Reading Psychology, 39:271–302, 2018

Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 online
DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2018.1430633

AN INVESTIGATION OF HIGH SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES

TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDINGS OF VOCABULARY
TEACHING AND LEARNING

JANIS HARMON, MARCOS ANTUNA, and LUCINDA JUAREZ

Department of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching, University of Texas at
San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

KAREN D. WOOD and JEAN VINTINNER

Department of Reading and Elementary Education, University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina

This qualitative study focused on high school social studies teachers’

understandings of and perspectives about vocabulary acquisition and
instruction. The research questions were the following: (1) What do high school
social studies teachers understand about vocabulary instruction? and (2) How
do high school social studies teachers support vocabulary learning? Face-to-face
interviews were conducted with 25 high school social studies teachers. Findings
indicate that external factors shaped instructional decision-making for teaching
vocabulary, teachers’ belief systems guided instructional choices, and the
diverse needs of students called for differentiated instruction not only for
English language learners but also for all students given the unique nature of
the language of social studies.

Today, educational groups and even national agencies are paying

close to secondary students’ literacy proficiency (Moore, 2009)
and what is being done in secondary schools to support literacy
(Slavin, Cheung, Groff, & Lake, 2008). Over the past decades
attention to literacy at the secondary level leaned heavily toward
the literacy demands placed on students as they interact with vari-
ous content area texts. This attention led to a variety of general
literacy strategies and instructional techniques that support stu-
dent learning in science, social studies, mathematics, and other
disciplines (Alvermann, Gillis, & Phelps, 2013; Vacca, Vacca, &
Mraz, 2011). More recently, however, closer attention has been

Address correspondence to Janis Harmon, Department of Interdisciplinary Learn-

ing and Teaching, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA.
E-mail: janis.harmon@utsa.edu

271
272 J. Harmon et al.

given disciplinary literacy, that is, a focus on the specific literacy

demands unique to the various content areas and the subdisci-
plines within each area (Conley, 2017). While there may seem-
ingly appear to be a divide between the traditional content area
literacy view as opposed to the developing disciplinary literacy
view, Dunkerly-Bean and Bean (2016) argue that both positions
offer different, but salient, understandings for informing second-
ary, disciplinary teaching and learning as they support the need
for more interdisciplinary approaches. Similarly, Wolsey and
Lapp (2017) define disciplinary literacy as aimed at “what we
teach (as it relates to subject area literacy)” more than “how we
teach” (p. 3).
Nonetheless, recent attention has also been given to the
academic language of the different content areas, or rather,
the linguistic features that differentiate the language of every-
day life from the language used in content area texts or the
language of school. Nagy and Townsend (2012) define aca-
demic language as the “specialized language, both oral and
written, of academic settings that facilitate communication and
thinking about disciplinary content” (p. 92). The particular
language of a discipline is complex, multi-dimensional, and
unique to that particular field and requires that students
understand the dynamics of the language in each content area
to learn about the concepts.
One important feature of the language of a discipline is the
vocabulary used to convey the various topics addressed in these dif-
ferent subject matter areas. This academic vocabulary, words that
are used infrequently in oral conversations, can place challenging
demands on students, especially struggling adolescent learners
(Lesaux, Kieffer, Kelley, & Harris, 2014). Similarly, vocabulary
instruction, a necessary component of any content area program,
can also be a challenge to teachers in their efforts to meet the
needs of the diverse students in their classrooms. While a vast
number of studies on vocabulary acquisition and instruction have
focused on elementary and middle school classrooms and on
English language learners at these levels, we are now beginning to
see more attention given to vocabulary in secondary classrooms,
especially with a focus on specific content areas (Nokes, 2010;
Ogle, Blachowicz, Fisher, & Lang, 2015; Reed, Medina, Martinez,
& Veleta, 2013; Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006).
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 273

For this study we turn our attention to vocabulary teaching and

learning in the field of history and social studies. The Common
Core State Standards for social studies include the objective of
teaching students word meanings and phrases used to describe the
social, cultural, political, and economic perspectives in history and
the social sciences (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). However,
this attention comes at a time when student achievement in the con-
tent area of social studies in particular has shown no change since
the mid-1990s for students in grades 4 and 12 (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2010) with 45% of 12th graders scoring at or
above the basic level on the 2010 NAEP assessment. This sobering
state of affairs calls for increased efforts to find solutions that can
increase students’ understanding of the language and vocabulary
of social studies. To contribute to the growing body of knowledge
about vocabulary at the secondary level, this qualitative investigation
focused on high school social studies teachers’ understandings of
and perspectives about vocabulary acquisition and instruction,
given the importance of teacher knowledge and subsequent deci-
sion-making in providing effective instruction (Ash & Baumann,
2017; Berliner, 1986; Swanson et al., 2016).
The research questions that guided the study were the
following:

 What do high school social studies teachers understand about

vocabulary teaching and learning?
 How do high school social studies teachers support student
vocabulary learning?

Review of the Literature

Nagy and Townsend (2012) note that one critical aspect of aca-
demic language, academic vocabulary, may serve as an initial ave-
nue for helping teachers understand how to help their students
navigate the language of their specific discipline. For our particu-
lar focus on the discipline of social studies teaching and learning,
we address current understandings about the academic language
and vocabulary of social studies and what we know about social
studies vocabulary instruction.
274 J. Harmon et al.

The Academic Language and Vocabulary of Social Studies

Each discipline has its own way of presenting information and its
own way of developing knowledge in these particular areas
(Langer, 2011). The discipline of social studies is even more com-
plex in that it includes several specific fields, including geogra-
phy, history, economics, government, civics, and geography, all
with specialized language and vocabulary. Yet, each field is no dif-
ferent from other disciplines except that one goal of teaching his-
tory, for example, is to help students read like historians. As with
the other social studies fields, the language of history is distinc-
tive and unique calling for readers to engage in texts from a his-
torian perspective. Several general features characterize this
field, including abstraction of ideas, chronology of events, inter-
pretation based upon information from a variety of texts (Schlep-
pegrelle & de Oliveira, 2006). Zwiers (2014) describes historical
thinking and language in terms of layers of meaning. The surface
layer represents the gathering of facts and events, a second layer
focuses on a particular event, and the highest layer requires deep
thinking as readers grapple with abstract ideas and interpreta-
tions of events.
The work of Shanahan, Shanahan, and their colleagues
(2008, 2011, 2014) concerning disciplinary literacy provide impor-
tant information about the necessary connections between the dis-
ciplines and literacy. In one study that focused on history,
Shanahan, Shanahan, and Misichia (2011) expanded the work of
Wineberg (1991) who compared the reading processes used by
historians with those of high school students. Wineberg discovered
that historians consider the sources, contextualize texts in terms of
when a text is written, and substantiate information read, with Sha-
nahan et al. (2011) noting that historians also attend to the logic
of a passage, consider different perspectives, and even interpret
relationships among events. On the other hand, Wineberg found
that high school students in the study simply expended effort in
trying to memorize and remember factual information.
Embedded in the reading engagement of social studies texts
are the vocabulary terms and phrases used to build important
conceptual understandings. The vocabulary of social studies, as
with the other disciplines, can be described in terms of key
domain-specific terms and generalized academic vocabulary. Key
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 275

domain-specific terms represent the concepts about a particular

topic and many of which are complex, abstract ideas, such as pro-
gressivism, immigration, patriotism, nationalism, and political parties
(Buehl, 2011). Other domain-specific words in social studies can
represent particular places (e.g., Mozambique), people (e.g., Thur-
good Marshal), and events (e.g., Arab Spring) associated with time
periods and world regions (Baumann & Graves, 2010). Geo-
graphic terminology includes words associated with reading
maps, such as gazetteer, atlas, and political maps; earth features,
such as fjiords and peninsulas; and also abstract terms representing
issues, such as global warming, absolute location, ethnocentrism, diffu-
sion, and map projection.
In addition to these specialized social studies terms, students
must also have a working knowledge of the general academic
vocabulary found across all disciplines. Examples of these terms
can be found on the Coxhead Academic Word List (2000), words
such as conclude, function, clarify, interpret, predominant, and differen-
tiate. These generalized words can be used in unique and distinc-
tive ways in social studies that may be challenging to students. For
example, Blachowicz, Fisher, Ogle, and Watts Taffe (2013) note
“When social studies texts and assessments ask students to
‘interpret the past,’. . . a specific approach is expected: Students
need to use and reference evidence from texts, news articles, pri-
mary sources, and other data, not just to share their personal
interpretations based on their own experiences” (p. 83). Further-
more, as Shanahan and Shanahan (2014) point out, word choices
in historical documents and texts may represent the perspectives
of authors whose ideologies may be embedded in what is written.
Examples include the phrases “outlawed by the Supreme Court”
or “banned by the Supreme Court” and “an assault on American
values” or “against American values.”

Social Studies Vocabulary Instruction

Numerous sources provide instructional strategy suggestions for

teaching social studies vocabulary, ranging from generic strate-
gies in content area textbooks and articles (Alvermann et al.,
2013; Gillis, 2014/2015;Vacca et al., 2011) to scholarly works that
solely address social studies vocabulary (Alexander-Shea, 2011;
276 J. Harmon et al.

Hairrell et al., 2011). For instance, Gillis (2014/2015) asserts that

students need more than just an introductory definition to terms,
but rather need multiple, meaningful exposures to academic
vocabulary to deepen conceptual understanding of what is being
taught. She provides several examples of instructional activities
that are based upon a learning cycle that emphasizes the need
for students to explore concepts, to interact and refine word
knowledge, and to reflect and make personal connections as a
way of internalizing new ideas. Hairrell, Simmons, Swanson,
Edmonds, Vaughn, and Rupley (2011) provide another example
of explicit ways to teach academic vocabulary. Focusing specifi-
cally on social studies vocabulary, they describe research-based
learning strategies using a before, during, and after reading
framework to assist students as they interact with text.
Alexander-Shea (2011) presents a convincing argument to
“redefine vocabulary” (p. 95) as “the new learning strategy for
social studies” (p. 95). Given the use of multiple text-based
resources to help students grapple with social, cultural, historical,
and civic issues, Alexander-Shea emphasizes the importance of
vocabulary instruction for aiding text comprehension. She
describes specific vocabulary instructional suggestions for activat-
ing prior knowledge, making connections between and among
concepts, comparing and contrasting known concepts, and lastly
helping students generate their own ideas about terms. These
instructional tools actually create opportunities for students to
not only internalize word meanings but, more than that, enable
students to develop and refine their own conceptual understand-
ings of the topics being addressed.
Several research studies document instructional practices
that hold promise for teaching and learning social studies vocab-
ulary. For example, Franquiz and Salinas (2013) investigated the
ways in which a high school social studies teacher supported lan-
guage development of English language learners while teaching
content. Their findings indicate that the use of historical inquiry
with primary sources and text-based questions can enable the stu-
dents to understand American history concepts and also aid
English language development and the acquisition of academic
vocabulary. Schleppegrelle and de Oliveira (2006) also advocate
for the practice of integrating language learning with content
learning. They trained social studies teachers in the use of
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 277

linguistic analysis to deconstruct text passages to scaffold their

own students’ understanding of the language of social studies.
With this approach they noted that the teacher participants
developed an understanding of particular linguistic constructs
that were useful in promoting classroom discussions of history
topics. Vaughn, Roberts, Swanson, Wanzek, Fall, and Stillman-
Spisak (2015) found in their intervention study with eighth grade
students in social studies classes statistical significance in both
knowledge acquisition and vocabulary for those students who
received the instructional intervention.
On the other hand, in their observational study of middle and
high school social studies and language arts classrooms, Swanson
et al. (2016) discovered that in the social studies classrooms vocab-
ulary instructional practices varied across participants. The most
predominant instructional practice was providing students with
word definitions. They observed to a much lesser extent the use of
context clues instruction and morphology instruction. Further-
more, in his observational study of the literacy practices of high
school history teachers, Nokes (2010) found evidence of a strong
reliance on textbooks and a general focus on literacy through the
use of worksheets and attention to vocabulary, and little evidence
of literacy instruction specific to history.
It is important to note, that regardless of the outcomes of
these studies, what social studies teachers understand about
teaching and learning can impact their decision-making process
in regard to instructional practices. While reading comprehen-
sion, student engagement, and disciplinary thinking and reason-
ing are all valuable facets of effective instruction, the extent to
which social studies teachers attend to these facets remains an
individual effort based upon their own perspectives and beliefs
about teaching and learning (Monte-Sano & Cochran, 2009).
The same can be said for the decisions social studies teachers
make about vocabulary teaching and learning.

Methodology

Grounded in research-based frameworks about vocabulary teach-

ing and learning, this qualitative investigation occurred at two loca-
tions—South Central Texas and the North Carolina Piedmont
278 J. Harmon et al.

area. To obtain feasible and reliable informants, we used purpose-

ful sampling, resulting in 25 high school social studies teachers
willing to participate in the study (Mertens, 2010). These partici-
pants taught in five different school districts located in urban and
suburban areas with 10 participants reporting that their school was
a Title 1 school. Collectively, the teaching experiences of the par-
ticipants ranged from 1 year to 43 years with the majority having
taught less than 20 years. Thirteen of the participants held mas-
ters’ degrees with the others holding bachelor’s degrees. Across
participants there was variation in the degrees, including history,
political science, applied science, geography, and journalism. In
regard to teaching certification, only three participants reported
having obtained their certificate via alternative certification routes
instead of through university-based preparation programs. At the
time of data collection for the study, the 25 participants were
teaching courses in a variety of social studies areas, such as U.S.
History, Macroeconomics, Psychology, World History, European
History, Government, and Comparative Religions (see Table 1).

Data Collection

The major data source used in this investigation was face-to-face

interviews conducted by the researchers. As mentioned previously,
the research questions guiding the study were the following:

 What do high school social studies teachers understand about

vocabulary teaching and learning?
 How do high school social studies teachers support student
vocabulary learning?

In developing interview questions to address these ques-

tions, we began with broad questions to contextualize the partici-
pants in terms of several aspects of their teaching, including the
use of texts for instruction, references to suggestions in teachers’
editions of textbooks, and the use of oral and silent reading dur-
ing class time. We then focused specifically on the nature of
vocabulary teaching and learning within these contexts and pur-
posefully made a distinction between content-specific vocabulary
(e.g., civilization, abolition, continental drift) and general
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 279

TABLE 1 Participants.
Participants Years of teaching Highest degrees Areas of social
experience earned studies taught

1 43 Master of Arts Macroeconomics

Psychology
2 13 Master of Science US History
AP US History
3 13 Master’s Degree in US History
Educational Leadership
AP US History
4 9 Master’s Degree in AP World History,
Secondary Education
AP European History
5 17 Master’s Degree in AP US History
Technology
Master’s Degree in US History
Curriculum and
Instruction
Comparative
Religions
6 6 Master of Arts in History US History
7 8 Master of Arts in Bicultural/ World History
Bilingual Studies
8 3 Master of Science in Government
International Relations
Master of Arts in Education World History
and Political Science
9 14 Master of Arts in History US History
AP US History
10 4 Bachelor’s Degree in AP Psychology
History
US History
11 23 Bachelor’s Degree in World History
History and Political
Science
AP European History
12 8 Master’s Degree in History US History
13 2 Bachelor’s Degree in World History
History
Minor in English
14 2 Bachelor’s Degree in World History
History
15 19 Bachelor’s Degree in Geography
Journalism
Minor in Geography

(Continued on next page)

280 J. Harmon et al.

16 27 Bachelor’s Degree in US History

Education
Major in Physical Education Geography
Minor in Health Economics
17 13 Master’s Degree in AP World History
Educational Leadership
World Geography
World Culture
Government
18 4 Bachelor’s Degree in World Geography
History
Pre-AP
Economics
19 16 Master’s Degree in US History
Curriculum and
Instruction
AP Psychology
Sociology
Government
AP Government
Economics
20 9 Bachelor’s Degree in AP Human Geography
Geography
Pre AP World History
21 2 Master’s Degree in World History
Secondary Education
Sociology
American History
22 1st year Bachelor’s Degree in American History
History
23 4 Bachelor’s Degree AP Psychology
AP Human Geography
Sociology
Civics
Economics
24 4 Bachelor’s Degree in World History
History
AP World History
25 1st year Bachelor’s Degree in World History
History
US History

academic vocabulary (e.g., contrast, analyze, justify). At the end

of the interview, we asked participants to read a passage from a
history textbook, select words to highlight with students, and
then explain how they would teach the selected words. While
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 281

audiotaping the interviews, the researchers also took written

notes of teachers’ responses. The audiotapes were then tran-
scribed for data analysis. Appendix A contains the interview
questions.

Data Analysis

Based upon the nature of the research questions, we analyzed the

data qualitatively using a constant comparative approach (Fram,
2013; Merriam, 1998; Ragin, 2014). In our efforts to critically ana-
lyze the data across participants, we followed steps that involved
two major phases.

PHASE 1
We began by developing a chart to categorize the participant
responses by the major topics evident in the list of interview questions.
Then, on an independent, individual basis, the researchers read
through the data for each category, noting any emerging patterns or
themes. At this point, the researchers discussed what they were notic-
ing and came to an agreement about what they were finding.

PHASE 2
In this next step, to conduct a more fine-grained analysis, the
researchers revisited the data to obtain a deeper interpretation
and to corroborate the emerging themes discovered in Phase 1.
Finally, as the last step in data analysis, we conducted a cross
check using the responses the participants provided about the
word selections and instruction they would use with the history
passage they read at the end of the interview. This analysis
enabled us to verify participants’ responses about their vocabu-
lary instructional practices.
We acknowledge that limitations of the study do exist. One
limitation is the number of participants. However, given the
nature of the interviews, we believe that the findings, while do
apply to these participants, can also suggest important considera-
tions about vocabulary understandings of a wider population of
high school social studies teachers. Another limitation is the
nature of social studies itself. Social studies covers different areas
282 J. Harmon et al.

(e.g., history, geography, psychology) and the participants in this

study taught in a variety of different areas. Nevertheless, teaching
certification in this discipline frequently is actually a social studies
certification as compared to certification in specific areas of
social studies. Also, many social studies teachers, as with some in
this study, also teach different courses during a particular school
year. Finally, we realize the nature of self- report data but also
believe that these perceptions of participants can be useful in
informing future investigations about vocabulary teaching and
learning at the high school level (See Table 2).

Findings

Vocabulary teaching and learning is deeply embedded in the

complex role of literacy in secondary classrooms and addresses
different types of words. Content specific vocabulary terms are
critical labels for social studies concepts and general academic
vocabulary terms are part of the academic language used to
express these concepts. To capture teachers’ understandings
about vocabulary and their instructional practices, we use a
sociocultural lens to situate the findings within the broader liter-
acy context of the classroom as described by the participants.
Hence, we present the findings by first describing this literacy

TABLE 2 Methodology.
Participants Purposive sampling of 25 high school social studies teachers

Data collection Face-to-face interviews

Data analysis Phase 1: Researchers independently categorized participant
responses by major topics evident in the interview
questions noting emerging patterns and themes.
Researchers discussed their findings and arrived at
consensus.
Phase 2: Researchers conducted a fine-grained analysis to obtain
a deeper interpretation and to corroborate emerging
themes.
Researchers again discussed their findings and arrived
at consensus.
A cross check was conducted with the participant
responses to a history passage they read at the end of the
interview.
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 283

context—a context that can influence decision-making about

vocabulary instructional practices. We then embed within this
wider framework two major themes that emerged from the data:
(1) reliance on content area literacy strategies to support vocab-
ulary learning and (2) noted challenges that constrain vocabu-
lary instruction. The major categories, then, for reporting the
findings include the broader literacy context, vocabulary instruc-
tion, and challenges.

Broader Literacy Context

Within the broader literacy context, we include findings about

the kinds of texts used by the participants, sources of instruc-
tional suggestions and teaching support, and reading support
provided to the students.

TEXTS USED IN THE CLASSROOMS

The majority of the participants (17 out of 25) reported a strong
reliance on the textbook as the main source of information for
teaching their courses. Nonetheless, there was some variation of
text use with the other participants including one that claimed to
rarely use the assigned textbook. In regard to primary docu-
ments, only three participants mentioned using these documents
in history classes to prepare students for the state assessments
that have such readings. Other participants mentioned using the
supplemental materials, such as graphic organizers, provided by
the textbook publishers.

SOURCES OF INSTRUCTIONAL SUGGESTIONS AND TEACHING

SUPPORT
Participants offered varied responses in regard to what sources
they relied on for suggestions to teach social studies. Most did not
follow the suggestions in the teachers’ edition of the textbook for
several reasons, such as they were not very helpful or there were
no teachers’ edition available to use. Some participants obtained
instructional suggestions from other venues, such as the College
Board for advanced placement classes. Team meetings at the
department level were another source for instructional suggestions
284 J. Harmon et al.

and teaching support. Yet, in some cases, these collaborative team

efforts were somewhat restrictive, as one participant noted:

I’ve never taught where I have to teach the way the other
teachers do until this year. I’ve been allowed to do whatever
I want – make my own lessons. It’s very structured here – like
this is what we’re doing tomorrow. And there’s nothing like
use the book to do this with. So, I don’t know that I can say
very much about it.

READING SUPPORT PROVIDED TO THE STUDENTS

Again there were variations in the ways in which the participants
supported students’ reading of the texts in regard to oral and
silent readings. These differences were especially evident in the
ways in which readings were conducted for advanced placement
(AP) classes and on level classes. As one participant noted, “My
AP classes, for the most part, are expected to read outside of
class.” Still another commented,

In the AP Psychology I say to the kids, Hey, we’re reading

Chapter 4 and having a test on it next week. So, you need to
read it on your own. We do a Power Point where I kind of hit
the main points. I don’t really do much with reading the
text with them. I give them some supplemental stuff to read.
The US History kids [on-level class] the new book has got it
to where the computer can read it to them. We’ve done that
a couple of times. I’ll have the computer read a section with
them. We get a book out and this is something we’ve really
been trying this year. I think kids really enjoy it – the ones
who are not great readers. It’s good for them. But the more
advance readers get more bored with it. So it’s kind of hard
to gage how successful it is.

As evident in the previous quote, for the on-level classes, par-

ticipants offered more structured support through both oral and
silent reading during class time. In the words of another partici-
pant, “I may direct them and say, ‘Read it silently and then talk to
your partner about it’ or, ‘Read it with your partner and talk
about it as you read.’ ” Yet, for both AP and on-level classes, many
participants claimed to use non-research-based practices, such as
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 285

round robin reading or popcorn reading where students take

turn reading aloud, when confronted with difficult texts or con-
cepts. For example, one participant stated,

So there’s “popcorn” reading. I very rarely do silent reading.

I tried it at the beginning with freshman – at the beginning
of the school year – and it’s hard to get them to focus. You
can get them, but they lose interest. Sometimes I read out
loud for a couple of sentences and then we break down what
I just read and emphasize. Other times I call on them to
read and they’ll read it out loud. It’s not necessarily
“popcorn” reading. I’ll just call on a student and they’ll read
it so their peers can learn from another peer.

Still another noted the use of oral reading due to the lack of
textbook availability:

Since we no longer have enough copies for all classes, stu-

dents now must read the texts in class independently or they
have to check them out for use outside of the classroom. If
we use something from the text in a class lesson, then pages
are projected on the smart board to be read aloud and for
students to take notes. If we are reading texts in class, I often
project them on the board and have students read aloud.

Vocabulary Instruction

For this category of findings, we first address the ways in which

participants planned for vocabulary instruction, including sour-
ces of teaching suggestions as well as word selection. We then
present the specific instructional practices the participants men-
tioned for teaching vocabulary.

INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING
Similar to the responses about instructional suggestions from
textbook publishers that were reported under the category of the
broader context of teaching social studies, the participants also
noted limited use of textbook suggestions for supporting vocabu-
lary learning. One participant stated that the vocabulary activities
286 J. Harmon et al.

from the textbook were geared to a definitional level and were

not helpful in guiding students to move beyond that level to
more meaningful applications of word meanings. Another com-
mented that vocabulary suggestions in the textbooks do not offer
differentiated practices to meet the needs of all students.
“Because it changes year to year on how you are going to teach
them. You have a class with many ELL students. Or there may be
kids with lower reading so you change what you do – breaking
down words or maybe using simpler words. But it changes year to
year. It’s never going to be the same – very rarely has it been.”
Another aspect of vocabulary planning was word selection. In
selecting words to teach, the participants relied heavily on outside
sources and personal choice. Outside sources included publishers’
selections noted in boldface type, district curriculum lists, and
words highlighted in state standards for social studies. The partici-
pants also relied on personal choice as they considered the needs
of their students, especially English learners, and past experiences
with terms that were difficult for students. Yet, they also com-
mented about how anticipating important words to highlight still
does not necessarily meet the needs of all students. One partici-
pant made the following comment about the word schism:

The hardest thing is anticipating what the students under-

stand because lots of the problems that occur while we’re
teaching is they’re not understanding words that are social
studies vocabulary words – it’s the other words. Like one of
the words is schism. If they come across the word schism it
kind of pauses their thinking. It kind of pauses their flow.
They can’t digest the sentence because they don’t know
what the word is. . .. these are not social studies vocabulary
terms just words.

SPECIFIC VOCABULARY INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

The participants shared a variety of instructional practices that
were based upon student needs as well as practices that have
been associated with content area literacy. Once again, as seen in
the broader context of teaching social studies, some of the partic-
ipants clearly differentiated their instruction with AP and on-level
classes. In the words of one participant, the numbers of words
assigned were different: “In the regular class I’ll usually assign
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 287

about four words a week – I’d say. In the AP there are usually
between twelve and fifteen words for an average in a week.”
Another commented on the use of different activities depending
upon the class: “I don’t do this as much with AP – I do sometimes
– but I feel with my regular students defining the word, use in a
sentence and draw a picture really helped them a lot.”
In regard to the actual instructional practices we found that
many of these approaches represented differences in vocabulary
teaching and learning beliefs of the participants. We present
three major differences evident in the data in regard to introduc-
ing vocabulary, promoting active student engagement, and not-
ing differences between content-specific vocabulary and general
academic vocabulary.
For introducing vocabulary, we noticed a contrast between
pre-teaching vocabulary and attending to the words in context.
Some of the participants frontloaded vocabulary at the beginning
of a new unit and did so in a variety of ways, such as providing a
list of words and definitions to the students as a reference tool,
presenting revised glossary definitions using language that stu-
dents can understand, and highlighting words during warm-ups.
In introducing new words to English learners, pronunciation and
spelling was important to one participant:

In dialoguing with them and introducing the subject if they

are reading a passage, I would ask them to focus in on the
word. I make sure that they are familiar with the pronuncia-
tion of it as well as the spelling – I don’t count off for the
spelling or pronunciation but I need for them to be able to
pronounce it properly. They’re going to [eventually] write it.

Another participant introduced new words in warm-up

activities.

In the regular classroom. . ..I start by trying to embed the

vocabulary from the upcoming unit in the daily warm ups.
We do that by projecting them onto the smart board and
the vocabulary word I want them to focus on is embedded in
something else that I want them to learn related to that
term. What we’ll usually do is put that up and I’ll ask them
what they think that word means and circle it on the smart
288 J. Harmon et al.

board. We’ll have a little discussion about what they think it

means and we’ll talk about what it means.

In contrast to preteaching vocabulary, other participants

leaned more toward introducing new words as they are encoun-
tered in context. When asked about introducing new words, one
participant stated, “[When] it comes up in the course of the learn-
ing. It’s not something in either class [AP or on-level] that we pre-
teach it all and then teach the unit or anything like that. It just
comes up in the course of the learning. It could happen any day
of the week – at any particular time.” Another participant noted,

We want them to read in context. That’s the best way to do

it. We try to get them to understand the words in context.
I’ve seen teachers do vocabulary before they read – look up
the definitions and do the words. Lots of time they’re just
going through the motions and it’s just so abstract for them
that when it comes to actually applying the words in their
reading, it doesn’t translate. So we try to get them to do it in
context in their reading as much as they can.

Still another stated,

For example while reading about nationalism, if they don’t

know what that word is I’ll ask them, “What do you think
nationalism is?” If nobody replies I just go ahead and say,
“OK, nationalism means this.” Then, I’ll try to tie it in to an
idea that they’ll understand – kind of like real world
response.

A second difference in the ways the participants taught

vocabulary was the contrast between promoting active student
participation and passive student participation during class time.
In response to the questions about practices that work best for
students, only a few participants focused on instruction that
involved limited, traditional student participation. For example,
one participant liked one procedure used in the past:

I use to do it in a different way where I would – we would

have a strict regimen. We would lecture for 25 minutes and
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 289

then we would work on vocabulary. Then, they would get a

practice test. Whatever we covered in class that day – those
vocabulary words – and then we would do those test ques-
tions on a practice test. I liked it. They were doing Cornell
notes at the time as well.

The majority of the participants, however, leaned toward hav-

ing students engage in vocabulary in more active ways, especially
through the use of different visuals. The visuals included anchor
charts for both general and academic vocabulary terms, word walls
with pictures and definitions, graphic organizers, word maps, and
student-drawn illustrations of word meanings. In addition, others
talked of additional ways to actively involve students. One stated,
“They really like relating it to their lives – how it can relate to them.
We also, once in a while, draw a scene out. Like last year we had a
lot of fun with acting those out and doing mini-skits for that. We
don’t do the memorization type of vocabulary that we grew up on.
We try to do more active learning.” Still others offered students
opportunities to engage in class discussions in which the terminol-
ogy had to be used to express ideas. This type of application
enabled some participants to assess if students understood the word
meanings. For example, one participant noted, “When they’re [stu-
dents] using them in context. When they know the words and say-
ing them in context, that’s when I know. Like today we have a clip
from The Butler movie and they know, ‘Those are the sit-ins there.
They use those for nonviolent protest’. They got the words.”
Focusing on content-specific vocabulary in contrast to general
academic vocabulary was another difference evident in the data. All
participants, when asked about vocabulary instruction, described
activities in reference to content-specific vocabulary regardless of
class level or student population. In the following example, the par-
ticipant shared time constraints, introduced a bolded content-spe-
cific word in context, and had a student read orally:

When we start a new lesson, what I’ll do if we have time, I’ll

state, “Let’s look at the vocabulary words” and we’ll go over
it. If I don’t have time, I’ll just go through it like, “James,
you read the first paragraph. OK, that bold word – does any-
one know what it means?” If they say “yes”, I’ll ask for an
example. If they don’t, we’ll kind of talk about it for a
290 J. Harmon et al.

moment in the context. “Look at the sentence that’s sur-

rounding the word.” And, we’ll go from there.

While many participants addressed general academic vocab-

ulary when asked about challenges, one in particular talked
about these types of words when asked about instructional practi-
ces. This participant used anchor charts:

At the top of the anchor chart, it has something called process

verbs and these are other types of words we can use in generali-
zation, analysis, summarizing – these types of words. So we try to
get them familiar with those types of words. In using the
anchor charts and using those process verbs we have them uti-
lize the content vocabulary and using the other vocabulary to
sequence things – to analyze things, to infer what you thing
this word means based on what you just read. So it’s the back
and forth – that’s why I found I like the anchor chart.

When asked about general academic vocabulary, another

participant stated:

I think for those types of words on essays – we do guided essays

– where we actually where we will have a class discussion over it
and I will write the essay on the Elmo for the first one. Like
we’ll almost write it together just so they understand the lan-
guage that needs to be included. Because in world history
there’s three essays they have to do and they do struggle with
what is enough evaluation. What does analysis really mean? So
we’ll do, I call it guided essay writing, we’ll write it together.
Or, write maybe the first body part of the essay together and
they’ll have to follow that example and write the rest.

Still another noted the terms were covered at the beginning

of the year in what they called historical thinking skills:

When we do document analysis, at the very beginning of the

year when they do their very first document analysis, we go
over what it means to analyze. At the very beginning of the
year when we talk about cause and effect for the first time, we
go over what it means on the first cause and effect assignment.
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 291

We look at causes and effects and what is a true cause and

what is a true effect versus what is just their thinking. So we
do that actually before they get to each of those historical
thinking skills. I do that along the way.

Challenges

The challenges facing these participants were both student factors

and school-related factors. Student factors included lack of neces-
sary background knowledge especially of terms that were not part
of the culture or environment of the student, limited knowledge
of general academic vocabulary, limited reading strategies, failure
to grasp the big abstract concepts unique to learning social studies,
and lack of understanding of how words work in terms of morpho-
logical families. In the following example, the participant noted
the challenge of teaching abstract ideas to English learners:

So when you give them a term like laissez-faire, a French

word, and they have trouble first of all because it looks alien
to them. So they have trouble pronouncing it and grasping
what it means. So what you do there is bring in hand ges-
tures in order to try and get them to understand – at least in
a very superficial way what it means in order for them to be
able to work. And this is also what I consider – it’s a thread-
ing word. It’s a concept that’s going to keep coming back
and forth. That’s when the anchor chart would say – you put
up the word laissez-faire, I would say, “ Is that a word that is
exclusive to the Great Depression? No.” It is a threading con-
cept.” So I can say, “We have these presidents here –Are they hands
on or hands off?” This really helps the ELL students because
they can see you – government hands on or hands off. So if
it’s the hands on approach, you have that filter to go
through. That’s what they have the most trouble with. So
you try to find ways to get them to understand it in a very
superficial manner and then start introducing this thread –
hey, this means this or . . . but it’s difficult because they can’t
conceptualize it.

Another participant expressed concerns about general aca-

demic vocabulary:
292 J. Harmon et al.

I even have kids that don’t know increase and decrease. They
can’t even answer a test question if that can’t do that. They
might know the material, but if they don’t know the mean-
ing of increase and decrease they can’t answer the question.
There’s a lot of those non-social studies words that they
don’t know. So, if you talk about the topic – they understand
the topic. They remember the topic but they can’t answer
the question because of the non-social studies vocabulary.

Another voiced concerns about morphology: “They struggle

with different forms of the same word. For example, one big
word in history is patriarchy. They’ll understand it, but if they see
patriarch in a different context, some of them cannot translate
that.” Still another noted that students struggled with reading pri-
mary documents because of the difference in language used in
the past compared to what is used today.
School-related factors also presented a challenge to some of
the participants, difficulties that included time constraints, course
offerings, accessibility to textbooks, and the pressures of state
assessments. One expressed concern about time constraints in
regard to the amount of terms that needed to be taught: “It’s not
the difficulty with any one word; it’s just the amount. There are
so many technical words for U.S. History that they learn them but
they never go into that long-term memory. It’s always short term.”
One U.S. teacher believed that courses should be offered in
a particular order, such as government before economics and his-
tory, to ensure that students were exposed specific terminology
that appears also in history. Another voiced access to textbooks
as a major problem: “The greatest difficulty is that students do
not have unlimited access to these textbooks since there are not
enough for each student. Therefore, most vocabulary is given
and thoroughly covered in class without much independent read-
ing.” State assessments also influence vocabulary instruction as
implied in the following comment:

I don’t know if a lot of it is because there’s no [state] test in

geography anymore so no one really cares what’s going on.
Whereas, maybe in a US History class it is a bigger deal
because they absolutely have to know it. In geography, it’s
like if they don’t understand this topic – what’s going to
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 293

happen, really? Nothing, they’re just not going to pass a test

or a question on the test but there’s nothing holding anyone
accountable for actually teaching it to the kids.

Discussion

In this study, we examined the understandings of high school

social studies teachers about vocabulary teaching and learning.
The investigation considered the sociocultural context of not only
the classroom interactions reported between teachers and stu-
dents but also the broader context of school that may have shaped
their instructional decision-making for teaching vocabulary. We
focus on three discussion areas: external influences on vocabulary
teaching and learning, understandings of vocabulary teaching and
learning, and differentiated vocabulary instruction and possible
connections to other vocabulary acquisition scholarship traditions.

External Influences on Vocabulary Teaching and Learning

What these teachers described as their vocabulary practices to sup-

port student learning, occurred within particular parameters that
were, to some extent, beyond the control of the teacher. These
external influences included limited suggestions in the teachers’
editions of textbooks that teachers felt were worthwhile for vocabu-
lary instruction. The majority of the teachers reported that they
relied on suggestions provided in district level professional devel-
opment training sessions and team meetings at the department
level. In some cases, all teachers in a department followed the
same instructional formats. This was especially evident for instruc-
tional practices to aid English learners handle the vocabulary
demands of social studies texts. We found many teachers incorpo-
rating visuals not only for ELLs but also for use with all students.
Another external influence included temporal issues that
affected vocabulary instruction. Teachers felt pressured many
times to move forward in covering topics rather than shorten
the pace to allow students to internalize what was being taught.
These constraints present barriers to effective vocabulary learn-
ing in that students need to have multiple exposures with words
and terms in meaningful ways before word ownership occurs.
294 J. Harmon et al.

Still another external influence was the ubiquitous state assess-

ments driving the curriculum, especially in the social studies
area of history since that content appears on the state exam.
Teachers felt compelled to cover the topics that, again, added
to the pressures put forth with time constraints. Furthermore,
teachers had an obligation to ensure that students read primary
source documents, not from a disciplinary literacy perspective,
but because the documents appeared on the state assessment
exam.

Understandings of Vocabulary Teaching and Learning

The vocabulary instructional practices of the teachers in this

study were not only influenced by these external factors, but
were also driven by the belief systems of the teachers about
vocabulary teaching and learning. Belief systems about vocab-
ulary are closely related to the relationship between word
knowledge and comprehension (Nagy, 2005; Stahl, 1999). Sev-
eral explanations or hypotheses help to explain this relation-
ship, including the instrumental, knowledge, and access
hypotheses—all of which have bearing on this study. An
instrumental hypothesis stance, while an incomplete explana-
tion, indicates that a teacher believes in a causal relationship
between vocabulary and comprehension; in other words,
knowing more words can increase comprehension. The knowl-
edge hypothesis, on the other hand, places a strong emphasis
on background knowledge as a mediating variable between
vocabulary and comprehension. According to this stance,
knowing the meaning of words indicates what a reader knows
about a concept or topic. The last one, access hypotheses,
stresses the need for learning words well enough to be easily
accessed and retrieved for use in reading, writing, and speak-
ing (Nagy, 2005; Stahl, 1999).
The descriptions of vocabulary instruction provided by
the teachers in this study suggest that many of the teachers
viewed vocabulary from an instrumental hypothesis perspec-
tive, especially those who felt that preteaching vocabulary
before beginning a new unit would support reading compre-
hension and even those teachers who preferred to explain
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 295

new and unfamiliar words as they appeared within the context

of the text. The knowledge hypothesis with its emphasis on
background knowledge, was evident in general comments
about how many students lacked an appropriate knowledge
base from which to learn new concepts. The teachers under-
stood that words, as labels for concepts, are not learned in a
vacuum but are learned in relation to other connected ideas
and concepts. This was readily apparent in the responses
some participants provided when they discussed how they
would teach the passage we targeted at the end of the inter-
view. For example, one participant noted,

I would create an organizer – inside you have the New Right,

kind of the key word of the paragraph. Then around the
organizer would be the terms that are related to the New
Right like Equal Rights Amendment, busing, affirmative action . . .
they make the connection that these were the things related
to the New Right and the stances that the New Right had.

We found a dearth of evidence that teachers provided

opportunities for multiple, meaningful exposures to new termi-
nology (i.e., access hypothesis), opportunities needed to internal-
ize word meanings.
In regard to word selection and accompanying activities
with the words, we noted that many of the activities, such as
graphic organizers, word maps, and visuals, were largely used
with context-specific terms. Teachers only mentioned a few
instructional practices for helping students understand gen-
eral academic vocabulary terms, such as justify and interpret.
Yet, the majority of the teachers noted that these academic
terms were problematic.

Differentiated Vocabulary Instruction and Connections with Other

Vocabulary Acquisition Scholarship Traditions

The teachers in this study acknowledged the need for differ-

entiated vocabulary instruction for the diverse learners in
their classrooms. They also believed that AP students are capa-
ble of handling text demands more readily by themselves than
296 J. Harmon et al.

on-level students. Moreover, for all students the language of

social studies itself presented challenges to the students and
in some ways reflects what foreign language scholars and
researchers have long since known about vocabulary acquisi-
tion (Coady & Huckin, 1997; Folse, 2004; Griffiths, 2003).
These researchers realized that the communicative compe-
tence of foreign language learners was compromised when
they were unable to express concepts completely (Caro,
2017); as Folse (2004) states, “you can get by without gram-
mar; you cannot get by without vocabulary” (p. 4).
The social studies teachers in our study approached vocab-
ulary acquisition in much the same way as the foreign language
pedagogy scholarship community. They valued contextualiza-
tion through graphic organizers, visuals, and other multimodal
tools. Furthermore, the social studies teachers knew the value
of having students actively engage in discussions and in writing
activities in which the newly learned terms and phrases could
be applied. As foreign language teachers commonly do
(Reaser, 2010), some of these social studies teachers also
employed primary documents to reveal vocabulary use in soci-
ety during particular time periods.

Implications for Future Research

The efforts of the social studies teachers in this study suggest that
future studies on social studies vocabulary acquisition may bene-
fit from comparison with and elaboration through the extant for-
eign language pedagogy scholarship. In addition, our research
contextualizes additional questions that remain for future
studies:

 Knowing that literacy instruction is not necessarily transferra-

ble across all disciplines, how do we identify the most effective
ways to teach social studies vocabulary that honors the multi-
faceted and complex nature of the subject?
 How do we get administrators and other school leaders to see
the need for this transition in thinking about reading in the
content areas?
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 297

 What are the best ways to inform teachers of research-based

vocabulary strategies needed in their disciplines to develop the
vocabulary and concept knowledge for students of all ability
levels?

Final Thoughts

As a final thought about the results of this investigation, we again

consider what Dunkerly-Bean and Bean (2016) assert as a ques-
tionable dichotomy between content literacy as opposed to disci-
plinary literacy. Content literacy and disciplinary literacy appear
to intersect in what the participants in this study shared. The
vocabulary instructional practices mentioned by the participants
reflected general content literacy strategies that are useful across
different content areas. Yet, on the other hand, teachers also
talked about the need to help students understand the larger,
abstract concepts of social studies and to interpret primary sour-
ces—both features of disciplinary literacy. This supports what
Conley (2017) has said is an “outside-in” approach to teaching
social studies. Assumptions about what should be taught and
learned overshadow the need to view the multi-faceted nature of
social studies. Primary sources, however, were considered prob-
lematic, since during the time period in which they were written,
different patterns of language were used especially in terms of
vocabulary and syntax—both presenting challenges to students.
This study further underlines the importance of supporting,
expanding, and guiding students’ vocabulary development as it
relates to new terms, concepts, and language patterns present in
complex texts in all its forms.

References

Alexander-Shea, A. (2011). Redefining vocabulary: The new learning strategy

for social studies. The Social Studies, 102(3), 95–103. doi:10.1080/
00377996.2010.509371
Alvermann, D. E., Gillis, V. R., & Phelps, S. F. (2013). Content area reading
and literacy: Succeeding in today’ s diverse classrooms (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
298 J. Harmon et al.

Ash, G., & Baumann, J. (2017). Vocabulary and reading comprehension: The
nexus of meaning. In S. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehen-
sion (2nd ed., pp. 377–405). New York, NY: Guilford.
Baumann, J. F., & Graves, M. F. (Ed.) (2010). What is academic vocab-
ulary?. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 4–12. doi:10.1598/
JAAL.54.1.1
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational
Researcher, 15(7), 5–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X015007007
Blachowicz, C., Fisher, P., Ogle, D., & Watts Taffe, S. (2013). Teaching academic
vocabulary K-8: Effective practices across the curriculum. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Buehl, D. (2011). Developing readers in the academic disciplines. Newark, DE: Inter-
national Reading Association.
Caro, K. (2017). Lexis, lexical competence, and lexical knowledge: A review.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 205–213. doi:10.17507/
jltr.0802.01
Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds.) (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conley, M. W. (2017). Improving adolescent comprehension. In S. E. Israel
(Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 406–427).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
doi:10.2307/3587951
Dunkerly-Bean, J., & Bean, T. W. (2016). Missing the savoir for the connaissance:
Disciplinary and content area literacy as regimes of truth. Journal of Literacy
Research, 48(4), 448–475. doi:10.1177/1086296X16674988
Folse, K. (2004). Myths about teaching and learning second language vocabu-
lary: What research says. TESL Reporter, 37(2), 1–13.
Fram, S. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of
grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18(1), 1.
Franquiz, M. E., & Salinas, C. (2013). Knowing English is not enough! Cultivat-
ing academic literacies among high school newcomers. The High School Jour-
nal, 96(4), 339–357. doi:10.1353/hsj.2013.0012
Gillis, V. (2014/2015). Talking the talk: Vocabulary instruction across the disci-
plines (or what to do instead). Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(4),
281–287. doi:10.1002/jaal.356
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367–
383. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00048-4
Hairrell, A., Simmons, D., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., & Rupley, W.
H. (2011). Translating vocabulary research to social studies instruction:
Before, during, and after text-reading strategies. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 46(4), 204–210. doi:10.1177/1053451210389606
Langer, J. A. (2011). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disci-
plines. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelley, J. G., & Harris, J. R. (2014). Effects of aca-
demic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 299

from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 6(51),

1159–1194. doi:10.3102/0002831214532165
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in educational psychology: Integrat-
ing diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Monte-Sano, C., & Cochran, M. (2009). Attention to learners, subject, or teach-
ing: What takes precedence as preservice candidates learn to teach historical
thinking and reading? Theory & Research in Social Education, 37(1), 101–135.
doi:10.1080/00933104.2009.10473389
Moore, D. W. (2009). Advocating reading instruction in middle- and high-
school classrooms. In K. D. Wood & W. E. Blanton (Eds.), Promoting literacy
with adolescent learners: Research based instruction (pp. 13–33). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Nagy, W. (2005). Why vocabulary needs to be long-term and comprehen-
sive. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabu-
lary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 27–44). Malwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabu-
lary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108.
doi:10.1002/RRQ.011
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). U.S. history 2010: National
assessment of educational progress at grades 4, 8, and 12. Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Educational Statistics,
U.S. Department of Education.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language
arts and literacy, history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington,
DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/
RH/9-10/
Nokes, J. (2010). Observing literacy practices in history classrooms. Theory
and Research in Social Education, 38(4), 515–544. doi:10.1080/
00933104.2010.10473438
Ogle, D., Blachowicz, C., Fisher, P., & Lang, L. (2015). Academic vocabulary in
middle and high school: Effective practices across the disciplines. New York:
Guilford.
Ragin, C. C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quanti-
tative strategies. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Reaser, J. (2010). Using media to teach about language. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 4(9), 782–792. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00237.x
Reed, D. K., Medina, L. A., Martinez, N. A., & Veleta, L. G. (2013). The
accessibility of academic vocabulary to Spanish speaking high school
biology students. The High School Journal, 2(97), 80–91. doi:10.1353/
hsj.2013.0025
300 J. Harmon et al.

Schleppegrell, M., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2006). An integrated language and con-

tent approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
5(4), 254–268. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.003
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misichia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in
three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy
Research, 43, 393–429. doi:10.1177/1086296X11424071
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adoles-
cents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78,
40–59. doi:10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2014). Teaching history and literacy. In
K. A. Hinchman & H. K. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in ado-
lescent literacy instruction (2nd ed., pp. 232–248). New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading pro-
grams for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading
Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4
Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., McCulley, L., Stillman-Spisak, S., Vaughn, S., Simmons,
D., . . . Hairrell, A. (2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high
school social studies and English language arts classrooms. Reading and Writ-
ing Quarterly, 32, 199–222. doi:10.1080/10573569.2014.910718.
The Americans: United States History Since 1877 (2016). (p. 831). Orlando, FL:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. L., & Mraz, M. (2011). Content area reading: Literacy and
learning across the curriculum (10th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Swanson, E. A., Wanzek, J., Fall, A., & Stillman-Spisak,
S. J. (2015). Improving middle-school students’ knowledge and comprehen-
sion in social studies: A replication. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1),
31–50. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9274-2
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach
between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28,
495–519. doi:10.3102/00028312028003495
Wolsey, T. D., & Lapp, D. (2017). Literacy in the disciplines: A teacher’ s guide for
grades 5–12. New York: Guilford.
Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting common core standards across
disciplines (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Appendix A
Interview Questions
 How many years have you been teaching?
 What area of social studies do you teach currently? What other areas have
you taught?
 What degree(s) do you hold?
 What printed texts do you use? What additional resources do you use?
 Do you use a textbook? If so, which one and how much do you rely on the
textbook for instruction?
 High School Social Studies Vocabulary Teaching 301

 Do you follow the suggestions in the teacher’s edition? If so, which ones?
 Do you follow the suggestions for teaching vocabulary in the teacher’s
edition?
 How helpful are the vocabulary instructional suggestions?
 What other texts do you use?
 Are there suggestions for teaching vocabulary with these other texts? If so,
what are they? If not, what do you do?
 How do students read the texts you assign? (silently, orally, indepen-
dently, teacher reads)
 How do you select the words to teach for a unit?
 What vocabulary practices work the best with your students?
 How and when do you introduce the words?
 What is the greatest difficulty that students have with the specific vocabu-
lary in the texts you require students to read? In other words, what is the
greatest difficulty they have with words, such as industrialization, progres-
sivism, and referendum, when learning about the progressive movement
in the 1890s?
 What about general vocabulary terms, such as claims, illustrate, analyze,
and justify?
 Describe the training you have received for teaching academic vocabu-
lary, such as professional development training in your district on content
literacy or college courses on content area literacy.
 Which texts, textbooks, or other printed texts appear to be more diffi-
cult for students to read? Why do you think that the text is more
difficult?
 What have you noticed about the vocabulary in these difficult texts?

Passage from The Americans: United States History Since

1877
 Identify which words you think are essential for students to learn in order
to comprehend this passage.
 How would you teach these words to students?

The Conservative Tide

As the 1970s progressed, right wing grass-roots groups across the

country emerged to support and promote single issues that
reflected their key interests. These people became known as the
New Right. The New Right focused its energy on controversial
social issues, such as opposing abortion, blocking the Equal
Rights Amendment, and evading court-ordered busing. It also
called for a return to school prayer, which had been outlawed by
the Supreme Court in 1962.
302 J. Harmon et al.

Many in the New Right criticized the policy of affirmative

action. Affirmative action required employers and educational
institutions to give special consideration to women, African
Americans, and other minority groups, even though these people
were not necessarily better qualified. Many conservatives saw affir-
mative action as a form of reverse discrimination, favoring one
group over another on the basis of race or gender. To members
of the New Right, liberal positions on affirmative action, and
other issues represented an assault on traditional values. (The
Americans: United States History Since 1877, 2016, p. 831)
Copyright of Reading Psychology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.