Reading & Writing Quarterly

Overcoming Learning Difficulties

ISSN: 1057-3569 (Print) 1521-0693 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

Academic Vocabulary: Explicit and Incidental

Instruction for Students of Diverse Language
Backgrounds

Melissa A. Gallagher, Ana Taboada Barber, Jori S. Beck & Michelle M. Buehl

To cite this article: Melissa A. Gallagher, Ana Taboada Barber, Jori S. Beck & Michelle M. Buehl
(2019) Academic Vocabulary: Explicit and Incidental Instruction for Students of Diverse Language
Backgrounds, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35:2, 84-102, DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2018.1510796

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1510796

Published online: 14 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1973

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urwl20
READING & WRITING QUARTERLY
2019, VOL. 35, NO. 2, 84–102
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1510796

Academic Vocabulary: Explicit and Incidental Instruction for

Students of Diverse Language Backgrounds
Melissa A. Gallaghera , Ana Taboada Barberb, Jori S. Beckc, and Michelle M. Buehld
a
University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA; bUniversity of Maryland, College Park, College
Park, Maryland, USA; cOld Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA; dGeorge Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia, USA

ABSTRACT
Vocabulary knowledge is a crucial element of reading comprehension.
Academic vocabulary poses particular challenges for students and should
be a focus of instruction, particularly for students from diverse language
backgrounds. This study was part of a larger literacy in social studies inter-
vention aimed at increasing students’ reading comprehension and engage-
ment. A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated that
although both emergent bilingual and English monolingual students
improved on words that were explicitly taught, only English monolingual
students improved in their knowledge of words that were incidentally
taught. Qualitative observational notes indicated that teachers’ explicit
vocabulary instruction included the use of graphic organizers, think–pair–-
share activities, and scaffolded discussions. Teachers taught word-learning
strategies and developed word consciousness to different degrees.
Findings could indicate that emergent bilingual students are less likely to
benefit from incidental instruction of academic vocabulary words, which
supports previous literature on the crucial role of explicit vocabulary
instruction.

The need for vocabulary instruction is highlighted in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS;
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010). However, the interdependent relationship between vocabulary and comprehension has
long been established empirically (Davis, 1944; Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010; National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000). The requirements of the
CCSS are particularly strenuous for emergent bilinguals (EBs), students who are learning English
and who may be struggling with learning content and language through texts. Given the more
than 17.1 million children of immigrants in the nation’s schools (Britz, & Batalova, 2013), and
the continuing achievement gap between EBs and their English monolingual peers (EMs;
National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2013), teachers need instructional tools
that can narrow the vocabulary and reading comprehension gaps between EBs and EMs while
ensuring that all students can access grade-level texts of various types. This study examined the
influence of explicit and incidental instruction of academic vocabulary, or specialized words used
to describe disciplinary concepts (Nagy & Townsend, 2012), on both EBs and EMs who partici-
pated in an integrated literacy and social studies intervention.

CONTACT Melissa A. Gallagher mgallagher@louisiana.edu University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Department of

Curriculum & Instruction, PO Box 43591, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis
 ACADEMIC VOCABULARY 85

English vocabulary and EBs

Vocabulary is key to the development of comprehension in all students. EBs, by definition, enter
school with a more limited English vocabulary than their EM peers (Kieffer, 2008). EBs come to
school with a variety of prior experiences and varying English proficiency. Moreover, discrepan-
cies in English vocabulary continue throughout schooling and can negatively influence EBs’ read-
ing (Garcia, 1991; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012a). Some studies have reported that it can take 4 to 7
years for EBs to reach proficiency in academic English (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). This
achievement gap has been demonstrated on the 2013 Grade 4 NAEP (2013), in which the vocabu-
lary score of EBs (M ¼ 181) was significantly lower than the score of EMs (M ¼ 223). This gap is
also evident in reading. On the 2013 Grade 4 NAEP, the average reading score of EBs (M ¼ 187)
was significantly lower than the average score of EMs (M ¼ 226).
The relationship between reading and vocabulary is reciprocal: “Children with inadequate
vocabularies—who read slowly and without enjoyment—read less, and as a result have slower
development of vocabulary knowledge, which inhibits further growth in reading ability”
(Stanovich, 2009). Kieffer (2008) referred to this as a potential “downward spiral” (p. 865) for
EBs, particularly as the vocabulary they are expected to read becomes more challenging as they
advance through school. EBs’ comprehension of disciplinary, expository texts is often impeded by
the challenging academic vocabulary found in these texts (Brown, 2007).

Academic vocabulary
The challenges faced by EBs increase as they move through the grades because of the abundance
of content area texts and challenging academic language (Brown, 2007; Mancilla-Martinez &
Lesaux, 2011). Academic language refers to the specialized language that is used to discuss discip-
linary content and is characterized by abstract vocabulary, complex syntax, and ideas that are
densely packed into sentences (Nagy & Townsend, 2012). Academic vocabulary, one aspect of
academic language, can be categorized into general academic and discipline-specific words (Nagy
& Townsend, 2012). General academic words (e.g., assess and function) are used more frequently
in academic communication than social language but are not specific to any content area (Nagy
& Townsend, 2012). Of the various word lists constructed to identify useful academic words, the
Academic Word List (AWL) compiled by Coxhead (2000) is one of the most recent. It comprises
570 word families (i.e., words with the same freestanding stem but different prefixes or suffixes,
e.g., concept and conceptualize) that account for 10% of the words in the academic corpus and
are divided into 10 sublists based on frequency of use.
Discipline-specific words (e.g., cytoplasm) are words related to a specific content area (Nagy &
Townsend, 2012). Discipline-specific words can be technical or abstract and are generally essential
to the discipline in which they are used. There is some overlap between general academic and
discipline-specific words owing to the polysemous nature of these words. For instance, function is
listed on the first sublist of the AWL; however, in mathematics, function takes on a very specific
meaning that differs from its general meaning (Nagy & Townsend, 2012). Vocabulary in general
and academic vocabulary in particular is a key factor in the development of all students, but it
becomes especially crucial for EBs’ reading comprehension given the challenges of having to learn
English and content simultaneously.

Vocabulary instruction
Targeted instruction to improve academic vocabulary knowledge, although beneficial for all stu-
dents, is especially important for EBs (Townsend, Filippini, Collins, & Biancarosa, 2012). The
National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) found that vocabulary should be taught both explicitly
86 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

and incidentally. The National Reading Panel also suggested directions for future research, includ-
ing the optimal combinations of explicit and incidental instructional methods.

Explicit instruction
Explicit teaching of vocabulary words involves direct instruction in both word meanings and
word-learning strategies. Direct instruction in word meaning involves selecting words that are
central to a text or that are important for students to learn (e.g., academic vocabulary) and pro-
viding explicit instruction of each of these words using definitions, examples and nonexamples,
and other activities to help students internalize the meaning of the word (Beck et al., 2013; Stahl
& Nagy, 2006). Explicit teaching of vocabulary often involves preteaching words before students
encounter them in text (Loftus & Coyne, 2013). Given the large number of words in the English
language, direct instruction in specific words is not sufficient for students to develop a large
vocabulary (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985). Students also need to be explicitly taught word-
learning strategies, such as using context clues, accessing knowledge of cognates, engaging in
morphological problem solving, and using resources (e.g., dictionaries), that they can apply to
unknown words they encounter as they read (Stahl & Nagy, 2006).

Incidental word learning

Incidental learning involves multiple exposures to words in a variety of contexts (Nagy et al.,
1985; NICHD, 2000). Incidental word learning can be defined as “the incidental, as opposed to
intentional, derivation and learning of new word meanings by subjects reading under reading cir-
cumstances that are familiar to them” (Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999, p. 262). Wide reading, or
reading a variety of texts at an appropriate level of challenge, has been shown to be an important
way for students to learn new vocabulary (Nagy et al., 1985; Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999).
Although wide reading is a necessary component of incidental word learning, students must also
be aware of new words as they read and have strategies for discovering the meanings of those
new words, otherwise they may just skip unknown words and not learn them. Thus, in order for
students to learn words incidentally, they may need explicit instruction in word-learning strat-
egies and word consciousness, discussed in more detail below.
In a meta-analysis of 20 experiments involving incidental word learning, Swanborn and de
Glopper (1999) found that students incidentally learned the meanings of 15% of unknown words
encountered as they read. All things being equal, a fourth-grade student had an 8% chance of
learning a target word incidentally, whereas an 11th-grade student had a 33% chance of learning
that same word. Swanborn and de Glopper posited that younger readers and struggling readers
lack the word-learning strategies needed to derive the meanings of unknown words but that these
strategies could be learned. Shany and Biemiller (2010) also found that wide reading was insuffi-
cient to increase vocabulary among third- and fourth-grade struggling readers, highlighting the
importance of explicitly teaching word-learning strategies so that students are able to understand
new vocabulary words they encounter incidentally. One limitation of Swanborn and de Glopper’s
meta-analysis is that the authors did not include any studies with EBs.
In a review of research on second language incidental vocabulary learning among adults,
Huckin and Coady (1999) also highlighted the importance of strategy use for learning words inci-
dentally. They concluded that some word-learning strategies emerge naturally (e.g., identifying
cognates), whereas others need to be taught (e.g., discriminating false cognates). In addition, they
determined that students benefit from explicit vocabulary and reading instruction to acquire new
words incidentally. Despite the value of wide reading, it may not be sufficient for incidental word
learning, especially if students lack word-learning strategies (Huckin & Coady, 1999; Swanborn &
de Glopper, 1999). Furthermore, if students are not conscious of unfamiliar words or the multiple
 ACADEMIC VOCABULARY 87

meanings of words, they are less likely to learn these words as they come across them in context
(Stahl & Nagy, 2006).
Word consciousness is “the interest in and awareness of words” (Stahl & Nagy, 2006, p. 137). It
has also been described as “being reflective about the meanings and usages of words and phrases,
using metalinguistic knowledge, being metacognitively aware of one’s own processes for learning
words, and enjoying word learning” (Miller, Gage-Serio, & Scott, 2010, p. 171). Bilingual children
have been shown to consistently have heightened metalinguistic awareness over their monolingual
peers (Bialystok, 2001), which suggests that EBs might have greater word consciousness and per-
haps be more likely to learn words incidentally. Teachers can promote word consciousness by
helping students to see the value in learning words, making word learning intrinsically motivating
for students, engaging students in word games, and modeling noticing words in text and wonder-
ing aloud about their meanings (Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Stahl and Nagy (2006) concluded, “It is not
enough for children simply to encounter words; children need to actively search words out” (p.
156). It is essential that teachers foster word consciousness in order to support incidental
word learning.

Vocabulary instruction for EBs

In the past decade, numerous intervention studies have been conducted to investigate ways to
explicitly teach vocabulary to students. Much of this work has consisted of intervention studies in
which explicit instruction of word meanings for discipline-specific (mostly science) and general
academic words has taken place in elementary classroom settings including EBs and EMs. For
example, August, Artzi, and Barr (2016) compared two approaches to vocabulary instruction with
third- and fourth-grade Spanish-speaking EBs. The first approach, embedded vocabulary instruc-
tion, consisted of providing clear definitions for target words as part of interactive shared reading
of science text passages. In the second approach, extended vocabulary instruction, teachers pro-
vided explicit, rich, multimodal teaching of target words. Findings indicated that although
extended instruction was more effective in terms of gains in target words, embedded instruction
helped EBs acquire general and science-specific academic vocabulary. The two interventions in
the August and colleagues study were similar to the two intervention groups designed by
Taboada and Rutherford (2011) a few years earlier. With a smaller sample of fourth-grade EBs,
this earlier study emphasized comparing explicit and incidental general and science-specific
vocabulary. Findings indicated that explicit vocabulary instruction increased students’ academic
word knowledge even 3 weeks after the intervention was over, whereas the explicit condition
with an emphasis on other dimensions of reading comprehension (such as cognitive strategies)
increased students’ reading comprehension more than explicit vocabulary instruction alone.
Studies focusing on academic vocabulary in secondary settings (Grades 6–12) with EBs include
two relatively recent large-scale interventions as well as individual studies smaller in scope. In
one large-scale intervention Lesaux and colleagues (2010) implemented the Academic Language
Instruction for All Students program in seven middle schools. Of the 476 participants, 346 were
EBs and 130 were EMs. After an 18-week intervention, which consisted of introducing the target
words in context through Time for Kids articles, creating class definitions of the words, examining
the morphology of the words, and other instructional activities, all students, irrespective of their
language status, made statistically significant gains on a variety of measures of vocabulary, word
knowledge, and reading comprehension. These findings indicated that explicit vocabulary instruc-
tion supported the vocabulary growth of all students. This study did not examine students’ inci-
dental word learning.
Another large intervention study, Word Generation, consisted of explicit instruction in aca-
demic vocabulary at the middle school level (Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009). Word Generation
was initially developed and tested in the middle grades of five public schools using a quasi-
88 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

experimental design. Two schools implemented the program and three schools served as the com-
parison group. The Word Generation intervention lasted 24 weeks, and students were explicitly
instructed in five new general academic vocabulary words each week. The words were presented
in context on Monday during the English language arts period, and on Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday the students used these words in one content area class (i.e., math, science, or social
studies) each day for 15 min. The percentage of EBs in the five intervention schools ranged from
32% to 70%. Snow and colleagues (2009) found that gender and treatment group (i.e., interven-
tion or comparison) statistically significantly predicted students’ vocabulary when pretest vocabu-
lary scores were controlled for. Note that language status was not a significant predictor. Both of
these large-scale interventions (i.e., Academic Language Instruction for All Students and Word
Generation) included EMs and EBs and found that all students improved in their general aca-
demic vocabulary knowledge after explicit instruction irrespective of their language group.
Although these results are highly useful and reinforce the gains possible through explicit vocabu-
lary instruction for all students, they do not address how EBs respond to incidental vocabulary
instruction.
Within the set of smaller studies, a quasi-experimental intervention study conducted by Carlo
and colleagues (2004) explored the effects of explicitly teaching general academic vocabulary as
well as word-learning strategies (e.g., finding cognates and using morphological clues). The
authors examined vocabulary growth from fall to spring of fifth grade in 10 classes participating
in the intervention and six comparison classes, including students’ general word knowledge, mas-
tery of words explicitly taught in the intervention, and understanding of the morphology and
polysemy of words. Students in the intervention group made significantly more gains in all areas
of vocabulary knowledge than students in the comparison group irrespective of language status
(56% of students were EBs). Although this intervention assessed vocabulary that students had
been explicitly taught, as well as their ability to apply word-learning strategies, the measures used
did not distinguish words students were exposed to and may have learned incidentally from
words to which they had no exposure.

The present study

Our study aimed to fill the gaps in the literature reviewed above by examining differences in EBs’
and EMs’ knowledge of academic vocabulary for words that were taught explicitly or incidentally
as part of a literacy in social studies intervention. We also examined the nature of the vocabulary
instruction in the classrooms. The following research questions guided this study:

1. Is there a significant difference in knowledge of explicitly or incidentally taught academic

vocabulary words between EBs and EMs after they participate in a literacy intervention in
social studies?
2. What was the nature of explicit and incidental vocabulary instruction in each of the four
teachers’ classrooms?

Methods
This mixed-methods study used a convergent design, which is beneficial “when the researcher
wants to compare quantitative statistical results with qualitative findings for a complete under-
standing of the research problem” (Creswell & Clark, 2017, p. 68). In this study we determined
students’ (EBs’ and EMs’) vocabulary knowledge using quantitative data and analyzed qualitative
observational notes to explain the nature of the vocabulary instruction that they received.
 ACADEMIC VOCABULARY 89

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Teacher
Characteristic Maria Jerome Barbara Carol
Gender Female Male Female Female
Race/ethnicity Latina African American Caucasian Caucasian
Years of experience 28 4 4 6
Number of students in morning class 20 EBs 16 EBs 10 EBs 8 EBsa
9 EMs 14 EMs 3 EMsa
Number of students in afternoon class 11 EBs 15 EBs 16 EBs
14 EMs 5 EMs 10 EMs
Note. EB ¼ emergent bilingual; EM ¼ English monolingual.
a
Carol had one self-contained special education class.

Participants
This study took place in an intermediate school in a suburban area of a Mid-Atlantic state as
part of a larger intervention on literacy in social studies.

Students
A total of 149 sixth-grade students participated in the intervention. However, 10 students had
missing data and were omitted from the analysis, for a total of 139 students in all analyses. The
participants identified as 6% Asian, 9% African American, 63% Hispanic, 12% White, and 6%
multiple races. Approximately 51% were female, and 63% of the students (n ¼ 92) were EBs. We
define EBs as those students for whom English is their second language or who speak another
language at home (Garc
ıa, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008). We identified students as EBs if the school
had administered a language acquisition test to the students or if the students had a language
other than English listed as a language spoken in their homes. In our sample, the majority of EBs
were Spanish speakers (n ¼ 81, 90% of EBs). EBs’ median age was 11 years, 9 months, with the
oldest being 13 years old; EMs’ median age was 11 years, 6 months, with the oldest being 12 years,
9 months. The reading comprehension of both the EM (M ¼ 510.9) and EB (M ¼ 479.3) students
was at approximately a fifth-grade level as measured by the Gates–MacGinitie Reading
Comprehension test (MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, & Dreyer, 2000). These means were within
approximately 1 SD of each other (r ¼ 30). The EB students who participated in our study had a
range of levels of proficiency in their native languages, given that some had only participated in
schooling in the United States, whereas other students had recently immigrated and the majority
of their schooling had been in their home country. We assessed the Spanish vocabulary know-
ledge of all of the Spanish-speaking EBs using the Test de Vocabulario en Im
agenes Peabody
(Dunn, Padilla, Lugo, & Dunn, 1986) and found that the age equivalent of the students’ vocabu-
lary in Spanish ranged from 4 years, 3 months, to 17 years, 11 months. The median age equivalent
of the students’ Spanish vocabularies was 8 years, 4 months, which was well below their chrono-
logical ages. Thus, although these EBs varied, as all students do, they were mostly in the appro-
priate grade for their ages and had reading comprehension scores within 1 SD of their peers’.

Teachers
Four teachers participated in this intervention. Maria, Jerome, and Barbara (all names are pseudo-
nyms) each taught two general education classes. Carol taught one self-contained special educa-
tion class in which all students were identified as having learning disabilities. Table 1 includes
demographic information for each teacher and his or her respective students.
90 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

Figure 1. Word map graphic organizer.

Intervention
The intervention consisted of literacy and classroom supports for reading comprehension and
reading motivation in the domain of American history. The intervention, called United States
History for Engaged Reading (USHER) (Taboada Barber et al., 2018a, 2018b), was implemented
over 3 years. The data for this study came from the third year of the implementation, when
vocabulary became a focus. All teachers had participated in previous implementations of USHER
and were familiar with the intervention and associated practices. Five comprehension strategies—
(a) activating background knowledge, (b) generating text-based questions, (c) organizing informa-
tion graphically, (d) identifying the main idea and supporting details, and (e) monitoring compre-
hension—along with four motivation supports—(a) specific feedback to build self-efficacy, (b)
connections, (c) relevance, and (d) collaboration—were infused into social studies content over 7
weeks of daily instruction during four units of American history (i.e., American Indians,
European Exploration, Two Cultures Meet, and Colonization). As part of the intervention, teach-
ers were given a list of words to teach explicitly using word maps: 14 were discipline-specific
words and seven were general academic words.
Teachers were provided with 4 days of professional development on the lessons and units. The
professional development included an emphasis on other components of reading comprehension
instruction pertaining to the larger intervention (e.g., cognitive strategy instruction) and three 30-
min blocks across the 4 days that focused on explicit vocabulary instruction, definition and con-
ceptualization of academic vocabulary (general and discipline specific), and practice with word
maps (see Figure 1) as tools for explicit vocabulary instruction. Teachers and researchers dis-
cussed the importance of (a) developing word consciousness, (b) choosing words that represented
key concepts, and (c) using the word maps. All of the words that were to be taught explicitly
were included in the intervention lesson plans. Teachers were also given a list of words to be
taught incidentally by drawing attention to the words in the reading of trade books that were
provided as part of USHER. This list included 24 discipline-specific words and 39 general words.

Measures
Academic Vocabulary Measure
The Academic Vocabulary Measure was modeled after the Word Association task originally
developed by Schoonen and Verhallen (1998) to assess the depth of students’ word knowledge.
We selected 12 general academic and 12 discipline-specific target words to make up the 24 items
 ACADEMIC VOCABULARY 91

Figure 2. Example item from the academic vocabulary measure.

on the Academic Vocabulary Measure. The general academic words were selected from the first
five sublists of the AWL (Coxhead, 2000). The discipline-specific words were selected from the
state social studies standards for Grade 6. Each target word on the assessment had four word
choices surrounding it, two of which were immutably related to the center word and two of
which were only circumstantially related to the center word. For example, in Figure 2 the target
word dog is immutably related to the words bark and fur but only circumstantially related to the
words leash and big. These relationships were explained to the students using Figure 2 as an
example before the administration of the task. Distinguishing between immutably related and cir-
cumstantially related words requires a deep understanding of the word (Schoonen & Verhallen,
1998). A correct response, coded as 1, required that students select both immutably related words;
all other responses were coded as 0.

Explicitly taught words. Twelve of the words from the measure were included in the intervention
lesson plans to be explicitly taught using word maps. For each class, we used field notes and stu-
dent artifacts to determine which words were truly explicitly taught (see Table 2). We calculated
each student’s average score, ranging from 0 to 1, for the words that we knew were explicitly
taught to his or her class. Thus, a student’s score represented the percentage of words he or she
correctly identified out of the words that were explicitly taught in his or her classroom.

Incidentally taught words. Given that vocabulary can also be incidentally learned through wide
reading, target words from the measure were characterized as incidentally taught if they appeared
at least once in the five whole-class trade books used during the intervention. All five books
included typical contextual supports, including bolded words, glossaries, and definitions included
in text. The reading levels of the trade books ranged from Grades 3 to 5; thus, the books were at
an appropriate level for the majority of the students, both EMs and EBs. The words the students
encountered incidentally appeared in the trade books from one to 118 times, with a median of
four appearances (Table 2 indicates how many times each word appeared over the whole inter-
vention). These were words we were sure the students were exposed to at least once when reading
independently. In addition, these texts were read aloud to the students at least once by the
teacher as the students followed along, to ensure a second exposure to the word and to support
any students in the class who might have struggled to decode the words. Teachers also used lev-
eled trade books with small groups of students. We did not consider the frequency with which
the incidental words appeared in these books because we did not have data on which students
may have read the different leveled books. We used the whole-class books because we knew stu-
dents read them in their entirety with support from the teacher. Thus, the incidental words may
have been encountered more times than indicated by our analysis, as they may have appeared in
the leveled books as well. Students’ incidental word scores were calculated as the percentage of
words they correctly identified out of those to which we knew they were exposed but were not
explicitly taught.
92 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

Table 2. Items from the Academic Vocabulary Measure and how they were taught in each class.
Target word Explicit Incidental (number of times encountereda) Not encountered
General academic
period Maria, Jerome Barbara, Carol (2)
monitor All
journal Maria, Carol, Jerome Barbara
debate Barbara, Jerome, Carol, Maria’s PM class Maria’s AM class
establish All
benefit All (2)
contrast Barbara, Maria, Jerome Carol
Discipline specific
moccasins All (2)
lodge Barbara, Jerome, Carol Maria (9)
nourishment Maria, Jerome Barbara, Carol (1)
ally Jerome, Carol, Maria’s AM class Maria’s PM class, Barbara
empire All (18)
expedition All (4)
rebellion Jerome, Maria’s AM class Barbara, Carol, Maria’s PM class (4)
legislature Barbara, Maria, Jerome Carol (3)
barter All (2)
plantation All (28)
colony Barbara, Maria, Jerome Carol (118)
conquistador All (11)
Note. PM ¼ afternoon; AM ¼ morning.
aThese frequencies represent only the appearance of these words in the trade books used with the whole class; they do not
include appearances in trade books students used in small guided reading groups.

Finally, there were five words in the measure we expected students to be exposed to that were
neither explicitly taught using word maps nor incidentally encountered in the texts. These words
were classified as not encountered and were excluded from the analysis, which means that 19
words were included in the final analysis. Table 2 indicates which target words were taught expli-
citly, taught incidentally, or not encountered in each class. Reliability for the 19 items that were
included in the analysis was a ¼ .60 at Time 1 (before the intervention) and a ¼ .71 at Time 2
(after the intervention).

Field notes
Four graduate research assistants were assigned to each of the four participating teachers. The
research assistants were tasked with observing instruction throughout the USHER intervention
and taking field notes. As much as possible, researchers’ field notes included direct quotes from
teachers and students, particularly as they pertained to different aspects of the lesson plans, com-
prehension strategies, vocabulary instruction, or motivation supports. A total of 107 observations
were conducted across the seven classes.

Procedures
The Academic Vocabulary Measure was administered to the seven classes in September (Time 1)
and again immediately following the literacy and social studies intervention in December (Time
2). Students were asked to circle the two words that were always related to the center word. The
example in Figure 2 was presented to the class as a practice item before the measure was given.
Researchers did not read aloud the test, nor did they explain the meanings of any of the words,
but they did pronounce words if asked. The administration of this measure took approxi-
mately 20 min.
To answer our second research question, we examined qualitative observation protocol data.
Four trained graduate research assistants used a protocol during the intervention in order to
detail instruction in each of the four teachers’ classrooms. The research assistants were instructed
Table 3. Codes for word-learning strategy instruction.
Type of instruction Definition Example of modeling Example of guided practice Example of limited instruction Student initiated
Context clues Examples and definitions are Teacher conducts a think-aloud Teacher guides students’ think- Teacher tells students, “Use Students use context clues
provided at the sentence or about how to figure out the ing about how to use con- context clues,” without provid- without being told to do so.
paragraph level for an meaning of a word using con- text clues. ing specific directions about
unknown word. May include text clues. how to do this. Teacher may
synonyms for the unknown also give the definition of the
word or a definition of the strategy but does not model or
unknown word. support students’ strategy use.
Cognates New/unknown words are linked Teacher models thinking aloud Teacher guides students’ think- Teacher asks, “What’s a cog- Students use cognates without
to cognates, likely in Spanish. to try to determine which ing to determine which word nate for this word?” as stu- being told to do so.
word is the best cognate. is the best cognate. dents shout answers around
the room.
Morphology Includes prefixes, suffixes, and Teacher points out an Teacher guides students to Teacher says, “Think about the Students use knowledge of
root words to assist students in unknown word as he or she think through the meaning of prefix/suffix/root,” without any word parts without being told
breaking down reads aloud and thinks through an unknown word using further support. Or teacher to do so.
unknown words. its meaning using the prefix/ word parts. points out a prefix/suffix/root
suffix/root. without connecting its mean-
ing to the meaning of
the word.
Resources Includes, but may not be lim- Teacher models finding an Teacher guides students to Teacher tells students, “Use a Students use resources without
ited to, glossaries, dictionaries, unknown word and choosing determine which resource they dictionary/glossary/etc.,” with- being told to do so.
special vocabulary features, or to use a resource to determine should use and/or how the out providing further support
other text features that assist its meaning. Teacher must also definition they find relates to in understanding the definition.
students in understanding model using the resource (i.e., the text.
unknown words. Additional flipping to the glossary, read-
examples may be added during ing the definition aloud and
coding. then using that meaning to
understand the text).
Word consciousnessa Many students skip over Teacher models noticing Teacher guides students to Teacher tells students, “Don’t Students notice words without
unknown words without unfamiliar words and choosing notice unfamiliar words, asking forget to notice new words being told to do so.
attempting to figure them out. a strategy to determine their questions such as “Were there and figure them out,” without
Noticing is an important skill meaning. Teacher may also any words that made your providing additional support.
whereby students monitor their point out the importance understanding break down?”
comprehension and notice of noticing.
when they come across an
unknown word in text.
Telling/reviewing a The teacher explains what a
word’s word means without guiding
meaning students to use any word-
learning strategies to figure
ACADEMIC VOCABULARY

out its meaning for themselves.

a
This strategy will often occur in tandem with another strategy.
93
94 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

to script as closely as possible the instruction in their qualitative field notes. The researchers used
Microsoft Access database software to record these data, and qualitative data were then extracted
from this protocol and exported into Excel spreadsheets and Word documents to analyze both
explicit word instruction and word-learning strategies.

Data analysis
We conducted a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to answer our
first research question. The repeated measure was time (Time 1 and Time 2), and the grouping
variable was language status (EB or EM). We examined students’ knowledge of words that were
explicitly and incidentally taught as the dependent variables. Before conducting the repeated
measures MANOVA, we tested all variables (i.e., Time 1 and Time 2 explicitly taught words and
incidentally taught words) for normality using P-Plots as well as for multicollinearity. These tests
were conducted on the whole sample and on each group of students (EBs and EMs). All variables
appeared to be normally distributed, and there was no evidence of multicollinear-
ity (.39 < r < .58).
To answer our second research question, one researcher conducted two rounds of coding
(Salda~na, 2013) on the qualitative classroom observations of vocabulary instruction with analyst
triangulation support from another researcher during the second round of coding. Initially one
researcher extracted data from the Excel spreadsheets, compiled them by teacher, and conducted
focused coding to identify patterns in each teacher’s instruction (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995).
For example, the researcher looked for patterns in how teachers began instruction on each word
map, their tendency to have students complete the word maps individually or in pairs, and their
use of motivation strategies during the activity. The researcher used this focused coding to craft a
narrative about each of the four teachers’ word map instruction.
Each narrative was an overview of typical word map instruction for the teacher. Each claim
(e.g., that Barbara “sometimes prefaced her word map instruction by activating students’ back-
ground knowledge”) was supported by examples drawn directly from the word map observations.
Many of these claims contained what Becker (cited by Maxwell, 2013) referred to as “quasi-
statistics” (p. 128). Thus, the researcher used words such as often and sometimes to provide a
clearer picture of the use of specific strategies. Each narrative also included descriptive statistics
regarding the average length of word map instruction, the number of times that word map
instruction was observed, and when word map instruction was omitted.
Although word-learning strategies were not included in the lesson plans that were a part of
the intervention, the teachers nevertheless used these strategies to varying degrees during the
intervention. Given that word-learning strategies are likely to increase students’ abilities to learn
words incidentally (Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999), it was important to examine this type of
instruction via a second round of coding. To determine the extent to which these strategies were
taught, we coded the qualitative field notes using hypothetical codes (Salda~ na, 2013). The codes
were determined based on the literature (see Table 3). Two researchers independently coded field
notes for the four teachers. After coding all field notes, they verified each other’s codes, high-
lighted disagreements, or coded instances of vocabulary instruction missed by the first researcher.
These documents were then reviewed by the first researcher until 100% agreement was achieved.
During this process two new codes emerged. “Student initiated” indicated that students used the
word-learning strategy without being instructed to by the teacher, which implies an internaliza-
tion of the strategy. “Telling/reviewing a word’s meaning” was used to highlight when a teacher
told students what a word meant instead of using a word-learning strategy.
 ACADEMIC VOCABULARY 95

Table 4 Multivariate Tests

Effect Pillai’s trace F df
Time .25 22.12 2, 136
Language Status .17 14.10 2, 136
Time x Language Status .06 4.47 2, 136
p < .001
p < .05

Findings
Differences in explicitly and incidentally taught academic vocabulary
To answer our first research question, we conducted a repeated measures MANOVA to assess
whether there were time differences for explicitly and incidentally taught academic vocabulary.
The repeated measure was time (Time 1 and Time 2), the between-subjects factor was language
status (EB or EM), and the dependent variables were explicitly and incidentally taught words.
Box’s M test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance and covariance was met
(p ¼ .065). However, given the unequal numbers of students in each of the two groups (EBs and
EMs), we chose to report Pillai’s trace, which is more robust to violations of the assumption of
homogeneity of variance and covariance and unequal group sizes (Warner, 2013). Multivariate
tests indicated that there were significant main effects of time and language status as well as a
Time  Language Status interaction: time, Pillai’s trace ¼ .25, F(2, 136) ¼ 22.12, p < .001; language
status, Pillai’s trace ¼ .17, F(2, 136) ¼ 14.10, p < .001; Time  Language Status, Pillai’s trace ¼ .06,
F(2, 136) ¼ 4.47, p < .05 (see Table 4). This interaction had a medium effect size (g2 ¼ .06; Cohen,
1988). The results of a univariate test indicated that the Time  Language Status interaction was
only significant for the incidentally taught words, F(1, 138) ¼ 8.52, p < .01, g2 ¼ .06 (see Table 5).
Follow-up t tests indicated that only EMs improved, t(46) ¼ 5.83, p < .001, with a large effect size
(Cohen’s d ¼ .81). EBs did not significantly increase their vocabulary knowledge of incidentally
taught words from Time 1 to Time 2, t(91) ¼ 1.70, p ¼ .09, with a trivial effect size (Cohen’s
d ¼ .18; see Table 6). The univariate test also indicated a significant effect of time for explicitly
taught words, which suggests that students improved from Time 1 to Time 2, F(1, 137) ¼ 28.72,
p < .001, with a large effect size (g2 ¼ .17). The language effect for explicitly taught words was
also significant, which indicates that EMs had greater knowledge of these words than EBs, F(1,
137) ¼ 25.58, p < .001, with a medium effect size (g2 ¼ .16). These results indicate that EMs
improved in words that were explicitly and incidentally taught but that EBs only improved in
explicitly taught words.
As described previously, the means in Table 6 indicate the percentage of words correctly iden-
tified at a given time point for each group of students. For instance, the mean score for EMs’
knowledge of the words they were explicitly taught at Time 1 was 0.58. This indicates that before
the intervention began, the EMs correctly identified on average 58% of the words that would be
explicitly taught. After the intervention, they correctly identified on average 71% of the words
that were explicitly taught. Based on the results of the MANOVA, this was a statistically signifi-
cant improvement. EBs also made a statistically significant improvement from Time 1 to Time 2
on explicitly taught words, going from 44% correct to 52% correct. However, the results of the
MANOVA suggest that only the EMs made a statistically significant improvement on incidentally
taught words from Time 1 to Time 2, from 54% to 68% correct.

The vocabulary instruction

Qualitative findings regarding the instruction experienced by students are presented here.
96 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

Table 5 Univariate Follow Up Tests

Type of Words Effect Sum of Squares F df ˛2
Explicitly Taught Words
Time .62 28.72 1, 137 .17
Language Status 1.75 25.58 1, 137 .16
Time  Language Status .04 1.70 1, 137 .01
Incidentally Taught Words
Time .52 25.38 1, 137 .16
Language Status 1.00 16.30 1, 137 .11
Time  Language Status .17 8.52 1, 137 .06
p < .01.
p < .001.

Table 6. Means and standard deviations for EBs and EMs by type of word.
EBs Ems Total
Word type (n ¼ 92) (n ¼ 47) (N ¼ 139)
Explicitly taught words
Time 1
M 0.44b 0.58a 0.49
SD 0.22 0.21 0.23
Time 2
M 0.52b 0.71a 0.58
SD 0.22 0.18 0.23
Incidentally taught words
Time 1
M 0.47 0.54 0.49
SD 0.21 0.17 0.20
Time 2
M 0.51 0.68 0.57
SD 0.21 0.18 0.22
Time effect, p < .001.
Note. EB ¼ emergent bilingual; EM ¼ English monolingual. Superscripts indicate language status differences.

Explicit instruction
Four graduate research assistants conducted 57 observations of word map instruction across the
four teachers. The teachers were observed during their instruction of 12 discipline-specific words
and five general academic words out of a total of 14 discipline-specific words and seven general
academic words that were taught and included in the intervention materials. All four teachers
used the word maps for explicit vocabulary instruction. However, there were nine occasions on
which teachers skipped word map instruction because of time constraints. Carol and Barbara
were more likely to skip word maps, whereas Jerome did not skip any word maps. In general,
teachers prefaced word map instruction by activating students’ background knowledge about the
word meaning before modeling how to complete the word map. Maria, Jerome, and Carol typic-
ally facilitated scaffolded discussions about the target words, whereas Barbara asked students to
think about the word individually, talk to their small groups about the word, and then discuss
the word as a class (i.e., think–pair–share). The teachers incorporated relevance into these discus-
sions by tying the target words to students’ lives. For example, Carol connected the word establish
to the routines that they had established in the class, such as bell work. Two teachers, Maria and
Carol, made instructional adaptations beneficial for EBs, such as asking students to draw pictures
of the target word or connecting the target word to a Spanish cognate. However, all four teachers
were inconsistent in tying this vocabulary instruction to the larger social studies unit and accom-
panying essential questions for each unit. One instance in which Maria tied vocabulary instruc-
tion to the unit occurred during her explicit instruction of the word culture. Maria first reviewed
the essential question “How did the American Indians and Europeans interact with each other?”
She then asked students what they knew about culture. Students’ responses included celebrations,
traditions, language, and religion. Then Maria tied these understandings back to the unit by
 ACADEMIC VOCABULARY 97

Table 7. Frequency and type of word-learning strategy instruction.

Word-learning strategy instruction Maria Carol Jerome Barbara Total
Context clues
Modeling 1 2 3 6
Guided practice 1 1
Limited instruction 1 1 2 4
Student initiated 0
Cognates
Modeling 1 1
Guided practice 2 2
Limited instruction 1 1
Student initiated 0
Morphology
Modeling 1 1
Guided practice 1 1
Limited instruction 2 1 3
Student initiated 1 1
Resources
Modeling 0
Guided practice 2 2 4
Limited instruction 1 3 4
Student initiated 4 6 10
Word consciousness
Modeling 1 1 1 3
Guided practice 4 4
Limited instruction 5 5
Student initiated 5 2 7
Telling/reviewing a word’s meaning 4 1 6 11 22
Total 18 5 38 19 90

asking, “Did the explorers and American Indians have the same celebrations? Did the explorers
and American Indians have the same language? Did they have the same religion?” Although
Maria connected the vocabulary to the social studies content in this example, there were many
instances in which she explained the meaning of the word without connecting it to the unit.

Word-learning strategies
Analyses revealed that Maria and Jerome instructed students in a variety of word-learning strat-
egies, whereas Carol and Barbara primarily told students the meaning of words (see Table 7).
Furthermore, Maria’s and Jerome’s students were more likely to initiate use of a word-learning
strategy independent of the teacher. For instance, in Jerome’s class, field notes revealed students’
word consciousness and use of resources: “One partner ask[ed] the other, ‘Wait, I have a ques-
tion. What’s a nomad?’ The students reread the sentence and still [could] not figure it out. Then
they use[d] the glossary.” In Jerome’s classes students were observed using resources independ-
ently on six occasions. In Maria’s classes, student-initiated use of resources was observed four
times, but it was not observed at all in Carol’s or Barbara’s classes. Furthermore, Carol and
Barbara were more likely to tell students the meaning of a word. For instance, Carol and Barbara
often asked students what a word meant and then answered the question themselves. For
instance, Barbara said, “What does infer mean? If you’re inferring, you’re taking the information,
you’re taking the ideas and you’re putting them together.” These analyses suggest that Maria and
Jerome integrated a wider variety of word-learning strategies.

Discussion
In the current investigation, we examined whether there were differences between EBs and EMs
with respect to explicitly and incidentally taught academic vocabulary words in the context of a
98 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

literacy intervention. We also explored the nature of instruction provided by the four teachers in
the study. Previous large-scale intervention studies focused on explicit instruction of general aca-
demic vocabulary found that all students gained in vocabulary knowledge irrespective of their lan-
guage status (Carlo et al., 2004; Lesaux et al., 2010; Snow et al., 2009). In our study both EMs
and EBs increased their knowledge of explicitly taught vocabulary, similar to findings from other
vocabulary intervention studies (Carlo et al., 2004; Lesaux et al., 2010; Snow et al., 2009).
However, previous interventions did not examine the vocabulary learning of words encountered
incidentally, which is the contribution of our study. In addition to quantitatively analyzing the
type of instruction, we also examined qualitative data regarding the nature of instruction that
occurred in classrooms.
Quantitative analyses revealed that only EMs increased in their knowledge of incidentally
taught words; EBs did not. This is a surprising finding, especially as all but three of the inciden-
tally taught words (i.e., nourishment, lodge, and moccasins) were Spanish cognates, and previous
research indicated that Spanish-speaking EBs scored higher on vocabulary assessments of cog-
nates than Chinese-speaking EBs (Chen, Ramirez, Luo, Geva, & Ku, 2012). However, in contrast
to Chen and colleagues’ (2012) study, our study controlled for vocabulary knowledge at Time 1,
so it is possible that the Spanish-speaking EBs in our sample who were able to use cognates did
so at both administrations of the assessment, showing no change over time on these words. It is
also possible that irrespective of whether words are cognates, EBs benefit more than their EM
classmates from explicit instruction to show depth of word knowledge.
The absence of middle school EBs’ improvement in incidental word learning has not been pre-
viously reported, and it underscores research that demonstrates that EBs need explicit instruction
to improve their vocabulary knowledge (Huckin & Coady, 1999). Many researchers (Nagy et al.,
1985; Stahl & Nagy, 2006) highlight the importance of incidental word learning as the primary
way in which students learn words given the large number of words in the English language and
the impossibility of teaching them all explicitly—even if explicit instruction were to occur rou-
tinely in classrooms. Furthermore, the research that indicates that students will learn words inci-
dentally has not specifically examined middle school EBs’ incidental word learning (Shany &
Biemiller, 2010; Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). The results of Swanborn and de Glopper’s
(1999) meta-analysis indicated that less skilled readers learned fewer words incidentally, and the
researchers hypothesized that this was related to these students having fewer word-learning strat-
egies. Explicit instruction in word-learning strategies, such as morphology, may support students’
vocabulary knowledge. Kieffer and Lesaux (2012b) found that growth in morphological awareness
is related to vocabulary growth for Spanish-speaking EBs, and Bowers and Kirby (2010) found
that explicit instruction in morphology helped students to determine the meanings of new words.
It is possible that instruction in word-learning strategies and the development of word conscious-
ness can help EBs learn words encountered incidentally. Therefore, practices that include word
consciousness and word-learning strategies may be particularly important to foster increased inci-
dental word learning among EBs.
Our qualitative findings provided evidence that all four teachers explicitly taught vocabulary
using word maps. We found that generally teachers began vocabulary instruction by activating
students’ background knowledge. They then typically scaffolded discussions about the word’s
meaning and guided students in completing the word map. When teachers felt pressed for time,
they sometimes omitted explicit instruction. The qualitative findings also indicated that there was
some instruction in word-learning strategies and word consciousness throughout the USHER
intervention—particularly in Maria’s and Jerome’s classes; however, EBs still did not increase in
their knowledge of words encountered incidentally. Our results suggest that EBs benefit from
explicit instruction in specific vocabulary and may need more support in learning words encoun-
tered in text. This conclusion is sound, as teachers consistently used word maps to explicitly teach
the words, and this instruction included activating background knowledge and connecting the
 ACADEMIC VOCABULARY 99

vocabulary words to students’ own lives (i.e., relevance). Although Carol and Barbara were more
direct in telling students the meanings of words, whereas Jerome and Maria used a variety of
word-learning strategies, both EMs and EBs showed growth on explicit instruction. Teachers
must be mindful that not all students will learn words encountered incidentally to the same
degree of depth and that they must explicitly teach both target words as well as word-learn-
ing strategies.

Limitations
Despite the significance of this study in highlighting differences in incidental learning for EBs
and EMs, several limitations should be noted. For instance, one limitation of this study is that
the researchers who wrote the field notes focused on the aspects of the intervention that were
explicitly included in the lesson plans (i.e., the five comprehension strategies, the four motivation
supports, and explicit vocabulary instruction). Although they tried to script as much of student
discussion that went on in the classroom as possible, there were often times when students were
working with partners or small groups and their discussions were not audible to the researchers.
There may have been more instances of student-initiated word-learning strategies and word con-
sciousness than were observed and recorded in field notes.
Another limitation of this study is in the way we determined which words were learned inci-
dentally. Although we know the students encountered all of the incidental words, we could not
account for students’ interactions with these words outside of the trade books that were part of
the intervention. Based on prior literature that documents the literacy gap between EBs and EMs,
especially in the upper grades (Hakuta et al., 2000), it is possible that the EMs encountered more
of these incidental words in their reading or conversations outside of school than did the EBs. In
addition, although we know that all students were exposed at least once to the incidental words
identified in this study, students also read different books in their guided reading groups, which
were excluded from the incidental word count. EMs, who were more likely to be in the on- and
above-grade-level reading groups, may have encountered these words in their other texts, which
would have increased their exposure to the words. However, there were EBs in the on- and
above-level reading groups as well, and students did not stay in the same groups for the entire
intervention, as teachers were encouraged to choose texts for the students that they felt best met
their needs. This flexibility allowed teachers to differentiate instruction appropriately but made it
challenging to discern exactly how many exposures each student had to each word. It also made
it difficult to determine whether having more exposures to a word made it more likely to
be learned.
Last, we would have liked to explore differences that may have explained our findings, such as
whether EBs differed in their ability to learn words incidentally based on their level of proficiency
in English. However, the data we collected on EBs’ English proficiency came from the school and
categorized EBs into six groups, some of which had very few students in them, which made them
difficult to compare. We also could have examined whether EBs had greater metalinguistic aware-
ness, as has been shown in previous research (Bialystok, 2001), but we did not collect those data,
as this was not a focus of the intervention.

Future directions
There is a substantial amount of research investigating students’ (both EBs’ and EMs’) vocabulary
acquisition through instruction (Carlo et al., 2004; Lesaux et al., 2010; Snow et al., 2009). Many
of these studies are interventions that use engaging texts to introduce students to the words to be
explicitly taught and through which students may gain exposure to new words. However, most of
these studies focus on explicit instruction, with no or limited attention to incidental learning of
100 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

academic vocabulary words. Future research should focus on explicit vocabulary instruction as
well as word learning when students have opportunities to learn words incidentally. Such empir-
ical efforts would provide further insight into the conditions (e.g., frequency and type of word
encounters/exposure) necessary for EBs and EMs to learn words incidentally. Future research
should also investigate whether metalinguistic awareness or knowledge of word-learning strategies
are predictive of words learned incidentally for both EBs and EMs. Research is also needed that
examines differences in word learning based on EBs’ proficiency in English.
In addition, future literacy interventions should explicitly incorporate word-learning strategies
in an effort to help all students, particularly EBs, develop the strategies necessary to learn words
they encounter incidentally. These studies could examine whether and how explicit instruction in
word-learning strategies as part of a literacy intervention supports students’ vocabulary knowledge
and in turn comprehension growth for both EBs and EMs.

Conclusion
In light of the role that vocabulary knowledge plays in reading comprehension for all students,
and especially for EBs, it is important for teachers and researchers to delve into the multiple fac-
ets of vocabulary by examining specific word types. In addition, consideration of whether instruc-
tion is explicit or incidental is important given the time constraints teachers face when
integrating content with literacy practices that are essential for all students. Our findings convey
the idea, reflected in the recent CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
& Council of Chief State School Officers; 2010), that explicit vocabulary instruction integrated
into social studies instruction can provide benefits for middle school students of diverse language
backgrounds. Our findings also suggest that incidental instruction does not have the same bene-
fits for EBs as it does for EMs. However, the findings from our qualitative data shed light on pos-
sible ways to approach incidental vocabulary learning for EBs who struggle with reading.
Additional research is needed to further explore the effectiveness of such approaches.

Funding
The research reported here was supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
through Grant No. R305A100297 to George Mason University. The opinions expressed are our own and do not
represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

ORCID
Melissa A. Gallagher http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0678-4163

References
August, D., Artzi, L., & Barr, C. (2016). Helping ELLs meet standards in English language arts and science: An
intervention focused on academic vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,
32(4), 373–396.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and
Writing, 23(5), 515–537. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9172-z
 ACADEMIC VOCABULARY 101

Britz, E., & Batalova, J. (2013). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United
States. The Migration Information Source. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/dis-
play.cfm?id ¼931#7
Brown, C. L. (2007). Supporting English language learners in content-reading. Reading Improvement, 44(1), 32–39.
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(2), 188–215.
Chen, X., Ramirez, G., Luo, Y. C., Geva, E., & Ku, Y.-M. (2012). Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish-
and Chinese-speaking ELLs: The effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors. Reading and Writing, 25(8),
1991–2020. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9318-7
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. doi:10.2307/3587951
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage publications.
Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 9(3), 185–197.
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Lugo, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Adaptaci
on Hispanoamericana del Test de
Vocabulario en Im
agenes Peabody (TVIP). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic chil-
dren. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 371–392.
Garc
ıa, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English language learners to EBs. Equity matters. Research
review no. 1. Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, New York, NY: Columbia University.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Santa
Barbara, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: A review. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21(02), 181–193.
Kieffer, M. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the read-
ing growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4),
851–868. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.851
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012a). Knowledge of words, knowledge about words: Dimensions of vocabulary in
first and second language learners in sixth grade. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 347–373. doi:10.1007/s11145-
010-9272-9
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012b). Development of morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in
Spanish-speaking language minority learners: A parallel process latent growth curve model. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 33(01), 23–54. doi:10.1017/S0142716411000099
Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of
an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading
Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228.
Loftus, S. M., & Coyne, M. D. (2013). Vocabulary instruction within a multi-tier approach. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 29(1), 4–19.
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). Early home language use and later vocabulary development. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 535–546. doi:10.1037/a0023655
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Miller, T. F., Gage-Serio, O., & Scott, J. A. (2010). Word consciousness in practice: Illustrations from a fourth-
grade teacher’s classroom. In K. M. Leander & National Reading Congress (U.S.) (Eds.), 59th yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 171–186). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference, Inc.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly,
20(2), 233–253. doi:10.2307/747758
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading
Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. doi:10.1002/RRQ.011
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2013). Meaning Vocabulary Report. Retrieved from http://
nationsreportcard.gov/
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010).
Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and tech-
nical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
102 M. A. GALLAGHER ET AL.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading
Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading
and its implications for reading instruction. (No. NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Salda~na, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schoonen, R., & Verhallen, M. (1998). Kennis van woorden: De toetsing van diepe woordkennis (Knowledge of
words: Testing deep word knowledge). Paedagogische Studien, 75(3), 153–168.
Shany, M., & Biemiller, A. (2010). Individual differences in reading comprehension gains from assisted reading
practice: Pre-existing conditions, vocabulary acquisition, and amounts of practice. Reading and Writing, 23(9),
1071–1083. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9196-4
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle
school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–344. doi:10.1080/19345740903167042
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition
of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 23.
Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 69(3), 261–285. doi:10.3102/00346543069003261
Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic vocabulary for English
language learners through science content: A formative experiment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113–157.
Taboada Barber, A., Buehl, M. M., Beck, J. S., Ramirez, E. M., Gallagher, M., Richey Nuland, L. N., & Archer, C. J.
(2018a). Literacy in social studies: The influence of cognitive and motivational practices on the reading compre-
hension of English Learners and non-English Learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 1–19. doi:10.1080/
10573569.2017.1344942
Taboada Barber, A., Gallagher, M. A., Ramirez, E. M., Beck, J., Buehl, M. M., & Richey, L. N. (2018b). Fostering
reading comprehension in middle-school history: A formative experiment of teachers’ practices and adaptations
for content area literacy instruction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Townsend, D., Filippini, A., Collins, P., & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Evidence for the importance of academic word
knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school students. The Elementary School Journal,
112(3), 497–518. doi:10.1086/663301
Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.