Effects of Multimedia Vocabulary Instruction on Adolescents with Learning Disabilities
Kennedy, Michael J.; Deshler, Donald D.; Lloyd, John Wills (2015). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v48 n1 p22-38. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1047703
-
examining141Students, grades9-12
Distance Learning Rapid Review
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2021
- Distance Learning Rapid Review (findings for Content acquisition podcasts with explicit instruction and a keyword mnemonic strategy)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Multiple-choice instrument (researcher-developed) |
Content acquisition podcasts with explicit instruction and a keyword mnemonic strategy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.91 |
18.11 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Open-ended instrument (researcher-developed) |
Content acquisition podcasts with explicit instruction and a keyword mnemonic strategy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
55.08 |
29.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Multiple-choice instrument (researcher-developed) |
Content acquisition podcasts with explicit instruction and a keyword mnemonic strategy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students without learning disabilities;
|
24.91 |
18.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Open-ended instrument (researcher-developed) |
Content acquisition podcasts with explicit instruction and a keyword mnemonic strategy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students without learning disabilities;
|
54.58 |
31.20 |
Yes |
|
||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
-
Race Black 68% Other or unknown 11% White 22% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place during 12 sections of world history at one urban high school in a Midwestern state. Students in grades 9 to 12 were included in the analysis.
Study sample
Students were randomly assigned to four intervention groups. This review focuses on the contrast between the Content Acquisition Podcasts (CAPs) group that received a combination of explicit and keyword mnemonic strategy as compared to explicit instruction without adherence to Mayer’s instructional design principles. The analytic sample for this study contrast included 141 grade 9 to grade 12 students. Of those, 15 students had a learning disability (LD) related to reading and 126 students did not. All students in the LD subgroup were in grade 10 while approximately 90 percent of students in the non-LD subgroup were in grade 10. The study did not provide sample characteristics for the subset of 141 students assigned to the contrast of interest for this review. The authors did provide demographic characteristics for the 278 students in the analytic sample across all 4 groups included in the manuscript. Among these 278 students, 52 percent were female, 68 percent were African American, 22 percent were Caucasian, and 8 percent were Hispanic. The average age was 16.7 years old and approximately 78 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Students watched Content Acquisition Podcasts (CAPs), multimedia-based instruction technology focused on vocabulary instruction. The CAPs were developed by the study authors, with input from the two participating teachers, using Microsoft PowerPoint with narrated audio recordings. The CAPs were uploaded to the school’s intranet where students independently accessed them via laptops with headphones. Each laptop contained the student’s randomly assigned multimedia vocabulary condition. Students watched a total of 10 CAPs each day over a 3 day period. After viewing 5 CAPs, students completed 5 items on an open-ended instrument followed by 5 items on a multiple choice instrument. The students then repeated this process with new CAPs and new test instruments. The CAPs for the students assigned to the combination of explicit instruction and keyword mnemonic strategy group, the intervention group in this study, were designed using Mayer’s instructional design principles. The CAPs provided rationales for why learning the given vocabulary term or concept is important, direct instruction of word meanings, examples of synonyms, guided practice, word consciousness instruction, information on how to use keyword mnemonic strategies to recall vocabulary terms and concepts, and images of keywords interacting with the vocabulary term or concept.
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison condition accessed podcasts in the same format as students assigned to the intervention condition; that is, students independently accessed the podcasts via laptops and headphones. The podcasts developed for students assigned to the comparison group differed from those developed for the intervention condition in that they were not based on Mayer’s instructional design principles. The podcasts provided rationales for why learning the given vocabulary term or concept is important, direct instruction of word meanings, examples of synonyms, guided practice, and word consciousness. However, the podcasts did not include images and the additional text presented to the intervention group nor did they include the keyword mnemonic strategies presented to students in the intervention group.
Support for implementation
The study states that the support is provided by the teachers and school district. The study does not describe any additional support for implementation.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).