research in teaching vocabulary

• DOI: 10.1017/S0267190504000078
• Corpus ID: 61492519

7. RESEARCH IN TEACHING VOCABULARY

• Published in Annual Review of Applied… 1 March 2004
• Linguistics, Education

188 Citations

The importance of vocabulary in language learning and how to be taught, exploring strategies for vocabulary learning and teaching for esl learners–a literature review, effect of multimedia principle on vocabulary learning among second language learners, review article: instructed second language vocabulary learning, analysis of the impediments to english vocabulary learning and teaching, an evaluation of vocabulary teaching in an intensive study programme, second language vocabulary testing : taking a broader perspective.

• Highly Influenced

Linking Research and Practice: Effective Strategies for Teaching Vocabulary in the ESL Classroom.

Vocabulary notebooks : attitudes and acquisition in an adult context, validating the construct of word in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: a critical survey, 58 references, academic listening: a source of vocabulary acquisition, what lexical information do l2 learners select in a call dictionary and how does it affect word retention, modeling the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in second language incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading.

• Highly Influential

A New Academic Word List

Providing controlled exposure to target vocabulary through the screening and arranging of texts, incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task-induced involvement, derivative word forms: what do learners know, computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition, effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition, impact of reading purpose on incidental word learning from context, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
• > Volume 24
• > 7. RESEARCH IN TEACHING VOCABULARY

Article contents

7. research in teaching vocabulary.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2004

This review surveys research on second language vocabulary teaching and learning since 1999. It first considers the distinction between incidental and intentional vocabulary learning. Although learners certainly acquire word knowledge incidentally while engaged in various language learning activities, more direct and systematic study of vocabulary is also required. There is a discussion of how word frequency counts and information on word meaning from computer corpora can inform the selection of words to be studied, with a particular focus on spoken vocabulary. This leads to a consideration of learner dictionaries and some research evidence on how effectively students can use them to understand the meanings of words. Then classroom research on teaching vocabulary is discussed. Another significant topic is the design of computer-based language learning programs to enhance opportunities for learners to expand their vocabulary knowledge. Finally, a summary of recent work on vocabulary testing is presented.

Access options

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000078

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Current Perspectives on Vocabulary Teaching and Learning

Cite this chapter.

• Norbert Schmitt 3  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 15))

26k Accesses

23 Citations

This chapter reviews key vocabulary research and draws a number of teaching and learning implications from that research. Lexical areas addressed include the amount of vocabulary required to use English, what it means to know and learn a word, the incremental nature of vocabulary acquisition, the role of memory in vocabulary learning, incidental and intentional vocabulary learning, techniques for effective vocabulary teaching, and the role of learning strategies in vocabulary acquisition. The insights and techniques discussed in this chapter can help teachers develop more principled, and hopefully more effective, vocabulary programs for their students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Teaching and Learning Vocabulary

Adolphs, S., & Schmitt, N. 2003. Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. Applied Linguistics , 24 (4), 425–438.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. Meara (Ed.), Beyond words (pp. 3–14). London: CILT.

Google Scholar  

Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System , 21 (1), 101–114.

Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives (2 nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds.). (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning . New York: Newbury House.

Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 3 (2), 221–236.

Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning 41 (3), 375–411.

Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics , 11 (4), 341–363.

Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J.H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics , 17 (2), 145–163.

Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 2 , 170–175.

Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 203–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (1998). Current research and practice in teaching vocabulary. The Language Teacher , 22 (1). Available online at http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/98/jan/hunt.html.

Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English . Harlow: Longman.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach . Hove: LTP.

Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach . Hove: LTP.

McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly , 20 , 522–535.

Milton, J., & Meara, P. (1995). How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign language. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics , 107–108, 17–34.

Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 40–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions in English: A corpus-based approach . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first-and second-language vocabulary learning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 64–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P. (1995). The word on words: An interview with Paul Nation. [Interviewed by Norbert Schmitt.] The Language Teacher 19 (2), 5–7.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary . Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Nation, P. (Ed.). (1994). New ways in teaching vocabulary . Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P., & Meara, P. (2002). Vocabulary. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 35–54). London: Arnold.

Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Newton, J. (2001). Options for vocabulary learning through communication tasks. English Language Teaching Journal , 55 (1), 30–37.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.

Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal , 51 (2), 73–75.

Redman, S. & Ellis, R. A way with words . (Series 1989-). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Russell, P. (1979). The brain book . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners’ approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages. Modern Language Journal , 79 , 15–28.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 199–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning , 48 (2), 281–317.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions. English Language Teaching Journal , 49 (2), 133–143.

Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly .

Schonell, F., Meddleton, I., Shaw, B., Routh, M., Popham, D., Gill, G., Mackrell, G., & Stephens, C. (1956). A study of the oral vocabulary of adults . Brisbane and London: University of Queensland Press/University of London Press.

Sökmen, A. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 237–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tinkham, T. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System , 21 (3), 371–380.

Waring, R. (1997). The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: A replication. System 25 (2), 261–274.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary . (1961). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc.

West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words . London: Longman, Green & Co.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The University of Nottingham, UK

Norbert Schmitt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada

Jim Cummins

The University of Hong Kong, China

Chris Davison

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

About this chapter

Schmitt, N. (2007). Current Perspectives on Vocabulary Teaching and Learning. In: Cummins, J., Davison, C. (eds) International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_55

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_55

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-46300-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-46301-8

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch

Effective Vocabulary Instruction Fosters Knowing Words, Using Words, and Understanding How Words Work

Margaret g. mckeown.

a Department of Instruction and Learning, University of Pittsburgh, PA, Emerita

This clinical focus article will highlight the importance of vocabulary instruction, in particular, thinking about instruction in terms of focusing students' attention on words and their uses. Vocabulary knowledge that supports literacy and academic learning is extensive and multidimensional. Many learners accumulate high-quality vocabulary knowledge independently, through wide reading and rich language environments that provide abundant practice with words and language forms. However, instruction in vocabulary provides a more efficient way of getting that job done, especially for learners who are less likely to be experiencing rich language interactions, for example, because they struggle with reading and do little of it on their own.

Three aspects of vocabulary instruction, choosing words to teach, the inclusion of morphological information, and the importance of engaging students in interactions around words, will be explored. Considerations in choosing words include their role in the language and their utility to students. Morphology will be discussed in terms of using Latin roots in instruction as a resource for unlocking new word meanings and a framework for understanding language.

Effective instruction means bringing students' attention to words in ways that promote not just knowing word meanings but also understanding how words work and how to utilize word knowledge effectively.

How many words do you know? You deal with an abundance of words every day, comfortably and fluently. You are breezing along in this text right now with hardly a thought to what you know about each word. However, you have no idea, no way of knowing, just how many words you know. So many words are available to us to process with ease, yet an accounting of those words is beyond our reach. This illustrates why it is hard to get a handle on the role and importance of vocabulary learning. Just as the extent and depth of one's knowledge remains elusive, it is hard to understand the extent and depth of knowledge that needs to be acquired by students for them to experience literacy and academic success. Learning—and teaching—vocabulary is a bit of a stealthy process.

The most obvious aspect of a word's meaning is its definition. However, knowing a definition is by no means the essence of word knowledge. A rich variety of information is needed about each word in order to support high-quality literacy and academic learning. Useful theoretical perspectives on word knowledge have been offered by many scholars (e.g., McKeown, Deane, Scott, Krovetz, & Lawless, 2017 ; Nagy & Scott, 2000 ; Perfetti, 2007 ). The emphases in their perspectives differ, but three key characteristics are clear in all three:

• There are many aspects to know about a word, including features of its meaning, situations in which it is used, associations with other words, and how it behaves syntactically in context.
• Words are polysemous; their meanings are not static but shift according to context. These shifts may be large or subtle; for example, accommodate can mean physically providing room for someone and providing for someone's need or request, or it can take a more metaphorical sense of being able to understand a new idea that may challenge your perspective.
• Word knowledge is incremental, gradually developing over multiple encounters.

Given the complex nature of word knowledge, learners need to develop knowledge that allows them to access meaning rapidly when reading and to use that meaning to make sense of the various contexts in which a word might be encountered. Rapid access to word meanings that are relevant to a given context is necessary to keep comprehension from slowing down and eventually breaking down. Making sense of the range of contexts in which any word might appear requires flexible knowledge that can adapt to different uses of words.

Many learners accumulate high-quality vocabulary knowledge independently, mainly through extensive reading and rich language environments that provide abundant practice with words and language forms. However, instruction in vocabulary provides a more efficient way of getting that job done. A more efficient route to vocabulary knowledge is especially critical for learners who are less likely to be experiencing rich language interactions, for example, because they struggle with reading and do little of it on their own. Lack of adequate vocabulary knowledge can too easily cause these students to be left behind in developing literacy, and many of them will never catch up. The consequence is that a great deal of individual and societal potential goes unrealized.

However, all students can benefit from high-quality vocabulary instruction. Even students who have a large vocabulary repertoire can enrich their knowledge in ways that make it more accessible and productive. For example, it is well accepted that words can be known to different levels of knowledge. As Carey (1978) pointed out in her seminal research on fast and extended mapping of word knowledge, every learner is working on as many as 1,600 word meanings that are in various stages of being known. It seems reasonable that instructional interactions around language can have benefits for a range of learners, even though the words being learned and the pace at which learning accumulates vary for different learners. Instruction may be initiating knowledge for some learners, whereas it may be reinforcing, clarifying, and extending knowledge for others.

As educators take on the responsibility of teaching vocabulary, issues of how to proceed center on which words to teach and the nature of the instruction. This clinical focus article first focuses on selecting which words to teach, based on their utility and role in the language. The focus then turns to an aspect of language that is both a feature of words and a potential aspect of instruction, morphology, which is the structure of words and word parts. The third focus of the clinical focus article is the nature of vocabulary instruction itself, in particular, features that make instruction most effective.

Which Words to Teach?

A starting point in considering which words merit instructional attention is the nature of the English language. Language is a dynamic human creation and, thus, inherently a bit of a mess.

Ancestry of English

English, even more than most other languages, is a mishmash, because of historical influences on how the language developed into the English we know today. English began as a Germanic language, Anglo-Saxon or Old English. However, this early language mingled with other languages, with the biggest influence being Latin. Latin influenced English over centuries, either directly or through other Romance languages, especially French. The greatest influence began with the Norman conquest of 1066, which brought French, as spoken by the upper classes, and Latin as the language of books and official documents. In fact, English mingled with Latinate vocabulary to such an extent that modern English seems as much a Romance language as a Germanic language, as far as its word-stock ( Baugh & Cable, 1978 ).

The Germanic versus Latinate divide is significant in how our language is used. The Germanic segment of our word-stock mainly consists of simple, concrete words that typify oral, conversational language. The Latinate portion includes more abstract words that characterize more academic language as found in texts. Of course, the common, high-frequency words are found in text as well. In fact, they make up the majority of words found there. However, the portion of words that particularly characterize text is key to comprehending text. Those words carry the semantic burden in written language.

Consider, for example, the text segment below from the New York Times ( Casey & Escobar, 2018 ). In this 49-word segment, the majority—about 38—of the words are high frequency. Yet, without the lower frequency, italicized, and bolded words, it would be difficult to make sense of this passage. The italicized words are considered academic words; the bolded words are more common, but are used here in a metaphorical sense:

“The peace accords …were meant to bring an end to five decades of fighting that left at least 220,000 dead. Behind the agreement, though, loomed a fear: That many of the thousands of fighters granted amnesty might sour on civilian life and pick up arms again.” (NY Times, Sept 19, 2018; front page)

The divide between conversational and written aspects of English has been labeled the lexical bar ( Corson, 1985 , 1995 ). Corson emphasizes the need for learners to cross this lexical bar or move from using everyday language to mastering text language. This move can be difficult but is crucial to academic success. Crossing the lexical bar requires understanding and using sophisticated, literate vocabulary.

The divide between everyday words and the language of text was the starting point for the notion of word tiers ( Beck & McKeown, 1985 ; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002 , 2013 ). The concept originated when colleagues challenged our recommendations for direct vocabulary instruction, saying that there were too many words in the language to teach them all. We countered, saying that there was no need to teach all the words. We conceptualized a three-tier heuristic by considering that different words have different utility and roles in the language. Tier 1 words characterize everyday oral language, and children learn these readily when hearing them in context. Tier 3 includes words that tend to be limited to specific domains (e.g., chromosome) or extremely rare ( abecedarian ) and are best learned within their domains.

Tier 2 comprises words that are characteristic of written language (e.g., coherent, diminish, or eloquent) and not so common in conversation ( Hayes & Ahrens, 1988 ). These are words of high utility for literate language users. Tier 2 words overlap to a great extent with general academic words, that is, words that are common across various domains of academic texts. Good databases of academic words include Coxhead's (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies' (2013 ) more recent Academic Vocabulary List. Each of these lists is based on a large corpus of words from sources such as academic journals and university textbooks across broad academic areas. A difference between academic words and Tier 2 words is that Tier 2 includes words from fiction, whereas academic words are drawn from nonfiction, disciplinary texts. Thus, Tier 2 includes words that typically apply to characters and emotions, such as sinister, mutter, and obsessed . We think these kinds of words are good candidates for instruction, for several reasons. They can help students read and enjoy fiction, they provide students with interesting words to use in describing people and human interactions in writing, and they are rather delicious and fun! Students enjoy, for example, imagining what sinister characters might do or demonstrating muttering versus murmuring.

Children typically have a rather small repertoire of Tier 2 words when they enter school but increase Tier 2 knowledge as they become readers. Tier 2 words are more difficult to learn than Tier 1 words, partly because they are less frequent in the language as a whole—thus the frequent repetition that aided learning Tier 1 words is gone—but also because written context in which Tier 2 words typically appear provides less information about a word's meaning than the immediate oral contexts in which Tier 1 words are found. Think of it this way: When children hear words spoken every day, they have the physical surroundings, gesture, intonation, and familiarity of their everyday life to support figuring out word meaning. However, when they read, or are read to, they have only other words to glean information from.

An important caveat about word tiers is that it is an imprecise concept. It was meant as a heuristic to help bound the selection of words to teach and also to draw attention to properties of words and their roles in the language that make some words more useful to know. Classrooms are typically inundated with words from the various curricular materials that teachers and students deal with. The tiers concept can support teachers in selecting from among that sea of words those words that are most beneficial to attend to and keep around. Tier 2 words are beneficial to learn because they are found in a variety of texts and can thus provide access to a range of contexts.

Yet, the fact that Tier 2 words can apply to varied contexts also means that these words have multiple related senses or nuances—they are polysemous. Negotiating these shades of meaning can be tricky for learners. A typical sticking point in learning vocabulary is that, when we learn a word, we initially learn a particular sense and then we tend to use that sense to understand subsequent contexts we meet. Thus, if we learn the word foundation as an organization that provides funding and then meet a context about people building a “foundation of friendship,” we might think it means an organization that provides funding for friendships.

Rampant polysemy is, then, another reason for giving students supported practice with using these kinds of words. By providing varied contexts and supportive interactions around them, students become able, for example, to understand that a student with academic potential is one who has the ability to be a good student and a merchant's potential customer is someone who might buy from them. Probing two such contexts also helps students to see that at the core of potential is a meaning of “possibility of becoming something in the future.” Word knowledge needs to become decontextualized—generalized beyond specific contexts—to provide the kind of flexibility learners will need as they meet words in new contexts.

As the above discussion of polysemy suggests, it is important to give attention to different senses or nuances of word meaning in instruction. However, it is not necessary to try to include every sense that a word might have—that could get way too confusing! Part of the reason for focusing on different senses is to help students build a general understanding that words can shift their meaning in different contexts and to understand the limits of that. The way my colleagues and I have handled polysemous senses is to provide a definition that describes the core concept of a word, which is broad enough to cover various senses. We employed these kinds of definitions in the middle school vocabulary program we developed called RAVE (Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters; McKeown, Crosson, Beck, Sandora, & Artz, 2012 ). For example, the definition of approach applied to getting physically closer to something and a way to deal with or solve an issue: “If you approach something, you get closer to it in order to reach it or to deal with it.” Then, we presented contexts that used the word in both ways and asked students to explain what the context meant. So, for example, for a context such as “Our group had to come up with a new approach for our science project,” the teacher would guide students to understand that the group was trying to figure out a new way to create a science project.

It is important not to confuse polysemy, multiple senses or nuances of related meaning, with words that have multiple unrelated meanings. The latter are actually homographs, words that are spelled the same but with no similarity in meaning. Examples would be fast as in speed and fast as in to forego food. There is no reason to make a habit of introducing homographs of instructed words. That is likely to breed confusion. The only circumstances for introducing a homograph would be to avoid confusion with an already known word. So, for example, if fast , meaning to forego food, is being taught, mention that students probably already know fast as meaning a high rate of speed but that this is another word that sounds and looks the same and has a different meaning.

Consideration of Tier 2 words can provide a focus and a mindset, but it still may not make it easy to find and select precisely which words to teach. It can seem that there are, at once, too many words to choose from and not enough “really good words” to share with students. Which are the right ones? First of all, there is no definitive list of words that students must know. The best guide is to choose from texts students are reading in the classroom, which already come with attached contexts to launch from. Thinking about how to choose among words that appear in texts and curricular materials can be spurred by inspecting lists such as the AWL and the Academic Vocabulary List. Other resources for lists of words include Stahl and Nagy (2006) and Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2008) , which present sets of lists for particular texts and websites that offer word lists for particular content areas, texts, and grade levels (see, e.g., https://www.vocabulary.com and https://www.spellingcity.com ). However, all of these lists should be used along with one's own prudent judgment, which should include considerations of the word's general utility and, specifically, if it seems useful to one's particular students—can you imagine your students finding a way to use the words?

A special case of selecting words can occur when students are reading at levels below their thinking or language comprehension levels. This can occur with both younger and struggling readers. Materials for these students may not offer abundant useful words to teach as far as vocabulary development. A strategy we have used is to select “words about” the text. For example, a simple story may tell the tale of a boy and his dog. You could introduce the word companion . Or a story might portray a child's excitement about an upcoming birthday. You could introduce anticipate or eager. The best overall strategy for selecting words is to tune your attention to be on the lookout for good words in texts or in experiences that students will interact with. Go for words that are important to a text and frequent enough in the language that learning them is worthwhile.

As far as appropriateness for students of different ages and reading levels, when focusing on increasing students' knowledge of word meanings, Tier 2 words are appropriate for every level. For example, here are some words we have taught—and students have learned and used—in kindergarten: extraordinary, commotion, inseparable, cautious, reluctant, delicate, stingy, and remarkable. Note that these words, although considered Tier 2, are not highly polysemous and not as abstract as many on the AWL. The point is to prepare students for language they will be meeting as they go up the grade levels and encounter increasingly academic language. Even if students are not mastering all words that are introduced, the initial experiences are valuable for this preparation.

Why Include Morphology?

One aspect of vocabulary instruction universally understood in the field is that not only would it be an impossible task to teach every word but it would also be impossible to teach even a majority of agreed-upon, important-to-know words. One way to leverage instruction is to attend to general patterns of language, with morphology being the most prominent among those.

What Are Morphemes?

Morphology is the study of morphemes, the smallest units of language that have identifiable meaning or function. Types of morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and roots. So, for example, unthinkable has three morphemes: un, think, and able . Think is the freestanding root; that is, it can stand on its own as a word. However, our language also contains bound roots, which are word parts that have meaning across words but cannot stand by themselves, such as nov in novel and renovate or voc in vocabulary and advocate . These bound roots are mostly from our Latin heritage, although there are some Greek roots as well.

There are several ways to categorize morphemes:

• Bound or free: Free are basically single-morpheme words, whereas bound morphemes are either affixes or Latin roots.
• Inflectional or derivational: Inflectional morphemes are suffixes added to a word to change number or tense, for example, the – s in dogs or – ing in many verbs. Derivational morphemes are prefixes or suffixes that change the meaning of a word, such as prefixes un – and re– or suffixes –tion and – able .
• Content or function: Content morphemes are morphemes that carry semantic meaning. These include words that are nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, as well as derivational morphemes and bound (Latin or Greek) roots. Function (also called grammatical ) morphemes are words or suffixes that serve a functional role, such as prepositions, pronouns, or inflectional morphemes.

What Does Research Say About Including Morphology in Vocabulary Study?

A strong and growing body of research shows that knowledge of morphology contributes to reading comprehension ( Anglin, 1993 ; Carlisle, 1995 , 2000 ; Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, & Vermeulen, 2003 ). However, evidence that instruction in morphology leads to enhanced comprehension is less clear. Results of morphological instruction show that students often learned the meanings for the word parts they were taught but rarely generalized that to the learning of new words ( Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon, 2010 ; Curtis, 2006 ). However, recent meta-analyses by Goodwin and Ahn (2013) and Bowers et al. (2010) provided evidence of enhanced spelling and vocabulary learning across 21 morphological interventions and some, albeit small, transfer to new words and to reading comprehension. Virtually, all research on morphology has focused on derivational morphology (prefixes and suffixes). In some instances, Latin roots were occasionally included in instruction, but their effects were not analyzed separately.

Understanding of Latin roots can provide students with some generative knowledge of language that they can use to unlock meanings of unfamiliar words and a way to give students some understanding of how English got to be the way it is. Providing information about English and its Latin layer can “take the lid off language” to help students see its inner workings. Teaching students about the patterns that words follow makes students aware of the connections within language, such as that duplicate and duplicity have double at the core of their meaning. Understanding patterns of language would seem to help students deal with language and its oddities and feel more in control of their language.

My colleagues and I first added a component of Latin root instruction when we developed our middle school RAVE program ( McKeown et al., 2012 ). We called that component Becoming Aware of Language and introduced it by presenting two key concepts about language: that languages are constantly changing and that all languages adopt words from other languages—with English adding a lot of vocabulary from Latin. The RAVE program then introduced several Latin roots in each weekly cycle of instruction. We selected roots that came from the target words and then introduced several more words with the same root. For example, manipulate was one of the target words, and in the Becoming Aware of Language lesson, we introduced the root man, meaning hand, and root-related words manicure, manager, and emancipate (a good resource for identifying roots of words is an online etymological dictionary found at etymonline.com ).

A potential downside of teaching Latin roots is that roots lack consistency phonologically and orthographically. For example, the root sed, meaning to sit, can also be spelled sid —as in preside . Additionally, the meaning of a Latin root within a word is not always transparent. Consider a set of words that contain the root voc, meaning speak or call. That semantic component is easy to understand in the words vocabulary, vocal, vociferous, and even advocate, meaning to speak for someone. However, that same root also occurs in vocation, which has a more metaphorical relation to the root: A vocation is a calling to some endeavor or profession.

Because roots may demonstrate lack of consistent form or lack of transparent meaning, one principle built into our instruction was flexibility: teaching students to be alert to variations and ready to adapt their thinking about the meaning of a new word they meet. We provided practice in this concept by having activities that asked students to problem-solve by working out meanings of words given contexts that contained an unfamiliar root-related word. For example, we presented a picture of a group of people painting a room, with the caption “These friends are renovating an old house.” Students had already learned that nov meant new and then used the visual and semantic context to figure out that the friends were working to make the house new again.

Despite potential downsides of teaching Latin roots, our view is that knowing about roots, and having some knowledge of specific roots and the words in which they appear, is a resource that students can draw on when encountering a new word in context. This knowledge provides a little extra boost to using context alone to puzzle out new word meaning. Even though learners learn most of the words they know from context, it is notoriously unreliable, as writers write to express ideas, not to teach words. Context may hold strong clues to a word's meaning, or little or no clue, and may even misdirect readers as to word meaning (see, e.g., Beck, McKeown, & McCaslin, 1983 ).

In our RAVE work, we did find evidence that students could use their knowledge of roots to unlock the meaning of unfamiliar words ( Crosson & McKeown, 2016 ). For this study, RAVE and control students were given a task that asked them to provide the meaning of root-related words in context. For example, RAVE taught the word diminish and the root min, and in the study task, we presented the sentence “Most of their conversations were about the minutiae of daily life” and asked “What is this saying about their conversations?” We found that RAVE students were significantly more able to provide an accurate interpretation of the word and context, saying, for example, that the conversations were about small details of life.

In a subsequent project, a vocabulary program designed specifically for English learners focused even more strongly on Latin roots. That program is discussed in another article in this forum ( Crosson, McKeown, Robbins, & Brown, 2019 ).

Full instruction in lexical morphology is likely not appropriate for students younger than upper elementary. However, teachers or clinicians can certainly take advantage of opportunities when working with young students. For example, if the words vocabulary and vocal have been encountered, you might mention that they both have voc in them, which means speak, and ask how that relates to each word. No need to go into language history or Latin, but just plant the seed about language having meaningful parts.

Keys to Effective Instruction

Effective instruction means bringing students' attention to words in ways that promote not just knowing word meanings but also understanding how words work and how to utilize word knowledge effectively in higher level tasks, such as reading comprehension. Research on vocabulary development, vocabulary instruction, and its relationship to comprehension has a long and rich history (see Baumann, 2009 ). Over several decades of investigation, a strong consensus has formed about features of effective vocabulary instruction, which can be summarized as follows: present both definitional and contextual information, provide encounters with words in multiple contexts, and engage students' active processing of word meanings. This research has included reviews of multiple studies and individual intervention studies that compare more traditional instruction to instruction that included broad information about words and activities to engage students with using words. Table 1 presents some of the key research milestones that were instrumental in leading to that consensus. More recent intervention research has confirmed that consensus in studies that focus on students as young as kindergarten ( Coyne, McCoach, Loftus, Zipoli, & Kapp, 2009 ; Coyne et al., 2010 ; McKeown & Beck, 2014 ; Silverman, 2007 ) and even preschool ( Wasik & Bond, 2001 ) and on English learners ( Carlo et al., 2004 ; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012 ). Additionally, a recent meta-analysis confirmed that explicit instruction and depth of processing yield the strongest effects for children at risk ( Marulis & Neuman, 2013 ).

Research milestones in establishing consensus on vocabulary instruction.

To reiterate, these principles of effective instruction have been found to apply for teaching word meanings for all students—students of all levels, pre-K through high school; learners learning English as an additional language; and learners with learning disabilities. Note, however, that teaching word meanings differs from teaching students to read. Reading requires a different kind of instruction and practice. Although it is a good practice to at least familiarize students with the orthographic representations of words being taught for meaning, the emphasis and goals are different.

The need for instruction that focuses on definitional and contextual information, encounters in multiple contexts, and active processing stems from the nature of word meaning itself. Because word meaning is, as discussed earlier, multifaceted, polysemous, and flexible, it should be clear, first, that a definition of a word will not suffice for effective learning. A definition can only capture limited information, and although definitions can be a good starting point, or good shorthand for remembering a word's meaning, knowing definitions will not support comprehension ( McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985 ; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986 ).

The multifaceted, polysemous nature of word knowledge also means that vocabulary learning is incremental. It is virtually impossible to learn everything you need to know about a word from just one encounter. Experiencing words in multiple contexts leads learners to build rich networks of connections to a word and across similar words. A word's meaning becomes generalized across encounters, losing its connection to specific contexts, which allows it to be applied flexibly to new contexts. Flexible knowledge enables learners to bring the most relevant aspects of a word's meaning to bear in making sense of subsequent contexts in which the word is met ( Reichle & Perfetti, 2003 ).

However, simply encountering words in multiple contexts does not maximize learning. A learner needs to engage in active processing of the information in those encounters in order to reap top benefits. Active processing means interacting with words—manipulating ideas around words in order to extend and deepen knowledge of the word, its uses, and its connections to other words and situations. This is requisite for building the kind of rich and flexible knowledge that will support students in comprehending and using language.

The focus of this section is what effective interactions that engage students' active processing look like. The core of such interactions is really pretty simple—prompt students to do something with the words that encompasses thinking about features of a word's meaning and how the word can be used. The activities presented are generally examples of activities that teachers have used with whole classrooms, but they could easily be used or slightly adapted to be used in a clinical setting, such as by a speech-language pathologist and an individual student. The activities are appropriate for all levels as well. The same activity formats can be used with kindergartners or high schoolers; the words themselves and the responses of the students drive the maturity level of the discussions. The examples used here are from first grade, second grade, and middle school.

The following examples illustrate interactions that are intended to prompt student thinking about different aspects and features of word meaning. Experiencing this variety helps students build a flexible, reflective approach to words and their uses. This first activity helps students think about how different words can relate to the same contexts and to choose the word they would apply. The teacher would then follow up by asking the student to explain how their choice fits:

• Try out a flying machine
• Taste a new food made of seaweed
• Taste a new kind of chocolate
• Enter a singing contest

Interactions that ask students to make choices can prompt them to reflect on a word's features, for example, the extent of change that refine entails.

• Making some small changes to your science project or starting all over with a new one?
• Getting your hair trimmed or having your head shaved?

It is important to include interactions that prompt students to think about different senses of a word, such as the different senses of expose in the following:

• How could middle school students be exposed to what it will be like in high school?
• How could you expose someone who was mistreating his dog?

Interactions can and should be quick and fun! We have seen teachers turn up the fun quotient in various ways. One example is the way they ask students to indicate their response. A teacher we worked with told her first-grade students, “If you think I'm talking about something that is mighty, show me your muscles,” and then provided examples such as “a strong woman lifting up a tiger” and “a big river that floods nearby homes.”

Interactions should include providing feedback to students, for example, asking “why” when a student responds to the eager/reluctant prompts. Feedback helps to build and reinforce connections to a word in the student's mental lexicon.

Asking students to provide their own examples of a word is an interaction strategy that is easily implemented and potentially effective. For example, simply ask “What is something in your life that you would like to refine?” or “What is something you are always eager to do?” Asking students to create their own examples, however, should not be one of the first activities students are asked to do with a newly introduced word. Students often have difficulty coming up with their own ideas initially and often repeat the context in which a word has been introduced. So calling on students' creative use of words is best employed after students have been exposed to a number of uses and had time to reflect on how it might apply to them.

Feedback is especially important for interactions that prompt student-created examples, to monitor understanding and keep responses on the right track or redirect if necessary. A good way to build an effective habit of feedback is to think about the rule of thumb of improv comedy—“Yes, and…,” which involves acknowledging what someone has said and then expanding on it. In an improv troupe, this keeps the comedy rolling; in vocabulary instruction, it keeps the connections building. Note the “yes, and”-ing in the following exchange:

Teacher: What is something you'd want if you were famished? Student: Pizza. Teacher: Mm, pizza! And what would you do with that pizza if you were famished? Student: Gobble it all right up! Teacher: Oh, boy, yeah, because if you're famished, do you want just one piece of pizza?

Note in this next example that the teacher's “and” allows her to prompt students to generalize about entailments of the target word delicate .

Teacher: What are some things that are delicate ? … Student 1: A glass vase. Student 2: A brand new baby. Teacher: What is it about delicate things, like vases and babies? How do we have to act around them? Student 3: Be really, really careful….

Although the above examples of “yes, and” are from a classroom discussion, that technique is strongly applicable to clinical interactions between one child and a clinician. A clinician is in a good position to tailor feedback to a student's individual needs and interests.

Because vocabulary learning requires multiple exposures and because time with students is a precious resource, we need to seek ways to leverage attention to words, or figure out how to get more bang for the buck! Having a clinician coordinate with a student's classroom teacher could offer an ideal opportunity to leverage attention to vocabulary. A clinician can ask the classroom teacher for words that the class is focusing on or words that a particular student needs help with. The clinician is in a good position, then, to apply playful techniques, such as the activities exemplified above; to provide practice in vocabulary; and to build enjoyment with language. The clinician is also in a good position to provide extension and enrichment, for example, by introducing other words that associate with the classroom vocabulary. Because the activities suggested set a conversational, spontaneous tone, they might allow the clinician to identify gaps in a student's vocabulary repertoire and both directly help with those and inform the teacher about words that seem unfamiliar to a student or difficult for a student to use.

Another way for clinicians to enhance vocabulary attention is through their own word use. This can start with awareness of their own language use, deliberately using sophisticated words—both those that are being taught and others that are appropriate to situations—in interactions with students. Challenge students to “catch” you using target words and then turn it around—challenge students to use target words during lessons and provide some sort of points or simple rewards when they do.

Another important leverage point in vocabulary instruction is prompting students to use and be aware of words outside formal instruction. Such prompting can start with informal coordination among school professionals—classroom teacher, clinician, and beyond. This might begin with posting a list of target words on the classroom door and privately encouraging other adults to use the words when they visit or when students work with them. A next level of increased attention could include a vocabulary bulletin board, posting interesting uses of target words, both those found in written materials and those that students have generated.

Going beyond instructional sites for vocabulary should also include going beyond school, motivating students to take their vocabulary awareness home with them. Clinicians can easily take a lead role in this and then prompt the classroom teacher to join in. Challenge students to find target words in books they are reading, in menus, music, and video games, and to use the words with their families. My colleagues and I have promoted these kinds of activities in two studies and found that students respond with enthusiasm! However, best of all, we found that it affects the outcomes. In a fourth-grade study, when students were offered the opportunity to find words outside class through an activity we called Word Wizard , we found increased comprehension effects over instruction that did not include the Wizard component ( McKeown et al., 1985 ).

In a study with sixth graders, we invited them to engage through In the Media , an activity that challenged them to find their words in any media outside school. We received great response, including students finding words in sports broadcasts— dynamic players—and in Sunday school verses! In that study, we found that students who engaged with In the Media had greater learning gains on a vocabulary posttest ( McKeown, Crosson, Artz, Sandora, & Beck, 2013 ). Although our direct experiences have involved fourth grade and middle school students, we have worked with teachers who have had success with such activities with students from kindergarten through high school.

If students do not respond at first to the idea of finding words, that activity can be seeded with some specific directions to spur students on. For example, ask them to notice in something they read, hear, or see, such as

• someone who does something voluntary
• someone who needs to adapt to a new situation
• someone who had to consult with another person.

Or you might ask them to choose one of their vocabulary words to describe

• a character in a book they are reading
• someone on the news or in the newspaper
• someone in a commercial
• an actor in a video or movie.

As a final point, it is necessary to include a caveat to clinicians: You may be disappointed to find that teachers you work with devote little, if any, time to vocabulary. Even if they do, the words they work with may not be the best choices for generative vocabulary building, but words with specific and narrow use in curricular materials. If that situation is in play, you are on your own—so I implore you to take up the mantle of vocabulary progenitor! This can flow from a cultivated interest and attention to words and word use. Choose words that appear in student materials or that emerge from current school or community events, for example. Use newspapers, websites, word lists such as the AWL ( Coxhead, 2000 ), or words you bump into in your own reading to create a set of words to use with students. Included in the Appendix are the words we taught in RAVE, all of which are taken from the AWL.

Wrapping Up

Always keep in mind that language is a strange, fascinating, vibrant human creation. Exploring its puzzlements and figuring out its patterns should be endlessly intriguing. Sparking that kind of attitude in students takes them a long way toward being successful, confident language users. Clinicians and teachers can propel students along that way by choosing useful, interesting words, helping students get an initial understanding of them through multiple exposures and lively interactions, and clinicians and teachers, as well as other school personnel in contact with students, can encourage students to notice and revel in words in their environment. The essence of all these activities that keep attention focused on vocabulary is to generate excitement around words and students' uses of them.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the Institute for Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education for its support to some of the research described in this clinical focus article: Robust Instruction of Academic Vocabulary for Middle School Students, Award R305A100440 granted to Margaret G. McKeown and Isabel L. Beck from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the institute, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Words Taught in Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters Program

Funding Statement

The author gratefully acknowledges the Institute for Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education for its support to some of the research described in this clinical focus article: Robust Instruction of Academic Vocabulary for Middle School Students, Award R305A100440 granted to Margaret G. McKeown and Isabel L. Beck from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

• Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis . Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development , 58 , i–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baugh, A. C. , & Cable, T. (1978). A history of the English language (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumann, J. F. (2009). Vocabulary and comprehension: The nexus of meaning . In Israel S. E. & Duffy G. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 323–346). New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck, I. L. , & McKeown, M. G. (1985). Teaching vocabulary: Making the instruction fit the goal . Educational Perspectives , 23 ( 1 ), 11–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck, I. L. , McKeown, M. G. , & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction . New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck, I. L. , McKeown, M. G. , & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently asked questions and extended examples . New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck, I. L. , McKeown, M. G. , & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck, I. L. , McKeown, M. G. , & McCaslin, E. S. (1983). Vocabulary development: All contexts are not created equal . The Elementary School Journal , 83 , 177–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos, C. S. , & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students . Learning Disability Quarterly , 13 ( 1 ), 31–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bos, C. S. , & Anders, P. L. (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students with learning disabilities . International Journal of Disability, Development and Education , 39 ( 3 ), 225–238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowers, P. N. , Kirby, J. R. , & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature . Review of Educational Research , 80 ( 2 ), 144–179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey, S. (1978). The child as word learner . In Halle M., Bresnan J., & Miller G. (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 264–293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement . In Feldman L. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 12 , 169–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlo, M. S. , August, D. , McLaughlin, B. , Snow, C. E. , Dressler, C. , Lippman, D. N. , … White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms . Reading Research Quarterly , 39 , 188–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey, N. , & Escobar, R. (2018, September 19). Colombia struck a peace deal with guerrillas, but many return to arms . New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
• Corson, D. J. (1985). The lexical bar . Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corson, D. J. (1995). Using English words . Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list . TESOL Quarterly , 34 ( 2 ), 213–238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coyne, D. M. , McCoach, D. B. , Loftus, S. , Zipoli, R., Jr. , & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth . The Elementary School Journal , 110 ( 1 ), 1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coyne, M. D. , McCoach, D. B. , Loftus, S. , Zipoli, R. , Ruby, M. , Crevecoeur, Y. , … Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 3 ( 2 ), 93–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosson, A. C. , & McKeown, M. G. (2016). Middle school learners' use of Latin roots to infer the meaning of unfamiliar words . Cognition and Instruction , 34 ( 2 ), 1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosson, A. C. , McKeown, M. G. , Robbins, K. P. , & Brown, K. J. (2019). Key elements of robust vocabulary instruction for emergent bilingual adolescents . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 50 , 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0127 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis, M. E. (2006). The role of vocabulary instruction in adult basic education . In Comings J., Garner B., & Smith C. (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy (Vol. 6 , pp. 43–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dole, J. A. , Sloan, C. , & Trathen, W. (1995). Teaching vocabulary within the context of literature . Journal of Reading , 38 ( 6 ), 452–460. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner, D. , & Davies, M. (2013). A new academic vocabulary list . Applied Linguistics , 35 ( 3 ), 305–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin, A. P. , & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children . Scientific Studies of Reading , 17 ( 4 ), 257–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graves, M. F. , & Prenn, M. C. (1986). Costs and benefits of various methods of teaching vocabulary . Journal of Reading , 29 ( 7 ), 596–602. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes, D. P. , & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabulary simplification for children: A special case of “motherese.” Journal of Child Language , 15 , 395–410. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieffer, M. J. , & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Effects of academic language on relational and syntactic aspects of morphological awareness for sixth graders from linguistically diverse backgrounds . Elementary School Journal , 112 ( 3 ), 519–545. [ Google Scholar ]
• Margosein, C. M. , Pascarella, E. T. , & Pflaum, S. W. (1982). The effects of instruction using semantic mapping on vocabulary and comprehension . Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marulis, L. M. , & Neuman, S. B. (2013). How vocabulary interventions affect young children at risk: A meta-analytic review . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 6 , 223–262. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension . Review of Educational Research , 53 ( 2 ), 253–279. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKeown, M. G. , & Beck, I. L. (2014). Effects of vocabulary instruction on measures of language processing: Comparing two approaches . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 29 ( 4 ), 520–530. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKeown, M. G. , Beck, I. L. , Omanson, R. C. , & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words . Reading Research Quarterly , 20 , 522–535. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKeown, M. G. , Crosson, A. C. , Artz, N. J. , Sandora, C. , & Beck, I. L. (2013). In the media: Expanding students' experience with academic vocabulary . The Reading Teacher , 67 ( 1 ), 45–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKeown, M. G. , Crosson, A. C. , Beck, I. , Sandora, C. , & Artz, N. (2012). Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE) . Intervention developed for Robust Instruction of Academic Vocabulary for Middle School Students . Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Award R305A100440.
• McKeown, M. G. , Deane, P. D. , Scott, J. A. , Krovetz, R. , & Lawless, R. R. (2017). Vocabulary assessment to support instruction: Building rich word-learning experiences . New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagy, W. E. , Berninger, V. , Abbott, R. , Vaughan, K. , & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second grade readers and at-risk fourth grade writers . Journal of Educational Psychology , 95 ( 4 ), 730–742. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagy, W. E. , & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes . In Kamil M. L., Mosenthal P. B., David Pearson P., & Barr R. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3 , pp. 69–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754) . Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 ( 4 ), 357–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reichle, E. D. , & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification: A word-experience model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects . Scientific Studies of Reading , 7 ( 1 ), 219–238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman, R. (2007). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary instruction during read-alouds in kindergarten . Elementary School Journal , 108 ( 2 ), 97–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stahl, S. A. , & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 56 , 72–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stahl, S. A. , & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasik, B. A. , & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms . Journal of Educational Psychology , 93 , 243–250. [ Google Scholar ]

Current Research and Practice in Teaching Vocabulary

The purpose of this article is to present a systematic framework for vocabulary development by combining three approaches to vocabulary instruction and learning (modified from Coady, 1997a; Hulstijn, Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996). In this article, these three approaches--incidental learning, explicit instruction, and independent strategy development--are presented as seven teaching principles. The incidental learning of vocabulary requires that teachers provide opportunities for extensive reading and listening. Explicit instruction involves diagnosing the words learners need to know, presenting words for the first time, elaborating word knowledge, and developing fluency with known words. Finally, independent strategy development involves practicing guessing from context and training learners to use dictionaries.

Although all of these approaches and principles have a role to play in vocabulary instruction, the learners' proficiency level and learning situation should be considered when deciding the relative emphasis to be placed on each approach. In general, emphasizing explicit instruction is probably best for beginning and intermediate students who have limited vocabularies. On the other hand, extensive reading and listening might receive more attention for more proficient intermediate and advanced students. Also, because of its immediate benefits, dictionary training should begin early in the curriculum.

Before proceeding, it is necessary to clarify the definition of a word. In this article, a word (also called a base word or a word family) is defined as including the base form (e.g., make ) and its inflections and derivatives (e.g., makes, made, making, maker, and makers ). Since the meaning of these different forms of the word are closely related, it is assumed that little extra effort is needed to learn them (Read, 1988). While this may be true, a recent study of Japanese students showed that they did not know many inflections and derivative suffixes for English verbs (Schmitt and Meara, 1997). Thus, these forms should be taught.

Although this definition of a word is convenient and commonly used in vocabulary research, it should be remembered that vocabulary learning is more than the study of individual words. Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) have observed that a significant amount of the English language is made up of lexical phrases, which range from phrasal verbs (two or three words) to longer institutionalized expressions (Lewis, 1993, 1997). Because lexical phrases can often be learned as single units, the authors believe that the following principles apply to them as well as to individual words.

Incidental Learning

Principle 1: Provide opportunities for the incidental learning of vocabulary.

In the long run, most words in both first and second languages are probably learned incidentally, through extensive reading and listening (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). Several recent studies have confirmed that incidental L2 vocabulary learning through reading does occur (Chun & Plass 1996; Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu, 1991; Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996; Knight, 1994; Zimmerman, 1997). Although most research concentrates on reading, extensive listening can also increase vocabulary learning (Elley, 1989). Nagy, Herman, & Anderson (1985) concluded that (for native speakers of English) learning vocabulary from context is a gradual process, estimating that, given a single exposure to an unfamiliar word, there was about a 10% chance of learning its meaning from context. Likewise, L2 learners can be expected to require many exposures to a word in context before understanding its meaning.

The incidental learning of vocabulary through extensive reading can benefit language curriculums and learners at all levels (Woodinsky and Nation, 1988). According to Coady (1997b), the role of graded (i.e., simplified) readers is to build up the students' vocabulary and structures until they can graduate to more authentic materials. Low proficiency learners can benefit from graded readers because they will be repeatedly exposed to high frequency vocabulary. As many students may never have done extensive reading for pleasure, it may be initially useful to devote some class time to Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) (Pilgreen and Krashen, 1993). Once students develop the ability to read in a sustained fashion, then most of the reading should be done outside of class. More information on extensive reading can be found in the May, 1997 issue of The Language Teacher (Cominos, 1997).

Explicit Instruction

Principle 2: Diagnose which of the 3,000 most common words learners need to study.

Knowing approximately 3,000 high frequency and general academic words is significant because this amount covers a high percentage of the words on an average page. The 2,000 high frequency words in West's (1953) General Service List cover 87% of an average non-academic text (Nation, 1990) and 80% of an average academic text (P. Nation, personal communication, September 18, 1997). The 800 general academic words from Xue and Nation's (1984) University Word List account for about 8% of an academic text. For second language learners entering university, Laufer (1992) found that knowing a minimum of about 3,000 words was required for effective reading at the university level, whereas knowing 5,000 words indicated likely academic success. One way to estimate vocabulary size is to use Nation's (1990) Vocabulary Levels Test or a checklist test which requires learners to mark the words on a list that they believe they know (for more information on checklist tests see Read, 1988; Meara, 1992, 1996).

Principle 3: Provide opportunities for the intentional learning of vocabulary .

The incidental learning of vocabulary may eventually account for a majority of advanced learners' vocabulary; however, intentional learning through instruction also significantly contributes to vocabulary development (Nation, 1990; Paribakht & Wesche, 1996; Zimmerman, 1997). Explicit instruction is particularly essential for beginning students whose lack of vocabulary limits their reading ability. Coady (1997b) calls this the beginner's paradox. He wonders how beginners can "learn enough words to learn vocabulary through extensive reading when they do not know enough words to read well" (p. 229). His solution is to have students supplement their extensive reading with study of the 3,000 most frequent words until the words' form and meaning become automatically recognized (i.e., "sight vocabulary"). The first stage in teaching these 3,000 words commonly begins with word-pairs in which an L2 word is matched with an L1 translation.

Translation has a necessary and useful role for L2 learning, but it can hinder learners' progress if it is used to the exclusion of L2-based techniques. Prince (1996) found that both "advanced" and "weaker" learners could recall more newly learned words using L1 translations than using L2 context. However, "weaker" learners were less able to transfer knowledge learned from translation into an L2 context. Prince claims that weaker learners require more time when using an L2 context as they have less developed L2 networks and are slower to use syntactic information. To discourage the learners from over-relying on translation, he advises that teachers talk with them about their expectations of language learning and "the pitfalls of low-effort strategies like translation" (p. 489). Furthermore, translation needs to be followed up with other L2-based exercises and learning strategies (see Principles 4 through 7).

Vocabulary lists can be an effective way to quickly learn word-pair translations (Nation, 1990). However, it is more effective to use vocabulary cards, because learners can control the order in which they study the words (Atkinson, 1972). Also, additional information can easily be added to the cards. When teaching unfamiliar vocabulary, teachers need to consider the following:

• Learners need to do more than just see the form (Channell, 1988). They need to hear the pronunciation and practice saying the word aloud as well (Ellis & Beaton, 1993; Fay and Cutler, 1977; Siebert, 1927). The syllable structure and stress pattern of the word are important because they are two ways in which words are stored in memory (Fay and Cutler, 1977).  
• Start by learning semantically unrelated words. Also avoid learning words with similar forms (Nation, 1990) and closely related meanings (Higa, 1963; Tinkham, 1993) at the same time. For example, because affect and effect have similar forms, simultaneously studying them is likely to cause confusion. Also, bilingual vocabulary books often simply list words in alphabetical order, increasing the chances of confusing words that start with the same syllable. Likewise, words with similar, opposite, or closely associated (e.g., types of fruit, family members) meanings may interfere with one another if they are studied at the same time.  
• It is more effective to study words regularly over several short sessions than to study them for one or two longer sessions. As most forgetting occurs immediately after initial exposure to the word (Pimsleur, 1967), repetition and review should take place almost immediately after studying a word for the first time.  
• Study 5-7 words at a time, dividing larger numbers of words into smaller groups. As learners review these 5-7 cards, they will more quickly get repeated exposure to the words than when larger groups (20-30) are studied.  
• Use activities like the keyword technique to promote deeper mental processing and better retention (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). Associating a visual image with a word helps learners remember the word.  
• A wide variety of L2 information can be added to the cards for further elaboration. Newly met words can be consciously associated with other L2 words that the learner already knows (Prince, 1996), and this word can be added to the card. Also, sentence examples, part of speech, definitions, and keyword images can be added (see Schmitt & Schmitt, 1995).

Principle 4: Provide opportunities for elaborating word knowledge .

Prince (1996) states that simply knowing translations for L2 words does not "guarantee that they will be successfully accessed for use in an L2 context" (p. 488), because knowing a word means knowing more than just its translated meaning or its L2 synonyms. Drawing upon Richards' (1976) list, Nation (1994) identifies various aspects of word knowledge such as knowing related grammatical patterns, affixes, common lexical sets, typical associations, how to use the word receptively and productively, etc. Receptive knowledge means being able to recognize one of the aspects of knowledge through reading and listening, and productive knowledge means being able to use it in speaking and writing. Teachers should be selective when deciding which words deserve deeper receptive and/or productive practice as well as which types of knowledge will be most useful for their students. Many of the 2,000 high frequency words from the GSL or other lists would be good candidates for exercises that elaborate upon both receptive and productive knowledge.

Elaboration involves expanding the connections between what the learners already know and new information. One way to do this is to choose L2 words from the surrounding context and to explain their connections to the recently learned word (Prince, 1996). In addition to presenting this new information, teachers should create opportunities to meet these useful, recently learned words in new contexts that provide new collocations and associations (Nation, 1994). Exercises that can deepen students' knowledge of words include: sorting lists of words and deciding upon the categories; making semantic maps with lists either provided by the teacher or generated by the learners; generating derivatives, inflections, synonyms and antonyms of a word; making trees that show the relationships between superordinates, coordinates, and specific examples; identifying or generating associated words; combining phrases from several columns; matching parts of collocations using two columns; completing collocations as a cloze activity; and playing collocation crossword puzzles or bingo (see Lewis, 1993; McCarthy & O'Dell, 1994; Nation, 1994; Redman & Ellis, 1990).

Principle 5: Provide opportunities for developing fluency with known vocabulary.

Fluency building activities recycle already known words in familiar grammatical and organizational patterns so that students can focus on recognizing or using words without hesitation. As Nation (1994) points out, developing fluency "overlaps most of all with developing the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing" (p. 208), so giving learners many opportunities to practice these skills is essential.

Fluency partly depends on developing sight vocabulary through extensive reading and studying high frequency vocabulary. Fluency exercises include timed and paced readings. In timed readings, learners may try to increase their speed by sliding a 3x5 card or a piece of paper down the page to increase their speed while attempting to comprehend about 80% of a passage. Also, learners need to be given practice in looking at groups of words rather than each individual word when reading. Teachers can ask learners to practice timed reading on passages that have already been read. In paced readings the teacher determines the time and pushes the learners to read faster. One type of paced reading is the "reading sprint" in which learners read their pleasure reading book for 5 minutes and count the number of pages they have read. Then they try to read the same number of pages while the time they have to read decreases from 5 minutes to 4 to 3 to 2 minutes for each sprint. Finally, they read for 5 minutes again at a relaxed pace and count the number of pages they have finished (Mikulecky & Jeffries, 1996).

Independent Strategy Development

Principle 6: Experiment with guessing from context.

Guessing from context is a complex and often difficult strategy to carry out successfully. To guess successfully from context learners need to know about 19 out of every 20 words (95%) of a text, which requires knowing the 3,000 most common words (Liu & Nation, 1985; Nation, 1990). However, even if one knows these words, Kelly (1990) concludes that "unless the context is very constrained, which is a relatively rare occurrence, or unless there is a relationship with a known word identifiable on the basis of form and supported by context, there is little chance of guessing the correct meaning" (p. 203). He also asserts that, because guessing from context fails to direct attention to word form and meaning, relatively little learning occurs.

Although this strategy often may not result in gaining a full understanding of word meaning and form, guessing from context may still contribute to vocabulary learning. Just what is and is not learned will partly depend on text difficulty as well as the learners' level. In particular, more proficient learners using texts that are not overly difficult can be expected to use this strategy more effectively than low proficiency learners. It should also be remembered that learning vocabulary also includes learning about collocations, associations, and related grammatical patterns as well as meaning. Therefore, if regularly practiced, this strategy may contribute to deeper word knowledge for advanced learners as long as they pay attention to the word and its context.

However, given the continuing debate about the effectiveness of guessing from context, teachers and learners should experiment with this strategy and compare it to dictionary training. Guessing from context is initially time consuming and is more likely to work for more proficient learners. A procedure for guessing from context begins with deciding whether the word is important enough (e.g., is part of an important idea and/or is repeated often) to warrant going through the following steps. This decision is itself a skill that requires practice and experience. Teachers can assist learners by marking words which learners should try to infer before using other sources as well as by providing glosses (Hulstijn, Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996). Once learners decide that a word is worth guessing, they might follow a five-step procedure like that of Nation and Coady (1988):

• Determine the part of speech of the unknown word.
• Look at the immediate context and simplify it if necessary.
• Look at the wider context. This entails examining the clause with the unknown word and its relationship to the surrounding clauses and sentences.
• Guess the meaning of the unknown word.
• Check that the guess is correct.

(p. 104-105)

In step 5, the guess needs to be the same part of speech as the unknown word. Moreover, the learner should try to see if the unknown word can be analyzed into parts (unlock becomes un + lock) and to check if the meaning of the parts matches the meaning of the unknown word. Finally, the guess should be tried out in the context to see whether it makes sense, and a dictionary may be consulted to confirm the guess. In the case of a wrong or partially correct guess, it is important for learners to reanalyze how the "correct" answer is more appropriate in the context. Finally, Liu and Nation (1985) suggest practicing this strategy as a class rather than as individual work, and Williams (1986) advises that it be demonstrated on an OHP or a chalkboard by circling the unknown word and drawing arrows from other words that give clues to its meaning.

Principle 7: Examine different types of dictionaries and teach students how to use them.

Bilingual dictionaries have been found to result in vocabulary learning (Knight, 1994; Luppescu & Day, 1993). Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) showed that, compared to incidental learning, repeated exposure to words combined with marginal glosses or bilingual dictionary use lead to increased learning for advanced learners. Luppescu and Day's (1993) study on Japanese students reports that bilingual dictionaries did result in vocabulary learning unless the unfamiliar word had numerous entries, in which case the dictionaries may have confused learners. Finally, a bilingual dictionary may be much more likely to help lower proficiency learners in reading comprehension because their lack of vocabulary can be a significant factor in their inability to read (Knight, 1994).

Bilingualized dictionaries may have some advantages over traditional bilingual or monolingual dictionaries. Bilingualized dictionaries essentially do the job of both a bilingual and a monolingual dictionary. Whereas bilingual dictionaries usually provide just an L1 synonym, bilingualized dictionaries include L2 definitions, L2 sentence examples, as well as L1 synonyms. Bilingualized dictionaries were found to result in better comprehension of new words than either bilingual or monolingual dictionaries (Laufer & Hader, 1997). A further advantage is that they can be used by all levels of learners: advanced students can concentrate on the English part of the entry, and beginners can use the translation. For beginners, teachers may want to examine the bilingualized Longman-Mitsumura English-Japanese Dictionary for Young Learners (1993), which includes Japanese translations, definitions, and examples. Currently, neither Collins COBUILD, Longman, nor Oxford (all publishers with access to large, up-dated computerized English language data bases) have bilingualized dictionaries for intermediate and advanced learners.

Electronic dictionaries with multimedia annotations offer a further option for teachers and learners. Chun and Plass' (1996) study of American university students learning German found that unfamiliar words were most efficiently learned when both pictures and text were available for students. This was more effective than text alone or combining text and video, possibly because learners can control the length of time spent viewing the pictures. Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) suggest that, because computerized entries are easier to use than traditional dictionaries, students will be more likely to use them. Teachers may want to investigate the CD-ROM dictionaries published by Collins COBUILD, Longman, and Oxford. However, unlike the dictionary in the above study, these CD-ROM dictionaries do not link most of their entries to a visual image. The one exception is The New Oxford Picture Dictionary CD-ROM (1997), which includes 2,400 illustrated words (mainly concrete nouns) and is available in a bilingual version.

Finally, training in the use of dictionaries is essential. Unfortunately, in most classrooms, very little time is provided for training in dictionary use (Graves, 1987; Summers, 1988). In addition to learning the symbols and what information a dictionary can and cannot offer, learners may need extra practice for words with many entries. Furthermore, learners need to be taught to use all the information in an entry before making conclusions about the meaning of a word (Laufer & Hader, 1997). The learners' attention should also be directed toward the value of good sentence examples which provide collocational, grammatical, and pragmatic information about words. Finally, teachers should emphasize the importance of checking a word's original context carefully and comparing this to the entry chosen because context determines which sense of a word is being used.

Learning vocabulary through incidental, intentional, and independent approaches requires teachers to plan a wide variety of activities and exercises. The amount of emphasis that teachers and programs decide to place on any given activity will depend on the learners' level and the educational goals of the teacher and the program. In general, it makes most sense to emphasize the direct teaching of vocabulary for learners who still need to learn the first 3,000 most common words. As learners' vocabulary expands in size and depth, then extensive reading and independent strategies may be increasingly emphasized. Extensive reading and listening, translation, elaboration, and fluency activities, guessing from context, and using dictionaries all have a role to play in systematically developing the learners' vocabulary knowledge.

Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Optimizing the learning of a second language vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96 , 124-129.

Channell, J. (1988). Psycholinguistic considerations in the study of L2 vocabulary acquisition. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching . London: Longman.

Chun, D. & Plass, J. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80 , 183-198.

Coady, J. (1997a). L2 vocabulary acquisition: A synthesis of the research. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 273-290). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coady, J. (1997b). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 225-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cominos, A. (Ed.). (1997). Extensive reading. The Language Teacher, 21 (5).

Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104 , 268-284.

Day, R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7 , 541-549.

Elley, W. (1989).Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24 , 174-187.

Ellis, N. & Beaton, A. (1993). Psychological determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43 (4), 559-617.

Fay, D. & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguist Inquiry, 8 (3), 505-20.

Graves, M. (1987). The roles of instruction in fostering vocabulary development. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 167-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2 , 170-175.

Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M. & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80 , 327-339.

Kelly, P. (1990). Guessing: No substitute for systematic learning of lexis. System, 18 , 199-207.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78 , 285-299.

Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In H. Bejoint & P. Arnaud (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (pp. 126-132). London: MacMillan.

Laufer, B. & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and "bilingualized" dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. The Modern Language Journal, 81 , 189-196.

Lewis, M. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 255-270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

Liu, N. & Nation, I. S. P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC Journal, 16 (1), 33-42.

Longman-Mitsumura English-Japanese Dictionary for Young Learners . (1993). Harlow, Essex: Longman and Mitsura Book Publishing Company Limited.

Luppescu, S. & Day, R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43 , 263-287.

McCarthy, M. & O'Dell, F. (1994). English Vocabulary in Use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meara, P. (1992). EFL vocabulary tests . Centre for Applied Language Studies University College Swansea. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 046).

Meara, P. (1996). The dimensions of lexical competence. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 35-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mikulecky, B. S. & Jeffries, L. (1996). More Reading Power . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Nagy, W. E. & Herman, P. & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 , 233-253.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary . New York: Newbury House.

Nation, I. S. P. (Ed.). (1994). New Ways in Teaching Vocabulary . Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL, Inc.

Nation, I. S. P. & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter and M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching . London: Longman.

Nattinger, J. & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The New Oxford Picture Dictionary CD-ROM . (1997). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Paribakht, T. & Wesche, M. (1996). Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: A hierarchy of text-related exercise types. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52 , 155-178.

Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal, 51 , 73-75.

Pilgreen, J. & Krashen, S. (1993). Sustained silent reading with English as a second language high school students: Impact on reading comprehension, reading frequency, and reading enjoyment. School Library Media Quarterly, 22 , 21-23.

Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80 , 478-493.

Read, J. (1988). Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners. RELC Journal, 19 (2), 12-25.

Redman, S. & Ellis, R. (1990). A Way with Words Book 2 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10 (1), 77-89.

Schmitt, N. & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. Studies in Second Landguage Acquisition, 19 , 17-36.

Schmitt, N. & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions. ELT Journal, 49 (2), 133-143.

Seibert, L. C. (1927). An experiment in learning French vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18 , 294-309.

Summers, D. (1988). The role of dictionaries in language learning. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp. 111-125).

Tinkham, T. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21(3), 371-380.

West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman.

Woodinsky, M. & Nation, P. (1988). Learning from graded readers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5(1), 155-161.

Williams, R. (1986). Teaching vocabulary recognition strategies in ESP reading. The ESP Journal, 4 , 121-131.

Xue, G. & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication, 3 (2), 215-229.

Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference?: An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31 , 121-140.

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Teaching and Learning Vocabulary

DOI link for Teaching and Learning Vocabulary

Get Citation

Although proficiency in vocabulary has long been recognized as basic to reading proficiency, there has been a paucity of research on vocabulary teaching and learning over the last two decades. Recognizing this, the U.S. Department of Education recently sponsored a Focus on Vocabulary conference that attracted the best-known and most active researchers in the vocabulary field. This book is the outgrowth of that conference. It presents scientific evidence from leading research programs that address persistent issues regarding the role of vocabulary in text comprehension. Part I examines how vocabulary is learned; Part II presents instructional interventions that enhance vocabulary; and Part III looks at which words to choose for vocabulary instruction. Other key features of this timely new book include: * Broad Coverage. The book addresses the full range of students populating current classrooms--young children, English Language Learners, and young adolescents. * Issues Focus. By focusing on persistent issues from the perspective of critical school populations, this volume provides a rich, scientific foundation for effective vocabulary instruction and policy. * Author Expertise. Few volumes can boast of a more luminous cast of contributing authors (see table of contents). This book is suitable for anyone (graduate students, in-service reading specialists and curriculum directors, college faculty, and researchers) who deals with vocabulary learning and instruction as a vital component of reading proficiency.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 | 24  pages, part | 2  pages, part iperspectives onhow vocabulary islearned, chapter 2 | 18  pages, why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive, chapter 3 | 24  pages, vocabulary growth through independent reading and reading aloud to children, chapter 4 | 24  pages, creating opportunities to acquire new word meanings from text1, part ii instructions and interventions that enhance vocabulary, chapter 5 | 22  pages, four problems with teaching word meanings (and what to do to make vocabulary an integral part of instruction), chapter 6 | 24  pages, bringing words to life in classrooms with english-language learners, chapter 7 | 16  pages, sustained vocabulary-learning strategy instruction for english-language learners, chapter 8 | 22  pages, classroom practices for vocabulary enhancement in prekindergarten: lessons from paved for success, chapter 9 | 30  pages, strategies for teaching middle-grade students to use word-part and context clues to expand reading vocabulary, part iii perspectives on which words to choose for instruction, chapter 10 | 16  pages, choosing words to teach, chapter 11 | 22  pages, size and sequence in vocabulary development: implications for choosing words for primary grade vocabulary instruction, chapter 12 | 22  pages, in pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary curriculum for elementary students.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Because differences are our greatest strength

Vocabulary words: An evidence-based literacy strategy

By Cheryl Lyon, MAT

Expert reviewed by Allison Posey, MEd, CAST, Inc.

What you’ll learn

Watch: see teaching vocabulary words in action, read: how to use this vocabulary words strategy, understand: why this strategy works, connect: link school to home, research behind this strategy.

It’s hard for students to read and understand a text if they don’t know what the words mean. A solid vocabulary boosts reading comprehension for students of all ages. The more words students know, the better they understand the text. That’s why effective vocabulary teaching is so important, especially for students who learn and think differently.

In this article, you’ll learn how to explicitly teach vocabulary using easy-to-understand definitions, engaging activities, and repeated exposure. This strategy includes playing vocabulary games, incorporating visual supports like graphic organizers, and giving students the chance to see and use new words in real-world contexts.

The goal of this teaching strategy isn’t just to increase your students’ vocabulary. It’s to make sure the words are meaningful and relevant to their lives.

Watch this video of a kindergarten teacher teaching the word startled to her students:

Objective:  Students will learn the meaning of new high-value words and how to use them.

Grade levels (with standards): 

K–5 (CCSS ELA Literacy Anchor Standard L.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases)

K–5 (CCSS ELA Literacy Anchor Standard R.4: Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text)

Best used for instruction with:

Whole class

Small groups

Individuals

How to prepare:

Choose the words to teach. For weekly vocabulary instruction, work with students to choose three to five new words per week. Select words that students will use or see most often, or words related to other words they know. 

Before you dive in, it’s helpful to know that vocabulary words can be grouped into three tiers: 

Tier 1 words: These are the most frequently used words that appear in everyday speech. Students typically learn these words through oral language. Examples include dog , cat , happy , see , run , and go .

Tier 2 words: These words are used in many different contexts and subjects. Examples include interpret , assume , necessary , and analyze .

Tier 3 words: These are subject-specific words that are used in particular subject areas, such as peninsula in social studies and integer in math. 

When choosing which vocabulary words to teach, you may want to pick words from Tier 2 because they’re the most useful across all subject areas.

Select a text. Find an appropriate text (or multiple texts for students to choose from) that includes the vocabulary words you want to teach.

Come up with student-friendly definitions. Find resources you and your students can consult to come up with a definition for each word. The definition should be easy to understand, be written in everyday language, and capture the word’s common use. Your definitions can include pictures, videos, or other multimedia options. Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary , Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary , and Wordsmyth Children’s Dictionary are all good resources to help create student-friendly definitions.

How to teach:

1. Introduce each new word one at a time. Say the word aloud and have students repeat the word. For visual support, display the words and their definitions for students to see, such as on a word wall, flip chart, or vocabulary graphic organizer. Showing pictures related to the word can be helpful, too.

For English language learners (ELLs): Try to use cognates (words from different languages that have a similar meaning, spelling, and pronunciation) when you introduce new words. For more information about using cognates when teaching vocabulary to ELLs, use these resources from Colorín Colorado . You can also ask students to say or draw their own definition of the words — in English or their home language — to help them understand each word and its meaning.

2. Reflect. Allow time for students to reflect on what they know or don’t know about the words. Remember that your class will come to the lesson with varying levels of vocabulary knowledge. Some students may be familiar with some of the words. Other students may not know any of them. If time permits, this could be a good opportunity to use flexible grouping so students can work on different words.

3. Read the text you’ve chosen. You can read it to your students or have students read on their own (either a printed version or by listening to an audio version). As you read, pause to point to the vocabulary words in context. Use explicit instruction to teach the word parts, such as prefixes and suffixes, to help define the word. If students are reading on their own or with a partner, encourage them to “hunt” for the words before reading. Hunting for these words first can reduce distractions later when the focus is on reading the text. 

4. Ask students to repeat the word after you’ve read it in the text. Then remind students of the word’s definition. If a word has more than one meaning, focus on the definition that applies to the text.

5. Use a quick, fun activity to reinforce each new word’s meaning. After reading, use one or more of the following to help students learn the words more effectively:

Word associations: Ask students, “What does the word delicate make you think of? What other words go with delicate ?” Students can turn and talk with a partner to come up with a response. Then invite pairs to share their responses with the rest of the class.

Use your senses: Ask your students to use their senses to describe when they saw, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled something that was delicate . Allow students time to think. Then ask them to give a thumbs up if they’ve ever seen something delicate . Call on students to share their responses. Do the same with each of the senses.

A round of applause: If the word is an adjective, invite students to clap based on how much they would like a delicate toy, for example. Or students can “vote with their feet” by moving to one corner of the room if they want a delicate toy or another corner if they don't. This activity works especially well if you pair the new adjective with a familiar noun.

Picture perfect: Invite students to draw a picture that represents the word’s meaning. 

Examples and non-examples: Give one example and one non-example of how the word is and isn’t used. For instance, you could tell students that one thing that is delicate is a teacup. One thing that isn’t delicate is the cement stairs into the school. Then invite students to share their own examples of things that are and aren’t delicate .

After students do one or more of the activities above, have them say or draw the word again.

6. Play word games. Throughout the week, play word games like vocabulary bingo, vocabulary Pictionary, and charades to practice the new words. Include words you’ve taught in the past for additional reinforcement. 

7. Challenge students to use new words. They can use their new vocabulary in different contexts, like at home, at recess, or during afterschool activities. Consider asking students to use a vocabulary notebook to jot down when they use the words. You can even get your colleagues or school administrators in on the fun by asking them to use the words when talking with students or in announcements. Praise students when you hear them using those words in and out of the classroom. 

Rote memorization (“skill and drill”) isn't very helpful when it comes to learning new vocabulary. Students learn best from explicit instruction that uses easy-to-understand definitions, engaging activities, and repeated exposure. Teaching this way will help students understand how words are used in real-life contexts and that words can have different meanings depending on how they’re used. 

This explicit approach helps all students and is especially helpful for students who learn and think differently. This includes students who have a hard time figuring out the meaning of new words when they’re reading. It can be difficult for them to make an inference or use context clues to figure out what a word means.

Explicit vocabulary instruction with student-friendly definitions means there’s no guesswork involved. Repeated exposure and practice help to reinforce the words in students’ memories.  

Share with families this resource they can use at home to help students grow their vocabulary. You can model some of these strategies for families at back-to-school night or another family event.  

“Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction (2nd ed.),” by Isabel L. Beck, Margaret G. McKeown, and Linda Kucan

“A review of the current research on vocabulary instruction,” from the National Reading Technical Assistance Center, RMC Research Corporation

“Building Academic Vocabulary: Teacher’s Manual,” by Robert J. Marzano and Debra J. Pickering

“Teaching Word Meanings,” by Steven A. Stahl and William E. Nagy

Explore related topics