please summarise the following article:

""

129
The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal
Volume 19, Number 1, April 2019
Where Do We Get Our Academic Vocabulary? Comparing the Efficiency of
Direct Instruction and Free Voluntary Reading
Jeff McQuillan
Center for Educational Development
ABSTRACT
Some researchers have argued that low-achieving students may never acquire sufficient levels of
academic vocabulary to be successful in school without some form of explicit vocabulary
instruction (e.g. Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009). In this paper, I summarize the available data
on the efficiency, in words learned per minute of instruction, of explicitly teaching academic
vocabulary. I also examine another possible source for academic vocabulary knowledge:
pleasure reading, or what Krashen (2004) refers to as “free voluntary reading.” A large corpus
of popular, young adult fiction is analyzed to assess the likelihood that academic words can be
acquired at least in part through reading. Comparing the relative efficiency of direct instruction
and free reading, I found that reading is between two and six times more efficient than explicit
teaching of academic vocabulary.
INTRODUCTION
There is considerable evidence that we acquire most of our vocabulary, in both a first and
second language, from reading (Krashen, 1989; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Smith,
2012). According to Krashen’s (2003) Comprehension Hypothesis, we acquire both first and
second languages, including vocabulary, primarily by listening and reading to compelling,
“comprehensible input,” or language we can understand (Krashen, Lee, & Lao, 2018). Our
knowledge of new words is thought to come incrementally, being acquired little by little each
time we see or hear it, and incidentally, as a by-product of our main goal in listening and reading,
comprehension.
A rival theory to explain word learning is what Krashen (1991) termed the Skill Building
Hypothesis. The Skill Building Hypothesis claims that a substantial part of our language
proficiency comes from deliberate practice and study. In this view, vocabulary can often be
learned most efficiently as a result of explicit teaching, and that this teaching makes a significant
contribution to schoolchildren’s word knowledge (Biemiller & Boote, 2001).
Several researchers have advocated the explicit teaching of “academic vocabulary” (e.g.
Nagy & Townsend, 2012; Schmitt, 2008). Academic vocabulary consists of both technical terms
specific to a given discipline (e.g. photosynthesis, tidal pool, cosine), and sub-technical words
that appear across many different subject areas (e.g. hypothesis, influence, thread). The Skill
Building Hypothesis holds that the best way to help low-achieving students, including language
130
minority and second language students, to “catch-up” to their age peers in academic vocabulary
is through a program of direct, “rich” instruction of these word families.
None of the studies on the effectiveness of academic vocabulary interventions have
included a direct comparison to free reading as a possible source of student word knowledge. We
can, however, compare direct instruction and free reading by determining their relative efficiency
in helping students acquire new words. Efficiency calculations can help us determine which
approach would be the most effective use of instructional time in promoting vocabulary growth
(Mason, 2007).
HOW MANY ACADEMIC WORDS CAN STUDENTS LEARN FROM EXPLICIT
INSTRUCTION?
In Table 1, I report the outcomes from seven large-scale academic vocabulary
intervention studies, mostly conducted with low-achieving middle school students. These studies
usually included a substantial number of language minority and English language learners. Table
1 includes the number of academic words taught, the number of words learned, the amount of
time spent on instruction, and the efficiency of the instruction in words learned per minute
(Krashen, 1989; Mason, 2007).1

The word gains shown in column 4 are the estimated total growth of word knowledge due
to the intervention. I estimated total gains by multiplying the raw score increase (post-test minus
pre-test score) by the quotient of total words taught divided by total words tested. In Leseaux et
al. (2014), for example, 70 words were taught but only 30 were included on the pre- and posttests. The raw score gain was thus multiplied by 2.33 (70/30) to obtain an estimate of all word
gains. Efficiency scores (number of words learned per minute) were calculated by dividing the
total word gains by the total instructional time.
Table 1. Efficiency of Explicit Academic Vocabulary Instruction in 7 Studies
Study Instructional
Time
(minutes)
Words
Taught
Words
Learned
Efficiency
(words learned
per minute)
Lawrence et al.
(2012)
1800 120 12.6 .007 wpm
Lawrence et al.
(2014) (Year 1)
1800 120 12.9 .007 wpm
Lawrence et al.
(2015)
1800 120 5.8 .003 wpm
Lawrence et al.
(2016)
1800 120 7.1 .004 wpm
Lesaux et al.
(2014)
4095 70 9.6 .002 wpm
Mokhtari &
Velten (2016)
2040 85 12.5 .006 wpm
Snow et al.
(2009)
1800 120 13.3 .007 wpm
131
Average
(SD)
 10.54
(3.07)
.005 wpm
(.002)
The seven studies produced fairly consistent results, with an average gain of around .005 wpm.
The average total number of words learned by students after a year of instruction was a little
more than 10.
The interventions devoted a sizable amount of class time on vocabulary instruction,
spending an average the equivalent of 10 to 20 minutes daily over a 180-day school year, or
roughly 20 to 40% of a 50-minute class. In most of the interventions, students were given a wide
range of exercises and activities with the goal of learning the target words. In Lesaux et al.
(2014), for example, students were given a minimum of 10 hours of instruction each on semantic
mapping, context clues, dictionary definitions, the use of “productive representations” of words
(such as drawings), morphological analysis, and mock interviews using the target words. Given
the length and breadth of the interventions, a gain of 10 words per year seems a very modest
return on time invested.
Note that students in these interventions received far more vocabulary instruction than
students in a typical language arts classroom. Classroom observation studies have found that
most teachers devote relatively little time to teaching new words in elementary and middle
school. Leasaux et al.’s (2014) found that teachers spent about 10% on vocabulary instruction in
the control classes used in their study. This amounts to five minutes per day in a 50-minute class.
Scott, Jamieson-Noel, and Asselin (2003) reported even lower time estimates in the 23
classrooms they observed. Teachers in upper-elementary and middle school they observed spent
on average only 6% of classroom time to vocabulary teaching in language arts classes, and a
mere 1.4% of their time teaching new words in other subject areas (math, science, art, social
studies).
At the same rate of word learning achieved by the students who received “successful”
direct instruction in the interventions reviewed in Table 2 (.005 wpm), students given five
minutes of instruction (10% of instructional time) per day for 180 days would learn only 4.5
words per year. This is not nearly enough words to make significant progress in their academic
vocabulary in the future. At 4.5 words per year, students currently in sixth grade would learn 27
of the 570 AWL word families by the time they graduated from high school. Even if they
managed to learn at twice the rate as previous interventions, or spend 20% of their time in
vocabulary instruction, this would still cover less than 10% of the AWL words.
There is also no evidence that the limited time currently devoted to vocabulary
instruction in most classrooms is spent on teaching AWL words, nor that teachers use the kind of
“rich instruction” advocated by the intervention researchers. Kelley et al. (2010) reported that the
control classroom teachers in their study focused on “superficial instruction that focused on rare,
unfamiliar words” (p. 7). This makes prior direct instruction an unlikely source of students’ preintervention vocabulary knowledge.
HOW MANY ACADEMIC WORDS CAN STUDENTS ACQUIRE FROM
POPULAR FICTION?
An alternative source of students’ vocabulary is their pleasure or free voluntary reading
(Krashen, 2004). We know that academic words account for a smaller proportion of the tokens in
132
popular fiction than in school texts. Gardner (2004) reported that only 0.8% of the tokens in his
corpus of juvenile fiction were academic in nature, compared to 2.7% in expository books. Yet
there is some evidence that academic words may appear frequently enough in fiction to give
readers a good chance of acquiring a substantial portion of them. Rolls and Rogers (2017)
examined a corpus of science fiction and fantasy texts to determine how often 318 “science
words” appeared in the texts. These were words that appear across various scientific disciplines,
excluding words from the AWL. Rolls and Rogers found that with a million words of reading,
students would encounter nearly all of the science words (92%) at least once, with close to half
(44%) of the words appearing 10 or more times.
The precise meanings of these academic words may of course differ in some cases in
fiction versus academic texts. But the AWL word families themselves appear to have stable
meanings across academic disciplines. Ming-Tzu and Nation (2004) found that Coxhead’s list of
word families contained only a handful of homographs (unrelated meanings for the same word
form). This means that acquiring an AWL word in one domain is beneficial in other academic
disciplines as well. While reading popular fiction is unlikely to be sufficient to pick up all of the
nuanced meanings of academic words, it may give students a significant head start in acquiring
them.
Corpus Analysis of Free Reading Materials
To estimate the number of academic words that can be acquired from reading popular
fiction, I created a million-word corpus (1,025,943 tokens) from 22 young adult books taken
from five series popular with American schoolchildren in recent years, according to a large book
publisher (Scholastic, 2015): four books from Twilight (Meyers, 2010); 10 books from
Goosebumps (Stine, 1995; 2005; 2011a; 2011b; 2016); two books from A Series of Unfortunate
Events (Snicket, 2001a; 2001b), three books from Nancy Drew (Keene, 1991a; 1991b; 1992) and
three books from The Baby-Sitters Club (Martin, 1990; 1992; 1996). All of the texts have 98%
vocabulary coverage at 5,000 word families. This means that readers who know the first 5,000
most frequently occurring word families in English will be able to understand 98% of the
running text.
Using AntWordProfiler software (Anthony, 2012), I found that 1.02% of the tokens in the
corpus were on the AWL list, slightly more than Gardner’s (2004) estimate from his corpus of
juvenile fiction. There were 484 AWL word families that occurred at least once in the corpus, or
roughly 85% of the total of 570.
How many of these AWL words are likely to be acquired? The most common method to
estimate gains in vocabulary in corpus studies is to use a “cut-off” or minimum number of
repetitions. The cut-off point usually estimated from previous experimental “read-and-test”
studies of incidental word acquisition. In read-and-test experiments, students read a text and then
take a vocabulary test on potentially unknown words. The more repetitions of a word family in a
text, the more likely it is to be acquired (Hulme, Barksy, & Rodd, in press).
Pellicer-Sanchez and Schmitt (2010), for example, found that when a word is repeated at
least 10 times in a text, scores on a word recognition test were around 80% for second language
(L2) acquirers, with the percentage acquired rising to nearly 90% after 28 repetitions. Webb
(2007) reported that readers who saw words repeated 10 times on average scored 87.5% on a
recognition test and 71.9% on a recall test. Based on these and other studies, Nation (2014) used
133
12 occurrences as a minimum to count a word as “acquired” in his corpus analysis. Cobb (2007)
and McQuillan and Krashen (2008) used a lower cut-off of six occurrences.
For this analysis, I used three different cut-off points for classifying a word family as
acquired: Nation’s recommended minimum of 12 repetitions, along with more stringent cutoffs
of 20 and 25 repetitions. Table 2 reports the results of these using these three models. Since the
cut-off method requires counting all occurrences in the corpus, those estimates are listed only in
the final row of the table rather than by book series.
Table 2. Three Models Estimating the Number of Academic Words Likely to Be Acquired From
Reading Popular, Young Adult Fiction
Series Title Total
Tokens
AWL
Word
Families
12
times
20
times
25
times
Baby Sitters Club 71,514 109 -- -- --
Series of
Unfortunate
Events
87,353 200 -- -- --
Nancy Drew 94,791 249 -- -- --
Goosebumps 258,336 165 -- -- --
Twilight 513,949 452 -- -- --
Total 1,025,943 484 213 143 113
At the average reading speed for fourth graders (150 wpm) (Spichtig, Hiebert, Vorstius,
Pascoe, Pearson, & Radach, 2016), a student would need about 6,840 minutes (114 hours) to
read all the novels in the corpus. At 30 minutes a day, this would take students 228 days, or
about seven and a half months, including weekends.
As shown in Table 2, depending on the model of word acquisition used, students would
acquire somewhere between 113 and 213 AWL word families after reading the 22 novels in our
corpus, with word-per-minute acquisition efficiencies ranging from .01 wpm to .03 wpm at an
average fourth-grade reading speed. For comparison, the number of words that would likely be
learned over an equivalent period of direct instruction, assuming an efficiency of .005 wpm,
would be 34.2. This means that pleasure reading is between two and six times as efficient as
direct instruction in promoting AWL word growth.
Note that Table 2 includes only the AWL word families that could be acquired. Students
would also likely acquire general vocabulary words, perhaps doubling the estimated number of
new word families acquired overall.
134
DISCUSSION
Even under the most pessimistic assumptions for incidental acquisition, reading is more
efficient in acquiring new academic words than direct instruction. Given this result, providing
students with sustained silent reading (SSR) time and plentiful access to compelling reading
materials may be a better intervention than doing numerous “rich” vocabulary exercises and
activities, as Krashen (2004) found in his review of SSR programs. Reading is also more
pleasurable for most students than direct instruction (McQuillan, 1994), such that even if an
intervention could match reading’s efficiency, reading would still be preferred. It is less work for
the teachers and more enjoyable for the students.
My results are consistent with previous efficiency comparisons of vocabulary teaching
and free reading. McQuillan (2016) concluded that in most direct comparisons of reading-only
and reading plus vocabulary instruction for adult second-language students, reading-only was
more efficient that reading plus instruction. McQuillan (2019) found that simply reading stories
to pre-literate children was 66% more efficient than teaching words explicitly. In a re-analysis of
14 direct instruction vocabulary studies, McQuillan (in press) found that short-term interventions
lasting at least two hours had an average efficiency of .039 wpm. Long-term studies of at least 25
hours duration had an efficiency of .01 wpm. Note that these are roughly the same efficiencies
calculated for free reading in our analysis (.01 to .03 wpm), which only took into account about
half of the potentially unknown words in the corpus (1% instead of 2%). We can conclude that
free reading is thus as good as or superior to direct instruction for both short- and long-term
interventions.
Our findings are also in line with previous studies of the relationship between academic
and general vocabulary. Masrai and Milton (2017; 2018) found strong correlations (r = .78 and
.73, respectively) between tests of academic and general vocabulary for their adult subjects, and
factor analysis indicated that the two tests were likely tapping the same construct. Academic
vocabulary knowledge appears to explain little additional variance in reading comprehension or
academic achievement once general vocabulary is controlled for (Masrai & Milton, 2018;
Townsend, Filippini, Collins, & Biancarosa, 2012). One explanation for these findings is that
both academic and general vocabulary knowledge come largely from the same source, free
reading. It may also be that general vocabulary knowledge acquired through free reading
facilitates the acquisition of academic language by making academic texts more comprehensible.
Students who read for pleasure have an easier time understanding their textbooks and are able to
acquire more academic vocabulary from them. In either case, reading fiction appears to be a
potentially powerful source for students to develop knowledge of academic words.2
I do not argue that reading popular fiction is sufficient for acquiring all aspects of
academic language, or even all the meanings needed to comprehend them in an academic text.
But it can serve as a bridge or “conduit” to academic language. Krashen (2012) has proposed a
two-stage approach to helping students acquire academic language. Stage 1 is pleasure reading,
which gives students general vocabulary and, if our analysis is correct, at least partial meanings
of a substantial number of academic word families. Stage 2 is free reading on an academic topic
chosen by the student. Reading on a single topic or narrow range of topics will not only make
texts more comprehensible (Schmitt & Carter, 2000), but will allow students to acquire
important features of academic language found across different disciplines (Biber, 1995). Given
the relatively poor efficiency of explicit instruction in promoting word growth, free reading
seems at least worth a closer look.
135
NOTES
1. I excluded Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, and Kelly (2010), another academic vocabulary
intervention, since it did not report raw vocabulary test scores from which gains could be
calculated.
2. It could be claimed that academic vocabulary is more difficult to acquire than the vocabulary
one picks up via free reading, and therefore a direct comparison of their efficiencies is unfairly
biased toward reading. But the words used to determine the efficiency of acquiring a new word
incidentally in read-and-test studies are often as “conceptually difficult” or more so than those
taught in vocabulary interventions. In Herman, Anderson, Pearson, and Nagy (1987), for
example, more than 80% of the target words tested were rare (not found in the first 25,000 most
frequently appearing word families). Two-thirds of the words could be classified as technical
vocabulary that would require some new conceptual information for students to understand (e.g.
drainage basin, rills, levee, renal, capillary). Nevertheless, even students reading below the 30th
percentile on a standardized reading test acquired words at rates comparable to those used in this
analysis (probability of .05 to .10).
Jeff McQuillan is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Educational Development in
Los Angeles, California.
.
Email: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Stephen Krashen for his valuable insights on an earlier draft of this paper, as well
as Warren Ediger and Lucy Tse for their useful comments.
REFERENCES
Anthony, L. (2012). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan:
Waseda University. Available from
http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antwordprofiler/
Biber, D. (1985). Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multifeature/multidimensional analyses. Linguistics, 23(2), 337-360.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in
primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44-62.
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning &
Technology, 11(3), 38-63.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.
Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found
in children's narrative and expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 1-37.
Herman, P., Anderson, R., Pearson, P., & Nagy, W. (1987). Incidental acquisition of word
meaning from expositions with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3),
263-284.
136
Hulme, R., Barsky, D., & Rodd, J. (in press). Incidental learning and long-term retention of new
word meanings from stories: The effect of the number of exposures. Language Learning.
Keene, C. (1991a). Easy Marks (The Nancy Drew Files, Case 62). New York: Simon Pulse.
Keene, C. (1991b). Mixed Signals (The Nancy Drew Files, Case 63). New York: Simon Pulse.
Keene, C. (1992). Greek Odyssey (The Nancy Drew Files, Case 74). New York: Simon Pulse.
Kelley, J., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Faller, S. (2010). Effective academic vocabulary
instruction in the urban middle school. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 5-14.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the
input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.
Krashen, S. (1991). The Input Hypothesis: An update. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University
Roundtable on Language and Linguistics, 1991 (pp. 409-431). Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading. 2nd edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. (2012). Direct instruction of academic vocabulary: What about real reading?
Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 223-224.
Krashen, S. Lee, SY, & Lao, C. (2018). Comprehensible and compelling: The causes and effects
of free voluntary reading. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, ABC-CLIO, LLC
Lawrence, J., Francis, D., Paré-Blagoev, J., & Snow, C. (2017). The poor get richer:
Heterogeneity in the efficacy of a school-level intervention for academic
language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(4), 767-793.
Lawrence, J., Capotosto, L., Branum-Martin, L., White, C., & Snow, C. (2012). Language
proficiency, home-language status, and English vocabulary development: A longitudinal
follow-up of the Word Generation program. Bilingualism: Language and
cognition, 15(3), 437-451.
Lawrence, J., Crosson, A., Paré-Blagoev, E., & Snow, C. (2015). Word Generation randomized
trial: Discussion mediates the impact of program treatment on academic word
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 52(4), 750-786.
Lawrence, J., Rolland, R., Branum-Martin, L., & Snow, C. (2014). Generating vocabulary
knowledge for at-risk middle school readers: Contrasting program effects and growth
trajectories. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19, 76-97.
Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., Faller, S., & Kelly, J. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of
implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students
in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196-228.
Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., Kelley, J., & Harris, J. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary
instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial.
American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159-1194.
Martin, A. (1990). Baby-Sitters Club Super Special #1: Baby-Sitters on Board. New York:
Scholastic.
Martin, A. (1992). The Baby-Sitters Little Sisters #27: Karen’s Big Joke. New York: Scholastic.
Martin, A. (1996). The Baby-Sitters Club #99: Stacey’s Broken Heart. New York: Scholastic.
Mason, B. (2007). The efficiency of self-selected reading and hearing stories on adult second
language acquisition. In Selected papers from the sixteenth International Symposium on
English Teaching (pp. 630-633). Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.
137
Masrai, A., & Milton, J. (2017). Recognition vocabulary knowledge and intelligence as
predictors of academic achievement in EFL context. TESOL International Journal, 12(1),
128-142.
Masrai, A., & Milton, J. (2018). Measuring the contribution of academic and general vocabulary
knowledge to learners' academic achievement. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 31, 44-57.
McQuillan, J. (1994). Reading versus grammar: What students think is pleasurable and
beneficial for language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 5(2), 95-100.
McQuillan, J. (2016). Time, texts, and teaching in vocabulary acquisition: A rebuttal to Cobb
(2016). Reading in a Foreign Language, 28(2), 307-318.
McQuillan, J. (2019). We don’t need no stinkin’ exercises: The impact of extended instruction
and storybook reading on vocabulary acquisition. Language and Language Teaching,
8(1), 22 – 34.
McQuillan, J. (in press). The inefficiency of vocabulary instruction. International Electronic
Journal of Elementary Education.
McQuillan, J., & Krashen, S. (2008). Can free reading take you all the way? A response to Cobb
(2007). Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 104-108.
Meyer, S. (2010). The Twilight Saga: Complete Collection. New York: Little, Brown Books for
Young Readers.
Ming-Tzu, K. W., & Nation, P. (2004). Word meaning in academic English: Homography in the
academic word list. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 291-314.
Mokhtari, K., & Velten, J. (2015). Strengthening academic vocabulary with word generation
helps sixth-grade students improve reading comprehension. Middle Grades Research
Journal, 10(3), 23-42.
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language
acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108.
Nagy, W., Herman P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20(2), 233-253.
Nation, P. (2014). How much input do you need to learn the most frequent 9,000
words?. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(2), 1-16.
Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2015). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic
novel: Do “Things Fall Apart”? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31-55.
Rolls, H., & Rodgers, M. P. (2017). Science-specific technical vocabulary in science fictionfantasy texts: A case for ‘language through literature’. English for Specific Purposes,
48, 44-56.
Scholastic Publishing. (2015). Kids and family reading report: United States. New York: Author.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language
TeachingRresearch, 12(3), 329-363.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The lexical advantages of narrow reading for second language
learners. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 4-9.
Scott, J., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout the day in
twenty-three Canadian upper-elementary classrooms. The Elementary School
Journal, 103(3), 269-286.
Smith, F. (2012). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to
read. 6
th edition. New York: Routledge.
138
Snicket, L. (2001a). The Ersatz Elevator (Series of Unfortunate Event, Book 6). New York:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Snicket, L.(2001b). The Hostile Hospital (Series of Unfortunate Events, Book 8). New York:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Snow, C., Lawrence, J., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language
among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness, 2(4), 325-344.
Spichtig, A., Hiebert, E., Vorstius, C., Pascoe, J., Pearson, P. D., & Radach, R. (2016). The
decline of comprehension-based silent reading efficiency the United States: A
comparison of current data with performance in 1960. Reading Research
Quarterly, 51(2), 239-259.
Stine, R.L. (1995). Goosebumps: Trapped in a Bat. New York: Scholastic.
Stine, R.L. (2005). Goosebumps (Fear Street #9): The Stepsister. New York: Scholastic.
Stine, R.L. (2011a). Goosebumps: Hall of Horrors Boxed Set. New York: Scholastic.
Stine, R.L. (2011b). Goosebumps: Welcome to the Dead House. New York: Scholastic.
Stine, R.L. (2016). Goosebumps (Most Wanted #9): Here Comes the Shaggedy. New York:
Scholastic.
Townsend, D., Filippini, A., Collins, P., & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Evidence for the importance
of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school
students. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 497-518. 

""