat. I know other words that end with ment. Let’s
see how they work. For example, take the word enjoyment. Enjoy is an action. When you
add ment, the word becomes a label that names the state (enjoy - happy) that results from
the action. Ment gives a name to an action. For temperament, temper refers to the action,
and ment refers to the state in a person that results from the action.
The third clue, function clues, asks, “What is the function of this word in the sentence?
Does this word name something—is it a noun, describe something—is it an adjective, or
is it an action—verb?” As we figured out in the similar-words clue, words that end in ment
are words that give a name to the action, they are nouns.
So using these cues, we can figure out that temperament describes the way that children
respond to events; they may respond slowly or impulsively.
We came to an understanding of the word temperament from the context clues. Using the
other clues helped confirm our understanding. When we use the clues, remember that
they can be used separately or together. Sometimes some clues will be more helpful than
other clues.

www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access
L. Craigo, L. C. Ehri, and M. Hart
Appendix B
Vocabulary Words Targeted as Unfamiliar in the Passages
Passage 1
Temperament
Component
Empowered
Logistical
Sociodramatic
Passage 2
Shun
Impediments
Urgency
Barrier
Cast
Reprimanded
Locus
Passage 3
Manuscript
Cursive
Advocated
Exclusive
Proffer
Legibly
Facilitate
Passage 4
Phenomena
Nativists
Preliminary
Acuity
Entities
Inanimate
Heritage
Acknowledgements
Support for this project was provided by a PSC-CUNY Award, jointly funded by the
Professional Staff Congress and the City University of New York.