Page 1 of 19
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 12
Publication Date: December 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/assrj.912.13683. Watkins, T. B. (2022). The Relationship between Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in a Direct Instruction Reading
Program. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(12). 517-535.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Relationship between Reading Vocabulary and Reading
Comprehension in a Direct Instruction Reading Program
Timothy B. Watkins
Associate Professor of Teacher Education, Leadership, and Research
Delta State University, Cleveland, MS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship beween Hispanic,
Caucasian, and Africa American students’ reading voacabulary achievement and
reading comprehension achievement in a Direct Instruction reading program. The
study consisted of students from a small, rural school district in southeast Arkansas.
A total of 230 students participated in the study. Seventeen were Hispanic students,
33 were Caucasian students, and 180 were African American students. The study
used an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) statistic to identify any potential
differences in reading vocabulary and reading comprehension among the
subgroups. The findings of this study suggest that statistically significant
differences did exist between Hispanic, Caucasian, and African American students
in reading vocabulary using a Direct Instruction reading program. The Hispanic
participants had a higher mean achievement gain score in reading comprehension
than either Caucasian or African American students. The Hispanic participants also
had a higher mean achievement gain score in reading vocabulary achievement than
the African American participants but a smaller mean achievement gain score than
the Caucasian participants.
Key Words: Direct Instruction, Reading, Vocabulary, Comprehension
INTRODUCTION
Reading is a major factor in showing success in all academic areas and in lifelong learning as
well (Durkin, 1993). Therefore, one of the most important priorities of a school is teaching
children to read. Teaching a child to read is not an easy task as “reading is a complex process -
complex to learn and complex to teach” (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997, p. 2). Reading is
the foundation on which all learning is built.
Learning to read is a developmental process and instruction must be tailored to the needs of
each student (Heilman, Blair, & Rupley, 2002). Schools must improve the effectiveness of
instruction and interventions for struggling readers or students will always be at-risk of failure
in reading. This failure in reading can lead to failure in other subject areas that rely on reading.
Many children will not become successful readers unless their teachers identify the necessary
skills, find out what skills the children need, and teach those skills directly (Carnine et al., 1997).
The reading teacher plays a very important role in the reading achievement of the students.
According to Blair (1984), effective reading teachers are central to effective reading instruction.
The effective reading teachers are characterized by exhibiting the following traits: (a) providing
Page 2 of 19
518
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 12, December-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
adequate instructional time and ensuring students are engaged in the learning, (b) diagnosing
students’ strengths and weaknesses and teaching to student needs, (c) teaching basic reading
skills using an explicit or direct approach, (d) providing independent practice of targeted
reading skills to assure transfer of skills to actual reading situations, (e) using mainly group
instruction to increase student time-on-task, (f) having confidence in one’s teaching ability and
expecting students to be successful, and (g) managing the classroom effectively to eliminate
wasted time. Teachers must be effective reading teachers for all children, especially the
struggling readers who have trouble learning to read.
According to the Center on Instruction (2006), one of the most efficient ways to increase
intensity of instruction for struggling readers is to provide instruction in small groups. This
allows instruction to be targeted to specific needs of students, and allows students to have more
opportunities to respond and receive feedback. These intensive interventions work best when
struggling students are taught in small groups giving them more opportunities to actively
participate in the lessons. Some children can learn to read regardless of the program used to
teach them. However, many students fail to learn to read without explicit instruction and
quickly fall behind in their reading achievement (Fredrick, Keel, & Neel, 2002). Therefore, it
becomes essential in providing a structured reading program with step-by-step instructions to
facilitate the students in overcoming the hurdle of reading. One scientifically research based
reading program that has been the focus of many studies is Direct Instruction.
THEORY AND RESEARCH OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION
The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory [NWREL], (2005) states:
The Direct Instruction Model has evolved from a theory of instruction developed by
Siegfried Engelmann of the University of Oregon. Engelmann’s theory of instruction
is that learning can be greatly accelerated if instructional presentations are clear,
rule out likely misinterpretations, and facilitate generalizations (p. 2).
The American Association of School Administrators [AASA] et al., (1999) all agree that the
primary goal of Direct Instruction (DI) is to increase student achievement through carefully
focused instruction which provides intense efficient lessons that will allow all children—even
the lowest performing—to master academic skills. The birth of Direct Instruction began when
Engelmann and his colleagues set out to design a reading program for disadvantaged
preschoolers in the 1960s. Their premise was that the underdeveloped language skills many
poor children bought to school made learning to read difficult to almost impossible (Duffrin,
1996).
While teaching, Engelmann believed that changes or lack of changes in behavior indicate the
effectiveness of a teaching strategy (Athabasca University, n.d.; Engelmann & Carnine, 1991).
In this view, when children fail to learn, it has nothing to do with the wiring of the brain. Rather,
the instruction must be unclear or poorly organized. He believed that if teachers control all
variables of instruction learning will take place at a faster than normal pace. “The focus on
carefully and controlled instruction is fundamental to Engelmann’s scientific analysis of
learning and development, and it is a cornerstone of his theory of instructional design and
practice” (Athabasca University, n.d., para. 3). Engelmann's goal was to design a program that
was clear enough to teach any beginner learner (Duffrin, 1996).
Page 3 of 19
519
Watkins, T. B. (2022). The Relationship between Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in a Direct Instruction Reading Program. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(12). 517-535.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.912.13683
The theory underpinning the Direct Instruction model has fundamental features of a
behaviorist theory of learning that seeks scientific, demonstrable explanations for simple
behaviors. Behaviorists believe: (a) learning shows a change in behavior, (b) a teacher can
change children’s behaviors by leading them through a given set of activities, and (c) the proper
activities are identified by measuring the response of the learners at each step and then by
making appropriate adjustments (Duffrin, 1996). The idea is to eliminate misinterpretations,
which can greatly improve and accelerate learning (AASA, et al., 1999). The two basic principles
of Direct Instruction are:
1. All children can learn when taught efficiently, regardless of their learning history.
2. All teachers can be successful, given effective teaching materials and presentation
techniques (McGraw-Hill Education, n.d.).
In all Direct Instruction programs, lessons design consists of small groups that involve brisk
pace, a high rate of student opportunities to respond, group and individual turns, and
immediate error correction to prevent students from developing gaps of knowledge. Classroom
scripts are a hallmark of Direct Instruction—written, tested, rewritten, retested—polished in a
cycle of classroom field testing and revision that ends only when trials show 90% of students
grasp a lesson the first time presented (Directing Direct Instruction, 1997; J/P Associates, Inc.,
2006b). Pacing is very important in a lesson because at-risk students need to move at a faster
than normal pace to catch up. To facilitate learning, the use of signals keeps the children on
task and responding together. Frequent interactions and chances to respond occur between
the teachers and students throughout each DI lesson. Teaching the entire allocated time for
reading every day by maximizing instructional time may be one way to ensure success for some
students.
There is strong evidence that quality teaching makes a difference in the educational outcomes
of the students (Marchand-Martella, Slocum, & Martella, 2004). Effective instruction is a crucial
part of any Direct Instruction lesson and is evident when the children test for mastery every
five or ten lessons. Sanders and Rivers (1996) found that students who have strong effective
teachers for three years in a row achieved 50 percent more learning than those students in
classes with poor, weak teachers over the same period. Teacher training and in-classroom
coaching are major features of a successful DI implementation.
As with other programs, a full implementation is the key to a program’s success (Lindsay,
2004). A full Direct Instruction implementation advocates that all staff members, certified and
non-certified, receive training in Direct Instruction generating more personnel for reading
instruction. Training everyone allows smaller, more flexible ways to group students for reading.
READING VOCABULARY AND READING COMPREHENSION LINK
Vocabulary is very important in learning to read and in reading comprehension. Readers cannot
understand and comprehend what they are reading without knowing what most of the words
mean. Vocabulary knowledge has been recognized as important in learning to read and in
facilitating comprehension.
The link between vocabulary and comprehension has been the focus of many educational
research studies. Research consistently finds that vocabulary represents an important
component in developing proficiency in reading, and that meaning of words links directly to
Page 4 of 19
520
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 12, December-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
reading comprehension (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Beck, Perfetti, McKeown, 1982). A
primary cause of academic failure in reading from third grade through high school has been
linked to vocabulary deficiencies (Becker, 1977; Stanovich, 1986; Marchand-Martella et. al.,
2004). All evidence from correlational studies, readability research, and experimental studies,
(e.g., Anderson & Freebody; Graves, 1986) reflect strong and reliable relationships between the
difficulty of words in a text and text comprehension (Stahl, 1999).
Several studies (e.g., Becker, 1977; Farkas & Beron, 2004) have concluded that students starting
school with underdeveloped vocabularies are more likely to fail in their basic skill development,
yet they also found the effects could be offset by intensive early school-based interventions.
Carney, Anderson, Blackburn, and Blessing (1984) found that pre-teaching vocabulary words
to fifth graders had a considerable effect on the students’ attainment of social studies content.
Another study found that 4th grade students who received pre-instruction of vocabulary words
in a story had greater vocabulary gains than did children in the non-instructional control group
(Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996).
The most important measure of reading skill is reading comprehension. If students do not
comprehend, they do not fully benefit from the act or process of reading. Comprehension is
critical to the development of children’s reading skills and their ability to obtain an education
(National Reading Panel, 2000). According to Rupley, Logan, and Nichols (1999), the ability of
children to gather meaning and to better comprehend text increases when reading instruction
focuses on the expansion of children’s vocabulary. The article, The Role of Vocabulary in Building
Comprehension (2004), reiterates the fact that the more words students know, the better their
comprehension will be, and the better they will understand what is read about the world.
The National Reading Panel (2000) defines reading comprehension as “a cognitive process that
integrates complex skills and cannot be understood without examining the critical role of
vocabulary learning and instruction and its development” (p. 4-1). Reading comprehension can
also be defined as the thinking process a student goes through in order to derive meaning and
understanding from the text (Durkin, 1993).
A correlation between vocabulary and reading comprehension is shown throughout research.
Some research findings are:
1. The size of a kindergarten’s vocabulary is a viable predictor of reading
comprehension in the middle elementary grades (Scarborough, 1998 & 2001).
2. McKeown, Beck, Omanson, and Perfetti (1983) found that a strong relation exists
between vocabulary instruction and text comprehension for 4th grade students.
3. Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) conducted a meta-analysis and concluded that
vocabulary instruction was an important component for comprehension.
4. Children with limited vocabulary by third grade will have declining comprehension
scores in later elementary grades (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990).
5. Adequate reading comprehension depends on a person being able to read and
recognize 90-95% of the vocabulary in a text (Nagy & Scott, 2000).
6. Orally testing a child’s vocabulary at the end of first grade is a significant indicator of
reading comprehension ten years later, predicting more than 30% of grade 11
reading comprehension (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997).
Page 5 of 19
521
Watkins, T. B. (2022). The Relationship between Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in a Direct Instruction Reading Program. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(12). 517-535.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.912.13683
According to the National Institute for Literacy [NIFL], (n.d.), as children learn to read more
advanced texts, they must learn the meaning of new words that are not part of their everyday
oral vocabulary. There are many researched methods used to facilitate learning of vocabulary,
i.e., computer vocabulary instruction, direct instruction, indirect instruction, repeated exposure
to vocabulary, pre-instruction of vocabulary, and substituting easy for hard words (National
Reading Panel, 2000).
CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND ACHIEVEMENT GAPS BETWEEN HISPANICS, AFRICAN
AMERICANS, AND CAUCASIANS
In multiracial and multiethnic societies such as the United States, the many ways in which race,
ethnicity, and culture influence student learning in formal educational settings is a wide spread
issue (Morris, 2007). According to Willis (2000), the enrollment of children that are culturally
and linguistically different from what is considered the mainstream U.S. culture will continue
to increase as part of the rapidly and shifting demographics of school-aged children. “
Increasing diversity in the classroom has presented teachers with the challenge of providing
appropriate reading instruction for all students in their classes, who may represent a variety of
ability levels and cultures” (Burnette, 1999, p. 1). Students come to school with a variety of
backgrounds and a wide range of experiences, indicating an important truth, children of all
ethnic and language backgrounds are always learning (Morris). A child’s culture influences how
and what the child learns and at what degree of importance it plays in the child’s life. A child’s
cultural background affects the skills, knowledge, and expectations that they bring to school. In
fact, gender differences, ethnic origin, ability levels, primary language, and socioeconomic
factors constitute the cause of low performance and achievement gaps among students
(Mubenga, 2006).
Regardless of the student’s race or culture, they may be at risk and therefore, must achieve
more than the average student to catch up or jeopardize falling further and further behind as
they go through school (Condon & Blaney, 1995). Students who are educationally
disadvantaged include those we might suspect: those in poverty, minority race groups, those
with disabilities, and English language learners (Merchand-Martella et al., 2004). Students may
be at risk because of “poverty, cultural and language differences, race differences, family and
community differences, and schools that do not yet consistently make a difference in these
children’s learning” (Stringfield & Hollifield, 1996, p.1). There is persistent poverty among
African American and Hispanic populations that influences the academic achievement levels of
the groups. The cycle of poverty and low-literacy functioning is well documented, as is the
achievement gap between Caucasian students and students of color (Corley, 2003). A
significant correlation exists between race and poverty, with African Americans and Hispanics
three times more likely to be impoverished than Caucasians (Proctor & Dalaker, 2002).
Conditions of poverty, health and other social problems have made it difficult for some
Hispanics living in the U.S. to improve their educational status (Padron et al., 2002). The most
recent reading assessment by the National Institute for Literacy (2002) found dramatic
differences between Hispanic students and non-Hispanic white students: 56% of Hispanic
fourth graders performed below the basic reading level for their grade, compared to 25% of
non-Hispanic white students. These differences place English language learners at risk for
school failure, as academic achievement is highly reliant on literacy skills (Padron, 1994).
Page 6 of 19
522
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 12, December-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Social class between African Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians is an influential variable.
Race is a persistent factor in employment statistics, educational attainment, and the acquisition
of literacy skills, with significantly higher unemployment rates and lower educational
attainment rates among African Americans and Hispanic Americans than among Caucasians
(Corley, 2003). Research shows that education needs to be meaningful and responsive to
students’ needs, as well as linguistically and culturally appropriate (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton,
Yamauchi, 2000).
African American children face some additional challenges. They are less likely than Caucasian
or Hispanic children to live in a married, two-parent family and are more likely than Caucasian
children to live in poverty. African American students also are more likely to be victims of
crime—both violent and property—than their Caucasian or Hispanic counterparts (Wirt et al.,
2003).
The article, The Role of Vocabulary in Building Comprehension (2004), states that “children from
all economic backgrounds—poverty, middle class, professional—have the same kinds of
everyday language experiences; that is, they all hear talk about things, persons, relationships,
feelings, actions, past and future events, etc.” (p. 2). However, children in economically deprived
families have fewer of these experiences. The limited opportunities to use language have an
impact on the reading achievement of the children.
The table (see Table 1) shows the differences researchers Hart and Risley (1995) found in early
exposure to words among various social classes in the United States. The table displays the
quality and quantity of words heard by children in a typical hour in homes with professional,
working class, or welfare parents.
It is interesting to note that children from homes with professional parents hear 1538 more
words per hour than children whose parents are on welfare, and 902 more.
Table 1: Actual Differences in Quantity of Words Heard
In a typical hour, the average child would hear:
Professional 2153 words
Working Class 1251 words
Welfare 615 words
Actual Differences in Quality of Words Heard
In a typical hour, the average child would hear:
Professional 32 affirmations
Working Class 12 affirmations
Welfare 5 affirmations
Source: Hart & Risley, (1995)
words a hour than students from homes with working class parents (Hart & Risley, 1995). In
addition, children from professional homes receive six times more positive affirmations per
hour than children from welfare homes and almost three times more affirmations than children
from working class parents (Hart & Risley).
Page 8 of 19
524
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 12, December-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
school (3-5), one middle school (6-8) and one high school (9-12). The district served
approximately 1248 students during the study. Approximately, four percent of the school
district’s students were enrolled in an English as a second language program.
The third, fourth, and fifth grade African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic students from the
upper elementary school participated in this study. The school was a Title I school with 85%
of the students participating in the free and reduced lunch program. The racial population of
the school was 7% Hispanics, 16% Caucasians, and 77% African Americans. The sample
population used in this study consisted of 230 third, fourth, and fifth grade students who
participated in a DI reading program and took both the ITBS pretest and ITBS posttest. The
total number of students enrolled in the school at this time was approximately 248. This sample
represents about 93% of the overall population of third, fourth, and fifth grade students. There
were 72 third graders, 72 fourth graders, and 86 fifth graders. There were 17 Hispanic
students, 33 Caucasian students, and 180 African American students. The student population
consisted of 115 males and 115 females. Table 2 summarizes the details of the descriptive
analysis of participants included in this study.
Table 2: Descriptive Analysis of Participants at the Upper Elementary School
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Hispanics 2 2 3 4 5 1
Caucasians 3 7 9 5 4 5
African Americans 32 26 26 25 31 40
Instrumentation
Direct Instruction Program
Students in third through fifth grades used the Reading Mastery Plus reading program and
students needing intensive reading intervention placed in one of the Corrective Reading
programs: Decoding A, Decoding B1, Decoding B2, or Decoding C. Students used Learning
Through Literature or Novel Studies after completing the Reading Mastery VI program,
regardless of the grade level.
The DI lessons in the Corrective Reading programs Decoding A, Decoding B1, and Decoding B2,
lasted 45 minutes a day. The DI lessons in Reading Mastery Plus Level 3 and Corrective Reading
program Decoding C were 60 minutes a day. The DI lessons in Reading Mastery Plus, Levels 4-
6, and Learning Through Literature or Novel Studies lasted 75 minutes a day.
Page 9 of 19
525
Watkins, T. B. (2022). The Relationship between Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in a Direct Instruction Reading Program. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(12). 517-535.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.912.13683
To facilitate flexible grouping, all Direct Instruction reading classes occurred at a common time
allowing students to move from class to class, teacher to teacher, and group to group. This
allowed each student to progress at the fastest possible rate. Students who were working above
grade level, on grade level, or below grade level were able to move in and out of a group as
needed based on achievement. The goal of the Direct Instruction implementation was to
accelerate learning so that students who had fallen behind could catch up with their peers.
These groups were flexible and allowed children to be periodically reassigned to a faster group.
Immediate assistance was given to children who were struggling.
Before implementing any Direct Instruction reading program, the examiner pretested the
students for program placement and group placement using the DI placement test. The DI
placement test informed the examiner of the reading instructional level and program
assignment for the child. The students placed in homogeneous reading groups to aid the
teacher in accelerating mastery of skills for each student. After every five or ten lessons, the
students took mastery tests and rate and accuracy tests to check attainment of skills.
Remediation occurred when the students or groups of students did not meet the program’s
benchmark for that lesson. Frequent assessments built into the program evaluated the
students for mastery. These assessments detected students who needed extra help before
falling too far behind, and also identified students who needed regrouping for instruction.
Lowa Test of Basic Skills
The Iowa Test of Basic Skills® (ITBS), Form B, provided reading vocabulary and reading
comprehension test scores for the students included in this study. In order for the students to
have the same opportunities, the teachers received training in proper procedures when
administering the standardized tests. The conditions and methods for administering the tests
were identical for all the students so a comparison of the test results could be possible between
the different racial groups. The administration or the ITBS was part of the Arkansas statewide
testing for all students in third, fourth, and fifth grades regardless of language backgrounds and
cultures.
RESULTS
The results of an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) analyzed the ITBS data. In a quasi- experimental research design, pretest means might differ considerably. An ANCOVA can adjust
for initial differences in pretest means. This statistical procedure permitted the researcher to
attribute observed gains to the effect of the experimental treatment (e.g., DI reading) rather
than to differences in initial scores (e.g., ITBS Pretest). By using an ANCOVA, the mean
achievement gain scores of each of the three subgroups (e.g., Hispanics, African Americans,
Caucasians) were compared as if they had earned the same mean achievement score on the
pretest at the beginning of the study. The results of the ANCOVA allowed the researcher to
compare the mean achievement gain scores between the Hispanics, African Americans, and
Caucasians. The researcher was able to determine whether a statistically significant difference
existed in reading achievement in Hispanic students when compared to African American and
Caucasian students using a DI reading program taught in the English language only.
Analyses of ITBS Reading Data by Race
The mean vocabulary score for the Hispanic students on the ITBS reading pretest and the ITBS
reading posttest were lower than both the Caucasian and African American students. However,
Page 13 of 19
529
Watkins, T. B. (2022). The Relationship between Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in a Direct Instruction Reading Program. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(12). 517-535.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.912.13683
Table 6: ANCOVA Results for Reading Vocabulary
Race N Observed Means Adjusted Means
Hispanics 17 184.71 189.37
Caucasians 33 208.70 197.82
African Americans 180 184.98 186.54
Source SS df MS F P
Adjusted Means
[Between Groups Effect]
3243.11 2 1621.55 8.18 0.000372**
Adjusted Error
[Within Groups]
44797.95 226 198.22
Adjusted Total 48041.06 228
Note: The observed means are the posttest means expected if the groups in the study had a
variety of pretest means. The adjusted means are the posttest means expected if all the groups
in the study had the same pretest means.
**Significant at the .01 alpha level.
Figure 1 shows the mean gain score differences between the Hispanic, Caucasian, and African
American participants.
Page 14 of 19
530
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 12, December-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Figure 1. Mean gain score differences in reading vocabulary between the three races
of participants. Note. (F= 8.18, df= 2, p<.01).
**Significant at the .01 alpha level.
Reading Comprehension Achievement
In this study, given this particular group of students, all the subgroups of participants had an
increase in reading comprehension achievement. The adjusted posttest means show that the
students did have a difference in reading comprehension achievement using a DI reading
180
182
184
186
188
190
192
194
196
198
200
Posttest Mean
Achievement
189.36 197.82 186.54
Hispanics Caucasians African
Americans