Systematic Review

Vocabulary Instruction for English Learners: A Systematic

Review Connecting Theories, Research, and Practices
Yanfang Zeng * , Li-Jen Kuo, Lu Chen, Jr-An Lin and Haoran Shen

Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University, 4232 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843,
USA; lijenkuo@tamu.edu (L.-J.K.); lu.chen@tamu.edu (L.C.); jrlin0908@tamu.edu (J.-A.L.);
shenhaoran1999@tamu.edu (H.S.)
* Correspondence: yanfangzeng@tamu.edu

Abstract: Vocabulary instruction is pivotal to literacy development. While extensive re-

search has been conducted, few studies have examined how research translates into practice
and how theory informs it. This study addresses this gap by identifying theories guiding
vocabulary instruction in leading practitioner-oriented journals in the field, assessing trends
and practices, and examining shifts over the past decade. The systematic review critically
extends the scope of existing research in two directions. First, it focuses on English learners
(ELs), a growing K-12 population globally. Second, literacy theories were utilized to identify
the frameworks that guided vocabulary instruction for ELs. The results reveal the predomi-
nance of instructional practices guided by schema and psycholinguistic theories, followed
by social constructivism and sociocultural theories. Furthermore, the findings underscore
the importance of adapting vocabulary instructional practices to meet the developmental
needs of ELs at different grade levels.

Keywords: vocabulary instruction; reading theory; second language acquisition; English

learners/English as a second language learners/English as a foreign language learners;
systematic review

Academic Editor: Pia Sundqvist 1. Introduction

Received: 15 December 2024
Vocabulary1 plays a pivotal role in literacy development, particularly for English learn-
Revised: 8 February 2025
ers (ELs), who face the dual challenge of acquiring an additional language while mastering
Accepted: 17 February 2025
Published: 20 February 2025
academic content. A strong vocabulary foundation is critical not only for literacy devel-
opment, but also for effective communication and access to complex academic materials.
Citation: Zeng, Y., Kuo, L.-J., Chen, L.,
Lin, J.-A., & Shen, H. (2025).
Without sufficient vocabulary knowledge, ELs often struggle to engage with grade-level
Vocabulary Instruction for English texts and academic discourse, limiting their progress in both language proficiency and
Learners: A Systematic Review content knowledge (Stahl & Nagy, 2005). Explicit vocabulary instruction has been shown
Connecting Theories, Research, and to help ELs overcome these barriers, providing them with the tools necessary to access
Practices. Education Sciences, 15(3), 262.
more challenging texts and improve their overall literacy skills (Beck et al., 2013; Winkler
https://doi.org/10.3390/
et al., 2021).
educsci15030262
Despite the pivotal role of vocabulary development and instruction for ELs, few studies
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
have examined the translation of research into practice and the theoretical underpinnings of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
practice. The present study seeks to bridge this gap by conducting a systematic content and
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
trend analysis on articles published over the past decade in prominent practitioner-oriented
conditions of the Creative Commons journals. It aims to identify the theoretical foundations in EL-focused vocabulary instruc-
Attribution (CC BY) license tion, analyze practical teaching strategies and trends, and evaluate how these practices
(https://creativecommons.org/ align with ELs’ linguistic and academic needs.
licenses/by/4.0/).

Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030262

Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 2 of 22

1.1. Importance of Vocabulary in Literacy Development

The relationship between vocabulary and reading comprehension has been well-
documented in the literature, with studies consistently highlighting a reciprocal relationship
between these skills (e.g., Cain & Oakhill, 2011; Verhoeven et al., 2011; Duff et al., 2015;
for a review, see Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Elleman et al., 2009; Wright & Cervetti, 2016;
Adlof, 2019; Elleman et al., 2019; Silverman et al., 2020; Cervetti et al., 2023). For example,
Verhoeven et al.’s (2011) longitudinal study reveals that vocabulary knowledge not only
aids in word decoding, but also supports higher-order comprehension processes as children
advance through elementary school. As their vocabulary expands, children become better
equipped to understand increasingly sophisticated texts, which in turn stimulates further
vocabulary growth. Similarly, studies by Cain and Oakhill (2011) and Duff et al. (2015) show
that reading comprehension and reading experience promote vocabulary development
by exposing readers to new words in meaningful contexts. These findings support the
Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986), where more proficient readers continue to improve at a
faster rate due to the cumulative benefits of reading experience.
Research on the impact of vocabulary on reading comprehension and other literacy
skills has examined both first-language (L1) learners (e.g., Tannenbaum et al., 2006; Ver-
hoeven et al., 2011; Protopapas et al., 2013; Duff, 2019) and second-language (L2) learners
(Amini & Iravani, 2021; Raudszus et al., 2021; Allagui & Al Naqbi, 2024; Giguere et al., 2024),
spanning various age groups (Verhoeven et al., 2011; Ahmed et al., 2016; Suggate et al., 2018;
Cao & Kim, 2024). Furthermore, research has explored the influence of different aspects
of vocabulary on reading comprehension and writing outcomes, such as word frequency
(Baus et al., 2013; Masrai, 2019), vocabulary breadth and depth (e.g., Tannenbaum et al.,
2006; Proctor et al., 2009; J. Lee, 2011; Lawrence et al., 2019; Amini & Iravani, 2021; Allagui
& Al Naqbi, 2024), and domain-specific and academic vocabulary (Coxhead, 2012; Kenneth
Logan & Kieffer, 2017; Mosher et al., 2024; Relyea et al., 2024).
The findings from the above-mentioned literature underscore the critical role of vocab-
ulary in literacy development. Vocabulary is consistently identified as a key predictor of
reading comprehension (e.g., Verhoeven et al., 2011; Protopapas et al., 2013; Ahmed et al.,
2016; Raudszus et al., 2021) and also serves as a mediating factor between other linguistic
skills and reading comprehension (Duff et al., 2015). Beyond reading, strong vocabulary
knowledge is closely linked to improved writing performance (Lavigne et al., 2022; Durrant
& Brenchley, 2019), further highlighting its foundational role in literacy.
The research findings also reveal that vocabulary breadth and depth are essential for
reading comprehension (Tannenbaum et al., 2006; J. Lee, 2011; Lawrence et al., 2019) and
writing outcomes (Allagui & Al Naqbi, 2024). Vocabulary breadth, or the number of words
known, enables students to recognize and understand words in context, thereby directly
influencing reading comprehension (Stahl & Nagy, 2005; Beck et al., 2013). Additionally,
a broad vocabulary enhances writing performance, as the ability to use a diverse range
of words supports idea generation, coherence, and fluency, ultimately leading to higher-
quality writing (Graham et al., 2023).
Similarly, vocabulary depth (e.g., understanding the multiple meanings, morphologi-
cal structures, and syntactic functions of words) plays a significant role in writing quality
(Durrant & Brenchley, 2019) and reading comprehension (Proctor et al., 2009; Proctor et al.,
2012). Durrant and Brenchley’s (2019) study finds that students with greater depth of
vocabulary are better able to use contextually appropriate and sophisticated vocabulary in
writing, adapt vocabulary to different genres and registers, and develop more precise and
effective argumentation and narrative structure. While both breadth and depth contribute
to literacy, studies suggest that vocabulary breadth has a stronger relationship to reading
comprehension (Tannenbaum et al., 2006). This aligns with the Lexical Quality Hypothesis
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 3 of 22

(C. A. Perfetti & Hart, 2002; C. Perfetti, 2007), which posits that a reader’s vocabulary con-
sists of words of widely varying lexical quality, ranging from rare words never encountered
to frequently encountered and well-known words (C. Perfetti, 2007). Consequently, indi-
vidual differences in lexical quality influence reading comprehension, with higher-quality
lexical representations (i.e., well-developed vocabulary) enabling stronger reading skills
(Verhoeven et al., 2011; Protopapas et al., 2013).

1.2. The Role of Effective Vocabulary Instruction on Literacy Development

Given the importance of vocabulary in literacy development, all students, regardless
of background, can benefit from high-quality vocabulary instruction (McKeown, 2019).
Effective vocabulary instruction strategies have been identified for facilitating literacy
development in three meta-analyses of vocabulary instruction (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986;
Elleman et al., 2009; Cervetti et al., 2023). Mixed methods that combine definitional and
contextual learning and encourage deeper processing of words were found to be the most
effective (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Elleman et al., 2009). However, direct instruction—
especially of high-frequency academic vocabulary—was less effective at fostering overall
vocabulary growth (Cervetti et al., 2023). This suggests that merely teaching word meanings
may not be sufficient for long-term vocabulary acquisition. Instead, students may require
more extensive exposure to words across varied contexts and more engaging strategy-
based instruction, such as teaching morphological awareness and contextual word-solving
strategies. These findings align with McKeown (2019), who argues that effective vocabulary
instruction should not only focus on teaching word meanings, but also deepen students’
understanding of how words function and how to apply that knowledge effectively. Three
essential elements of effective vocabulary instruction are highlighted: choosing the right
words to teach, teaching morphology, and engaging students in interactive word-related
activities (McKeown, 2019).
Research also highlights the crucial role of explicit vocabulary instruction in enhancing
writing performance. A meta-analysis by Graham et al. (2023) examining writing treat-
ments for students in grades 6–12 found that embedding vocabulary instruction within
broader interventions, such as text structure instruction (ES = 0.39) and summarization
instruction (ES = 0.49), significantly improved writing outcomes. Likewise, a meta-analysis
of elementary writing instruction revealed that integrating vocabulary strategies, such as
word-learning activities within writing instruction, positively influenced students’ written
expression (Graham et al., 2012). These findings emphasize the importance of vocabulary
instruction in strengthening writing skills across all grade levels.
While these meta-analyses (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Elleman et al., 2009; Cervetti et al.,
2023; Graham et al., 2012; Graham et al., 2023) provide valuable insights into vocabulary
instruction for literacy development, they primarily focus on native English speakers. This
highlights a critical gap in understanding whether vocabulary instruction for ELs is ade-
quately tailored to their distinct linguistic needs and effectively supports their vocabulary
acquisition, reading, and writing development. Investigating these instructional strate-
gies will help ensure that ELs build the vocabulary knowledge necessary to enhance both
reading comprehension and writing proficiency.

1.3. Vocabulary Instruction for ELs

Despite the advancements in understanding effective vocabulary instruction (e.g.,
Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Elleman et al., 2009; Cervetti et al., 2023), ELs continue to face
unique challenges in vocabulary acquisition that impact their academic success. First, the
gap between ELs and non-ELs in vocabulary development is well-documented. ELs face
unique challenges in acquiring both conversational and academic vocabulary (Stahl &
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 4 of 22

Nagy, 2005), often lagging behind their native-speaking peers (Velez et al., 2016; National
Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Second, ELs acquire vocabulary at a slower rate
compared to native speakers (Raudszus et al., 2021). Additionally, having more limited
vocabulary breadth than native speakers (Stahl & Nagy, 2005), ELs struggle with both
breadth and depth, especially with words that have multiple meanings. This gap can result
in a persistent discrepancy in linguistic and literacy outcomes. Research highlights that
ELs require targeted vocabulary instruction to close this gap and support their academic
development (Beck et al., 2013). Without sufficient vocabulary knowledge, particularly in
academic terms, ELs struggle to access complex texts, which further hampers their literacy
development and learning (Lawrence et al., 2019).
These challenges underscore the importance of targeted, theory-driven instructional
practices tailored to support ELs’ language and literacy development. Studies have shown
ELs benefit from explicit vocabulary instruction, including the use of cognates, translations,
and morphological awareness, which aids in understanding word structure and meaning
across languages (Kenneth Logan & Kieffer, 2017). Moreover, targeted instruction that
focuses on both breadth and depth of vocabulary is essential for ELs to build a robust
linguistic foundation for academic success (Proctor et al., 2009). Additionally, instructional
methods that focus on contextual learning, multiple exposures to words, and opportunities
for interactive learning have been shown to be particularly effective for ELs (Mosher
et al., 2024; Sundström et al., 2024). Integrating academic vocabulary early on is also key
to helping ELs develop the skills needed to access more complex texts as they progress
through school (Uccelli et al., 2015; Lawrence et al., 2019).
According to Beck et al. (2013), while ELs benefit from multiple exposures to words in
varied contexts, meaningful interactions, and deeper word processing, similar to native
speakers, the key elements of effective vocabulary instruction for ELs include core vocabu-
lary strategies with additional support like translations, cognates, and focused academic
vocabulary instruction. For instance, providing translations and teaching cognates, espe-
cially for Spanish-speaking ELs, enhances learning. Furthermore, strategies such as using
visuals, text previews, and high-interest multimedia texts support ELs’ comprehension and
vocabulary development and address EL-specific needs. Additionally, ELs often struggle
with academic (Tier Two) vocabulary. Direct instruction in these words, starting early, helps
bridge this gap.

1.4. Vocabulary Instruction: Research, Theories, and Practices

Theories and theoretical models have the power to both illuminate and obscure our
understanding of literacies (Unrau & Alvermann, 2018). For researchers and classroom
teachers, they provide frameworks that guide the selection of instructional strategies
and materials, assessment methods, and interventions tailored to diverse learners’ needs.
Identifying theories guiding the practice is essential to enhance the efficacy of teaching
activities, necessitating an examination of the theoretical foundation of teaching strategies
employed in the current educational context (Moody et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2021).
Although vocabulary instruction is pivotal to literacy development and extensive
research has been conducted, few studies have examined how research translates into
practice and how theory informs it. Moody et al. (2018) investigated the theory embed-
ded in vocabulary instruction for native English-speaking students through a systematic
review of practitioner papers published in leading practitioner journals between 2007 and
2017. The findings indicated that the most prevalent theories guiding vocabulary instruc-
tion were social constructivism and sociocultural theories, schema and psycholinguistic
theories, motivation theory, and dual coding theory. Additionally, Moody et al. (2018)
identified the theoretical underpinnings of vocabulary instruction in the empirical studies
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 5 of 22

coded by Wright and Cervetti (2016), which focused on the five decades spanning 1965
to 2015. Schema theory, constructivism and sociocultural theories, and motivation theory
emerged as the predominating frameworks. Building on this line of work, Black and
Wright (2024) identified theories underlying vocabulary instruction through a scoping
systematic review of articles from nine highly respected literacy journals, including both
research and practitioner ones, from 2017 to 2021. The results indicated a shift towards
schema/psycholinguistic theories, followed by motivation theory and Dual Coding Theory.
Despite these valuable insights, a research gap remains in identifying theoretical
underpinnings of vocabulary teaching practices for ELs. Further exploration in this area
is needed to develop effective instruction strategies that cater to the diverse linguistic
backgrounds of learners.

1.5. The Present Study

The current study expands the scope of the existing literature by identifying the
dominant theoretical frameworks underlying EL-focused vocabulary instruction in three
major practitioner journals, offering insights into how theories inform classroom practice.
Additionally, it highlights instructional trends over the past decade, providing a clearer
understanding of how vocabulary instruction for ELs has evolved in response to shifting
pedagogical and linguistic needs (August et al., 2020; Chowdhury et al., 2024; McKeown,
2019). Theoretical models play a crucial role in shaping literacy instruction by guiding the
selection of strategies, materials, and assessments for diverse learners (Unrau & Alvermann,
2018). Examining these underlying theories is essential for improving teaching effectiveness
and ensuring that instructional approaches align with current educational demands (Moody
et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2021). However, limited attention has been given to the intersection
of research, theory, and practice within practitioner-oriented journals (Moody et al., 2018).
This study addresses this gap by systematically categorizing instructional practices based
on their theoretical foundations, providing educators and researchers with a structured
framework for implementing theory- and research-based vocabulary instruction.
Our research questions are as follows:
1. What are the trends in student characteristics, instructional strategies, and approaches
in vocabulary instruction practices for ELs in practitioner journal publications from
2013 to 2024?
2. What are the vocabulary instruction practices for ELs in practitioner journal publica-
tions, and how do they vary across grade levels?
3. What literacy theories and SLA pedagogy inform the vocabulary instruction practices
for ELs in practitioner journal publications?
In addressing the first two research questions, we categorized vocabulary instruction
practices into two distinct groups: metalinguistic awareness-focused strategies, and in-
structional approaches. This categorization provided a structured framework for analyzing
the instructional practices observed in the reviewed studies, ensuring a clearer distinction
between specific linguistic skills and the methods used to teach them.
Metalinguistic awareness, which involves the ability to reflect on and manipulate
structural features of language, is widely recognized as a critical component of literacy
development, particularly in fostering vocabulary growth (Kuo & Anderson, 2008). It en-
compasses several key components, including phonological, orthographic, morphological,
semantic, and syntactic awareness (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). A useful framework for under-
standing the role of metalinguistic awareness in literacy is the Reading Systems Framework
(C. Perfetti & Stafura, 2014), which highlights the central role of word knowledge in reading
development. According to this framework, mastery of word forms and meanings, which
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 6 of 22

includes phonological, orthographic, morpho-syntactic, and semantic aspects of lexical

quality, is essential for reading comprehension.
Empirical research strongly supports the contribution of these components to word
learning. For example, phonology (Goswami, 2000), orthography (Colenbrander et al.,
2019), morphology (Brandes & McMaster, 2017), and semantics (W. E. Nagy & Scott, 2000)
have all been identified as crucial factors in vocabulary acquisition. Given this evidence,
we used these linguistic components as a guiding framework for categorizing vocabulary
instruction practices in this study. Specifically, instructional strategies were classified based
on the specific aspect of metalinguistic awareness they targeted. For example, strategies
that involve teaching English stress patterns or vocalization were categorized under phono-
logical awareness-focused strategies. Similarly, spelling practice or writing rehearsal was
grouped under orthographic awareness-focused strategies. Approaches that teach word
structure, such as prefixes and suffixes, were classified as morphological awareness-focused
strategies, while strategies emphasizing word association and contextual analysis were
categorized under semantic awareness.
While metalinguistic awareness plays a fundamental role in vocabulary instruction,
the effectiveness of these strategies also depends on how they are implemented. There-
fore, in addition to examining metalinguistic awareness, we considered the instructional
approaches through which these strategies were delivered. For instance, aspects of met-
alinguistic awareness, such as morphological analysis, can be incorporated into various
instructional formats, including group work or the use of graphic organizers. To ensure
clarity and consistency, we maintained a clear distinction between metalinguistic awareness-
focused strategies and instructional approaches, recognizing the complementary roles they
play in categorizing vocabulary instruction.
For the first research question, we hypothesize that upper-elementary and early-
elementary students are the most frequently targeted groups in vocabulary instruction
practices for ELs in practitioner journals. This is consistent with research indicating that
these developmental stages are critical for establishing foundational vocabulary skills nec-
essary for academic success (Tannenbaum et al., 2006; Verhoeven et al., 2011). Furthermore,
we anticipate that instructional strategies emphasizing semantic awareness and morpho-
logical awareness are more commonly highlighted than those focusing on phonological
or orthographic awareness. Studies such as Proctor et al. (2009) and Manyak et al. (2018)
have demonstrated the importance of teaching semantic and morphological awareness to
enhance vocabulary and reading comprehension among ELs. Additionally, over the past
decade, as the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted traditional modes of instruction
and an increasing number of schools expected technology to become an integral part of
teaching and learning in the post-pandemic landscape (Moldavan et al., 2021), we anticipate
an uptick in the employment of multimodal approaches, such as videos and gamification.
For the second research question, we hypothesize that vocabulary instruction practices
vary significantly by grade level. Interactive and visual methods, such as picture/word
cards and reading aloud, are expected to be more prevalent at the preschool and early
elementary levels, as younger students benefit from concrete and visual supports when
acquiring new vocabulary (Goldenberg, 2008; Zucker et al., 2021). In contrast, analyti-
cal tools like corpus use and advanced strategies for morphological analysis are likely
more frequently employed at the upper elementary and secondary levels, as older stu-
dents develop the cognitive skills needed for more independent and complex vocabulary
acquisition (Proctor et al., 2012; Manyak et al., 2021). Additionally, we expect semantic
awareness-focused strategies, such as contextual word learning, to be consistently empha-
sized across grade levels, aligning with the Reading Systems Framework (C. Perfetti &
Stafura, 2014), which underscores the importance of word meaning for comprehension.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 7 of 22

However, orthographic awareness may receive less attention, as its direct impact on reading
comprehension is less well-established compared to other aspects of vocabulary knowledge
(Colenbrander et al., 2019).
For the third research question, we hypothesize that schema theory and psycholinguis-
tic theory are the most common theoretical frameworks guiding vocabulary instruction for
ELs. These theories emphasize the role of background knowledge, mental frameworks, and
linguistic processing in vocabulary learning, which are well-documented as being critical
for ELs (R. C. Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Moody et al., 2018). Sociocultural theories are
also expected to be prominent, particularly in collaborative and interactive instructional
practices. Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development and scaffolding strategies align
with studies showing that ELs benefit significantly from group work and peer-assisted
learning environments (Moody et al., 2018; Manyak et al., 2021). Furthermore, Dual Cod-
ing Theory is likely to be referenced in studies advocating for multimodal approaches to
vocabulary instruction, as engaging both the verbal and imagery systems has been shown
to enhance vocabulary retention and comprehension (Sadoski & Paivio, 2001; Aldossary
et al., 2021).

1.6. Theoretical Framework

The following theoretical frameworks guided our analysis: literacy theories identified
in Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (2019). An overview of these theories,
along with the rationale for their selection, is provided below.
A major part of the theoretical framework of the current study is built upon a synthesis
of existing research, including Wright and Cervetti (2016), Moody et al. (2018), and Black
and Wright (2024). These comprehensive reviews have consistently highlighted schema
and psycholinguistic theories, social constructivism, sociocultural theories, motivation
theory, and Dual Coding Theory as central to guiding the vocabulary instruction examined.
Building on this foundation, our coding framework integrates a broad spectrum of literacy
theories. The incorporated theories are schema theory (R. C. Anderson & Pearson, 1984),
psycholinguistic theory (Kavale & Schreiner, 1978), social constructivism and sociocultural
theories (Vygotsky, 1978), the Construction–Integration (C-I) model (Kintsch, 2018), Dual
Coding Theory (Sadoski et al., 1991), and social cognitive theory and motivation (Schunk &
Usher, 2012).
Schema and Psycholinguistic Theory: Psycholinguistic theory views reading as a con-
structive language process. Skilled reading involves simultaneous processing of graphic,
syntactic, and semantic information to reconstruct meaning from text (Kavale & Schreiner,
1978). Schema theory posits that comprehension is achieved when new information finds
a “mental home” within existing knowledge structures stored in memory, or when the
existing structure is modified to accommodate the new information (R. C. Anderson &
Pearson, 1984). This theory underscores the importance of background knowledge and
the activation of relevant schemata during reading. Vocabulary instruction, rooted in
schema and psycholinguistic theory, involves concept mapping, where students actively
construct vocabulary knowledge by connecting new words to existing mental frameworks
(Moody et al., 2018). It also includes association and categorization, and using context
clues to make predictions and draw inferences about word meanings (Carrell, 1984). Addi-
tionally, instruction based on this line of theory emphasizes word-level recognition and
decoding, combining words to extract meaning, and balancing various cues to enhance
comprehension (Kroll et al., 2012).
Social Constructivism and Sociocultural Theories: Social constructivism and socio-
cultural theories emphasize that individuals construct knowledge through engagement in
social activities and interactions with others. Learning is scaffolded by more knowledgeable
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 8 of 22

adults or peers within the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). Instructional
methods like group discussions, shared reading, and peer-assisted learning align with this
theory and have been shown to be particularly effective for ELs, who benefit from scaf-
folded support in vocabulary development (Moody et al., 2018). For example, group work,
which reflects a focus on collaborative learning, a strategy known to enhance language
skills through peer interaction (Vygotsky, 1978), was mapped to social cultural theories.
Construction-Integration Model: The Construction–Integration (C-I) model, as de-
tailed by Kintsch (2018), describes comprehension as a two-phase process involving con-
struction and integration. During the construction phase, readers activate memory of
both text elements and general knowledge in a passive, automatic process. This phase
is prompted by word meaning and spreads activation across memory. In the integration
phase, the information is refined for coherence using the overlap of meaning among ac-
tivated elements. Vocabulary instruction that leverages this model encourages students
to actively construct vocabulary knowledge through inference and prediction, utilizing
context clues to facilitate understanding.
Dual Coding Theory: Dual Coding Theory (DCT) posits that human cognition is sup-
ported by two distinct subsystems: the imagery system and the verbal system. The imagery
system processes nonverbal objects and events, while the verbal system handles language
processing. These systems can work independently or together (Sadoski et al., 1991).
Vocabulary instruction rooted in this theory (Sadoski, 2005) emphasizes the importance
of concreteness, mental images, imagination, personal experiences, and multimodality.
By engaging both verbal and nonverbal systems, students can enhance their vocabulary
retention and comprehension.
Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation: Social cognitive theory and motivation, as
described by Schunk and Usher (2012), provide a framework for understanding learning
through key social cognitive motivational processes. These processes include goals and self-
evaluations of progress, outcome expectations, values, social comparisons, and self-efficacy.
Vocabulary instruction that incorporates motivation, interests, goal-setting, self-evaluation,
and self-efficacy components can foster a conducive learning environment. By aligning
instructional practices with these cognitive and motivational components, educators can
enhance students’ reading engagement, thereby improving their reading comprehension
and overall language proficiency (McBreen & Savage, 2020).

2. Methods
2.1. Search Criteria
This review used the PRISMA reporting guidelines (Page et al., 2021). It included
articles published from 2013 to 2024 in the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (JAAL),
The Reading Teacher (RT), and TESOL Journal (TJ), the flagship practitioner-oriented journals
of the two largest and the most prominent international literacy and English as a second
language professional organizations, the International Literacy Association and TESOL.
The selection of the three journals was based on the fact that articles published in these
journals tend to have the most immediate and direct impact on practices (Moody et al.,
2018). Articles were selected if their primary focus was on explicit vocabulary instructional
strategies or if they addressed broader instructional contexts such as reading. Keywords
such as “vocabulary”, “word”, and “morpho*” were utilized to search within the JAAL, RT,
and TJ databases, resulting in an initial pool of 233 articles.
To ensure the relevance and applicability of our findings, this review focuses on
studies published between 2013 and 2024 to capture recent advancements in vocabulary
instruction for ELs. Prior reviews (e.g., Moody et al., 2018; Black & Wright, 2024) analyzed
earlier periods, but given the rapid evolution of instructional practices, particularly with
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 9 of 22

the increased integration of technology and multimodal methods (Moldavan et al., 2021;
Simonnet et al., 2025), a more recent review was necessary. This timeframe also ensures a
focused and methodologically manageable dataset, allowing for an in-depth analysis of
contemporary trends and practices relevant to current educational landscape.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included articles that focused on topics related to vocabulary learning and in-
structional strategies for ELs. Articles were excluded if they were solely dedicated to
reading or writing instruction without a clear focus on vocabulary instruction, or if they
did not discuss vocabulary instruction for ELs, or if they were aimed exclusively at native
English speakers. Furthermore, we did not consider articles categorized as book reviews,
commentaries, literature reviews, or editorial columns. This resulted in the identification of
43 articles (see Table 1) for analysis, which included 25 from RT, 3 from JAAL, and 15 from
TJ (Figure 1).

Table 1. Summary of studies included.

Citations Journals
Abrams and Walsh (2014) Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy
Aldossary et al. (2021) The Reading Teacher
Amendum et al. (2013) The Reading Teacher
B. E. Anderson (2023) The Reading Teacher
Baker and Santoro (2023) The Reading Teacher
Brown (2021) TESOL Journal
Collett and Dubetz (2021) The Reading Teacher
Concannon-Gibney (2021) The Reading Teacher
Crosson and Lesaux (2013) The Reading Teacher
Everly and Cai (2020) TESOL Journal
Filatova (2016) TESOL Journal
Ganske (2016) The Reading Teacher
Ganske and Heller (2022) The Reading Teacher
Giroir et al. (2015) The Reading Teacher
Goodwin and Perkins (2015) The Reading Teacher
Graves et al. (2013) The Reading Teacher
Graves et al. (2017) The Reading Teacher
Hernández et al. (2016) The Reading Teacher
Joseph Picot (2017) The Reading Teacher
Larragueta and Ceballos-Viro (2018) The Reading Teacher
Little and Kobayashi (2015) TESOL Journal
MacGregor (2013) TESOL Journal
Manyak et al. (2014) The Reading Teacher
Manyak et al. (2018) The Reading Teacher
Manyak et al. (2019) The Reading Teacher
Manyak et al. (2021) The Reading Teacher
Merkel (2016) TESOL Journal
Molle et al. (2021) TESOL Journal
Montelongo and Hernández (2013) The Reading Teacher
Morita-Mullaney et al. (2023) TESOL Journal
Nekrasova-Beker et al. (2017) TESOL Journal
Northrop and Andrei (2018) The Reading Teacher
Nurmukhamedov (2017) TESOL Journal
Pacheco and Goodwin (2013) Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy
Roessingh (2019) TESOL Journal
Rosborough et al. (2021) TESOL Journal
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 10 of 22
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

Table 1. Cont.

Roessingh (2019)
Citations TESOL Journal
Journals
Rosborough et al. (2021) TESOL Journal
Sadat-Tehrani (2017) TESOL Journal
Sadat-Tehrani
Schaefer (2017)
et al. (2019) TESOL Journal
TESOL Journal
Schaefer
Sun (2020) et al. (2019) TESOL Journal
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy
Sun (2020)
Wong et al. (2021) Journal of Adolescent
TESOL Journal & Adult Literacy
Wong et
Young et al.
al. (2021)
(2017) TESOL
TheJournal
Reading Teacher
Youngand
Zoski et al. (2017) (2017)
Erickson The Reading Teacher
The Reading Teacher
Zucker
Zoski andet al. (2021) (2017)
Erickson The Reading
The Reading Teacher
Teacher
Zucker et al. (2021) The Reading Teacher

Figure
Figure 1.1.PRISMA
PRISMAflow
flowdiagram.
diagram.

2.3.
2.3.Coding
CodingProcedures
Procedures
ToToensure
ensurethethe
reliability and
reliability consistency
and of of
consistency thethe
analysis, a structured
analysis, approach
a structured approachto cod-
to
coding
ing was developed.
was developed. The coding
The coding process
process aimedaimed to identify
to identify andand categorize
categorize the the instruc-
instructional
tional strategies
strategies and their and their theoretical
theoretical underpinnings
underpinnings in articles
in articles relatedrelated to vocabulary
to vocabulary in-
instruction
struction
for for ELs
ELs across across
various various practitioner
practitioner journals. journals.
Eacharticle
Each articlewas
wasmeticulously
meticulously examined
examined andand coded
codedforforkey
keyfactors
factorsrelevant
relevanttotothethe
researchquestions,
research questions,including
includingthethefollowing:
following: (1)
(1) student
studentcharacteristics,
characteristics,such
suchasasgrade
gradelevel
level
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 11 of 22

and explicit mentions of bilingual/multilingual learners, ELs, English as a second language

learners (ESL)s, or English as a foreign language learners (EFL)s; (2) aspects of metalin-
guistic awareness (e.g., phonological awareness, orthographic awareness, morphological
awareness, and semantic awareness) and instructional approaches (e.g., shared book read-
ing and gamification) for vocabulary instruction; (3) literacy theories underpinning the
practices; and (4) explicit or implicit identification of theories.
A detailed coding scheme was developed to ensure the consistent identification,
categorization, and theoretical alignment of instructional practices. The coding scheme
targets the following dimensions:
Clear definitions of focused aspects of metalinguistic awareness: Each focused as-
pect of metalinguistic awareness was clearly defined, with examples provided to ensure
consistent understanding among coders. These definitions and examples, outlined in the
Introduction, served as guiding criteria for categorization.
Clear definitions of instructional approaches: Instructional approaches, distinct from
metalinguistic awareness-focused strategies, were explicitly defined with examples to en-
sure consistent understanding among coders. As outlined in the Introduction, instructional
approaches describe the methods through which metalinguistic strategies are delivered
(e.g., group work, graphic organizers) rather than the linguistic components they target.
Categorization of instructional practices: Metalinguistic awareness-focused strategies
and instructional approaches were coded separately, even when there was overlap between
them. Since the included studies did not assign a hierarchy to instructional practices,
tracking the frequency of different strategies or approaches within a study was difficult,
if not impossible. As a result, we assigned equal weight to all coded strategies and
instructional approaches rather than prioritizing one over another. A study could therefore
include one or multiple metalinguistic awareness-focused strategies and/or instructional
approaches, all coded independently.
Ensuring coding consistency: To maintain consistency, coders followed a process for
applying multiple codes when necessary. Each instructional practice was coded based on
the linguistic skill(s) it targeted and the instructional approach used, without conflating the
two dimensions. Although overlap was acknowledged, coding was structured to reflect the
distinct roles that strategies and instructional approaches play in vocabulary instruction.
Theory-specific categories: The coding scheme included guidelines for mapping in-
structional practices to literacy theories. For example, concept mapping was linked to
schema theory, while collaborative learning activities, such as group work, were associated
with sociocultural theory (see Section 1.6, Theoretical Framework, for more details). This en-
sured that coders consistently matched instructional practices to the appropriate theoretical
frameworks. When primary studies explicitly stated their theoretical underpinnings, these
were prioritized. However, in cases of ambiguity, coders relied on the detailed guidelines
in the coding scheme to infer the most relevant theory.

2.4. Interrater Reliability

In addition to a well-defined coding scheme, this study involved multiple independent
coders to minimize subjectivity and ensure consistency in coding. Four coders were trained
through pilot coding sessions, during which they applied the established guidelines to
sample articles to enhance reliability.
During the title and abstract screening phase, two coders independently screened each
study. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer consulted
when necessary. In the full-text coding phase, a subset of the articles (20%, n = 8) was
coded independently by all four coders to assess interrater reliability. This process yielded
a 94% agreement rate, demonstrating strong coding consistency (Landis & Koch, 1977).
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 12 of 22

The remaining articles were then divided among the coders for independent coding. Any
discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus to ensure alignment with
the coding framework.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Research Question 1: What Are the Trends in Student Characteristics and Instructional
Strategies and Approaches in Vocabulary Instruction Practices for ELs in Practitioner Journal
Publications from 2013 to 2024?
Trends in student characteristics: Upper elementary students are the most frequently
targeted group, appearing in 39.02% of the articles. Early elementary students follow,
representing 31.71% of the studies. These findings support our hypothesis. Middle school
students are addressed in 9.76% of the articles, while university and high school students
together account for 17.08%, with university students receiving more attention than high
school students. Preschool students are the focus of 14.63% of the research, and a small
percentage of studies (9.76%) do not specify student age or grade levels.
Trends in the targeted aspects of metalinguistic awareness: Consistent with our hy-
pothesis, semantic awareness was the most frequently mentioned instructional focus across
all years. For example, it was prominent in every year except 2020, indicating a consistent
emphasis on vocabulary strategies that focus on understanding the meanings and relation-
ships between words. Morphological awareness was also frequently utilized, particularly
between 2017 and 2022. Phonological awareness and orthographic awareness appeared
sporadically, mainly in 2015, 2017, and 2024, and 2015 and 2016, respectively. This trend
indicates that explicit focus on sound-related vocabulary instruction for ELs might not be
a major focus across the years, and that strategies focusing on spelling and written word
recognition were not frequently discussed in these journals.
An analysis of the targeted aspects of metalinguistic awareness across different learn-
ing environments (EFL vs. ESL/bilingual) revealed distinct patterns (see Table 2). Of the
studies reviewed, 36 (83.7%) focused on ESL/bilingual learners, while only seven (16.3%)
targeted EFL learners. Among the four aspects analyzed, semantic awareness (52.94%) and
morphological awareness (32.35%) were the most frequently targeted in ESL/bilingual
instruction, whereas EFL instruction primarily emphasized semantic awareness (50%) and
phonological awareness (25%). Notably, morphological awareness was not addressed in
any of the EFL studies (0%).

Table 2. Summary of aspects of metalinguistic awareness targeted in the vocabulary instruction

by context.

ESL/Bilingual EFL
(N = 34) (N = 4)
n % n %
Aspects of Metalinguistic Awareness 26 92.86% 2 7.14%
(1) Orthography Awareness 2 5.88% 1 25%
(2) Phonological Awareness 3 8.82% 1 25%
(3) Morphological Awareness 11 32.35% 0 0.00%
(4) Semantic Awareness 18 52.94% 2 50%
Since some articles include both contexts, the sum of the sample sizes (N) for the two contexts exceeds the total
number of articles analyzed in this study. The sample size (n) for each targeted aspect in the table refers to the
number of articles that target a specific aspect of metalinguistic awareness. An article may target multiple aspects.

Trends in instructional approaches: Group work and read aloud were consistently
utilized instructional methods, with group work peaking in 2021 and being used regularly
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 13 of 22

from 2014 onward. Read-aloud strategies were prevalent mostly in the earlier years, but
diminished after 2018. Picture/word cards and gamification were frequently employed
in the earlier years, particularly between 2013 and 2018, suggesting that early educa-
tional strategies relied more on visual and interactive methods for vocabulary instruction.
However, these methods were less utilized in recent years, indicating a shift in instruc-
tional focus. Corpora and word checklists were utilized more frequently in recent years
(2020–2021), which could reflect a shift toward more data-driven and analytical approaches
to vocabulary instruction for older or more advanced learners.

3.2. Research Question 2: What Are the Vocabulary Instruction Practices for ELs in Practitioner
Journal Publications, and How Do They Vary Across Grade Levels?
To address the second research question, we examined the frequencies and percentages
of the aspects of metalinguistic awareness targeted in the vocabulary instruction and
the instructional approaches by grade. Semantic awareness (SA) was the most targeted
aspect of vocabulary instruction, appearing in 20 out of 43 studies (46.51%), followed
by morphological awareness (MA) in 12 studies (27.91%), phonological awareness (PA)
in 4 studies (9.30%), and orthographic awareness (OA) in 3 studies (7.00%). For the
frequency of vocabulary instructional approaches, group work and read-aloud were the
most frequently used approaches, each appearing in 12 out of 41 articles (29.27%). These
were followed by picture/word cards, used in 9 articles (21.95%), and gamification, used in
8 articles (19.51%).
An analysis of metalinguistic awareness aspects targeted in vocabulary instruction
by grade levels (see Table 3) shows that the most targeted aspects of metalinguistic aware-
ness are MA and SA across all grade levels. The four articles featuring phonological
awareness-focused vocabulary instruction emphasize stress (Sadat-Tehrani, 2017; Schaefer
et al., 2019), pronunciation (Zoski & Erickson, 2017), and vocalization (Little & Kobayashi,
2015). Similarly, the three articles focusing on orthographic awareness in vocabulary
instruction explore different methods, such as “writing rehearsal” (Little & Kobayashi,
2015), spelling patterns (Hernández et al., 2016), and the use of crossword puzzles (Merkel,
2016). In addition, 12 articles featuring morphological awareness in vocabulary instruc-
tion recommend teaching various aspects of morphology, including inflectional (Zoski
& Erickson, 2017; Nekrasova-Beker et al., 2017) and derivational morphology (Pacheco
& Goodwin, 2013; Goodwin & Perkins, 2015; Hernández et al., 2016; Zoski & Erickson,
2017; Joseph Picot, 2017; Young et al., 2017; Graves et al., 2017; Manyak et al., 2018, 2019,
2021; Nekrasova-Beker et al., 2017; Molle et al., 2021), as well as compound morphology
(Manyak et al., 2021). Finally, articles targeting semantic awareness primarily focus on
word categorization and association (e.g., Northrop & Andrei, 2018; Manyak et al., 2019;
Nekrasova-Beker et al., 2017).
The findings provide important insights into how different aspects of metalinguistic
awareness targeted in vocabulary instruction for ELs are emphasized across grade levels.
The emphasis on phonological skills at the university level in the reviewed articles (Little
& Kobayashi, 2015; Sadat-Tehrani, 2017; Nekrasova-Beker et al., 2017), while contrasting
with research that suggests that phonological awareness is primarily foundational in
early literacy development, particularly for ELs who struggle with English phonology
(Goswami, 2000), highlights the ongoing need for explicit phonological instruction across
the educational spectrum.
Orthographic awareness was predominantly addressed through instructional meth-
ods such as spelling rehearsal (Little & Kobayashi, 2015) and the use of spelling patterns
(Hernández et al., 2016; Zoski & Erickson, 2017). This focus corresponds with findings
from existing empirical research (Colenbrander et al., 2019), which stresses the impor-
tance of orthographic knowledge for improving ELs’ word recognition and fluency. The
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 14 of 22

incorporation of orthographic-focused strategies, such as spelling rehearsal and crossword

puzzles (Merkel, 2016), reflects a practical approach to reinforcing spelling and word de-
coding, which are crucial skills for ELs as they navigate the complexities of the English
writing system. The focus on both elementary (Hernández et al., 2016; Zoski & Erickson,
2017; B. E. Anderson, 2023) and university students (Little & Kobayashi, 2015; Merkel,
2016; Nekrasova-Beker et al., 2017) also highlights the importance of explicit orthographic
instruction across the educational spectrum for ELs.

Table 3. Summary of the aspects of metalinguistic awareness targeted in the vocabulary instruction
by grade level.

Upper
Above High Early
Elementary and Preschool
School Elementary
Middle School
(N = 8) (N = 18) (N = 13) (N = 6)
n % n % n % n %
Aspects of Metalinguistic Awareness 5 62.50% 15 83.33% 9 69.23% 2 33.33%
(1) Orthography Awareness 2 25.00% 1 5.56% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
(2) Phonological Awareness 2 25.00% 0 0.00% 1 7.69% 0 0.00%
(3) Morphological Awareness 1 12.50% 9 50.00% 3 23.08% 1 16.67%
(4) Semantic Awareness 3 37.50% 11 61.11% 7 53.85% 1 16.67%
Since some articles include more than one of the aforementioned grade levels, the sum of the sample sizes (N) for
the 4 grade levels exceeds the total number of articles analyzed in this study. The sample size (n) for each targeted
aspect in the table refers to the number of articles that target a specific aspect of metalinguistic awareness. An
article may target multiple aspects.

Morphological awareness, being a major focus across 12 articles, confirms its signifi-
cance in vocabulary development. The findings reveal a predominant focus on derivational
morphology (e.g., Pacheco & Goodwin, 2013; Goodwin & Perkins, 2015; Hernández et al.,
2016). They also demonstrate a strong presence of morphological awareness in upper ele-
mentary (Goodwin & Perkins, 2015; Hernández et al., 2016; Joseph Picot, 2017; Young et al.,
2017; Graves et al., 2017; Manyak et al., 2018, 2019, 2021), middle (Pacheco & Goodwin,
2013; Molle et al., 2021), and university levels (Nekrasova-Beker et al., 2017), highlighting
its crucial role in the vocabulary development and reading comprehension of ELs, which
aligns with the findings of existing empirical studies (Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Carlisle, 2010;
Brandes & McMaster, 2017; J. W. Lee et al., 2023). The broad application of morphological
instruction across educational levels is particularly encouraging, as it provides ELs with
the tools to decipher new and complex words, enhancing their academic vocabulary, as
morphological complexity and nominalization are key characteristics of English academic
genres (Lawrence et al., 2010; W. Nagy & Townsend, 2012).
Semantic awareness was the most emphasized aspect of metalinguistic awareness
across grade levels, which is consistent with the literature, highlighting its critical role in
reading comprehension (W. E. Nagy & Scott, 2000). Instructional strategies promoting
semantic awareness—such as contextual analysis (e.g., Manyak et al., 2014; Graves et al.,
2017) and word association (e.g., Manyak et al., 2014; Graves et al., 2017; Aldossary et al.,
2021)—are essential for helping ELs connect new words to known concepts, thereby deep-
ening their comprehension of academic texts. The focus on semantic awareness across
grade levels aligns with the Reading Systems Framework, which positions word meaning
at the center of the comprehension process (C. Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).
In addition to the aspects of metalinguistic awareness targeted in vocabulary instruc-
tion for ELs, an analysis of the vocabulary instructional approach (see Table 4) sheds light
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 15 of 22

on the distinct patterns of vocabulary instructional approach usage across grade levels.
Read-aloud and group work were the most frequently used instructional methods across all
grade levels, with read-aloud predominantly employed in early elementary and preschool
levels, which aligns with the existing literature (Janssen et al., 2019; Sundström et al., 2024).
Tools like picture/word cards were prominently featured in preschool (e.g., Larragueta &
Ceballos-Viro, 2018; Zucker et al., 2021) and early elementary levels (e.g., Ganske, 2016;
Morita-Mullaney et al., 2023), supporting younger students in making visual–lexical con-
nections. This aligns with research on the importance of multimodal learning, particularly
for ELs, who benefit from visual support when acquiring new vocabulary (Goldenberg,
2008). The frequent use of gamification across preschool (e.g., Zucker et al., 2021) and
early elementary (e.g., Ganske, 2016; Aldossary et al., 2021) levels are in line with research
advocating for engaging and interactive methods that enhance vocabulary retention in
young children (Gee, 2005; Chowdhury et al., 2024).

Table 4. Summary of vocabulary instructional approach utilization by grade level.

Above Upper Elementary Early

Preschool
Highschool and Middle School Elementary
(N = 8) (N = 18) (N = 13) (N = 6)
n % n % n % n %
Vocabulary Instructional Approaches 8 100.00% 16 88.89% 12 92.31% 6 100.00%
(1) Group Work 1 12.50% 7 38.89% 5 38.46% 2 33.33%
(2) Reading Aloud 1 12.50% 4 22.22% 7 53.85% 3 50.00%
(3) Picture/Word Card 1 12.50% 4 22.22% 3 23.08% 3 50.00%
(4) Gamification 2 25.00% 2 11.11% 2 15.38% 1 16.67%
(5) Others 2 25.00% 4 22.22% 2 15.38% 1 16.67%
(6) Picture Book 2 25.00% 4 22.22% 3 23.08% 2 33.33%
(7) Corpus 1 12.50% 3 16.67% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
(8) Shared Book Reading 1 12.50% 2 11.11% 2 15.38% 3 50.00%
(9) Word Checklist 0 0.00% 2 11.11% 1 7.69% 2 33.33%
Since some articles include more than one of the aforementioned grade levels, the sum of the sample sizes
(N) for the 4 grade levels exceeds the total number of articles analyzed in this study. The sample size (n) for
each approach in the table refers to the number of articles that target this approach. A single article may target
multiple approaches.

In contrast, more advanced tools, such as corpus use and word checklists, were utilized
in upper elementary (MacGregor, 2013; Joseph Picot, 2017; Manyak et al., 2021), middle
school (MacGregor, 2013; Molle et al., 2021), and above high school levels (Nekrasova-Beker
et al., 2017), reflecting the need for more sophisticated vocabulary learning strategies as
students progress. These tools provide opportunities for students to independently engage
with and analyze language, a key component in fostering academic language proficiency at
higher levels (W. Nagy & Townsend, 2012). These findings underscore the importance of
using targeted, sophisticated tools to support vocabulary learning, particularly as students
advance to more complex language tasks, highlighting the critical role of independent
language analysis in academic success.

3.3. Research Question 3: What Literacy Theories Inform the Vocabulary Instruction Practices for
ELs in Practitioner Journal Publications?
Schema and psycholinguistic theories were found to be the most prevalent literacy
theories, followed by social constructivism and sociocultural theories, the C-I model, Dual
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 16 of 22

Coding Theory, and motivation theories, with 34% of the 41 articles coded explicitly
identifying the theoretical underpinnings of the reported practices.
Sixty-three percent (n = 26) of the reported instructional practices were informed
by schema and psycholinguistic theories. Instruction guided by these theories included
morphological analysis (e.g., Pacheco & Goodwin, 2013; Goodwin & Perkins, 2015; Manyak
et al., 2018) and concept maps/graphic organizers, such as word walls (Manyak et al., 2021),
word clouds (Filatova, 2016), and word family charts (Nekrasova-Beker et al., 2017).
Aside from schema and psycholinguistic theories, social constructivism and socio-
cultural theories also frequently inform vocabulary instruction in the three practitioner
journals, identified in 56% (n = 23) of the reviewed instructional practices. Suggestions
based on these theories are generally characterized by collaborative groups (Ganske, 2016;
Young et al., 2017) and scaffolding. Scaffolding includes strategies like student-friendly
definitions (e.g., Manyak et al., 2014; Giroir et al., 2015; Zucker et al., 2021), which simplify
complex terms using familiar words and examples to support understanding. For instance,
a dictionary definition of the word terrified might be “extremely frightened”. However, a
child-friendly definition simplifies the language by replacing the word frightened with scared
and adopting a more conversational tone: “When you are terrified, you feel very scared”.
The C-I model was the third most prevalent theory, underpinning 34% (n = 14) of
the coded instructional approaches. Instructional practices based on the C-I model often
included text comprehension strategies such as using context cues for inferencing and/or
prediction (e.g., Manyak et al., 2014; Sun, 2020), teaching cohesive devices (Crosson &
Lesaux, 2013), and presenting words in diverse contexts (e.g., Manyak et al., 2014).
Following the C-I model, Dual Coding Theory and motivation theories each accounted
for 22% (n = 9) of the instructional practices in the current study. Dual Coding Theory,
with its emphasis on concreteness and experiential learning, typically informs methods
that suggest mental imagery and multimodal approaches. For instance, Aldossary et al.
(2021) encourage early childhood teachers to promote playful interactions through iPad
apps involving music, drama, dance, and art, thereby supporting young children’s English
language development and multimodal meaning-making. Similarly, motivation theories,
with their focus on the use of rewards, goal-setting, or self-efficacy, primarily guide in-
structional approaches such as gamification, which were used across grade levels in the
coded instruction throughout the past decade (e.g., Amendum et al., 2013; Goodwin &
Perkins, 2015; Zoski & Erickson, 2017; Ganske & Heller, 2022). In addition to gamification,
leveraging rewards and recognition to enhance both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
is a common practice. For example, Zucker et al. (2021) highlighted how teachers com-
bined extrinsic rewards, such as celebrations and prizes, with strategies (i.e., “important
word-learning milestones”) that foster a sense of competence and achievement to sustain
children’s engagement in using sophisticated words.

4. Conclusions
4.1. Summary of Findings
By conducting a systematic content and trend analysis on articles published over
the past decade in the most widely cited practitioner-focused journals, this study seeks
to examine the translation of research into practice and the theoretical foundations of
vocabulary instructional practices for ELs. Drawing upon primary theoretical frameworks
for literacy research (Alvermann et al., 2019), our analysis shows that the majority of the
vocabulary instruction was guided by schema and psycholinguistic theories, followed by
social constructivism and sociocultural theories.
Our findings also underscore the importance of adapting vocabulary instructional
practices to meet the developmental needs of students at different grade levels. For younger
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 17 of 22

learners, interactive methods like read aloud and visual aids are essential for building
foundational vocabulary. As students advance, incorporating collaborative and analytical
tools like group work and corpus use can enhance their ability to understand and use more
complex academic vocabulary.
Moreover, this study reinforces the importance of multimodal instructional approaches.
Methods such as shared book reading, gamification, visual support, and corpus analysis are
particularly beneficial in addressing language barriers and providing meaningful context
for word learning. These methods not only support vocabulary acquisition, but also
engage students in active learning, which is critical for long-term retention. Technology
use, with its potential to enhance motivation, support multimodal learning, and promote
collaborative learning, has been highlighted in the existing literature (S. Lee et al., 2020;
Yang et al., 2021) as especially beneficial for ELs by providing interactive and contextualized
learning experiences. Future research should continue to explore the role of digital tools
and multimodal strategies in vocabulary instruction, particularly as classrooms increasingly
rely on technology to support diverse learners in the post-pandemic landscape (Moldavan
et al., 2021). Additionally, longitudinal studies are needed to assess how the integration of
these vocabulary strategies impacts ELs’ academic outcomes over time, particularly in the
context of their reading comprehension and overall language proficiency.
In conclusion, the trends identified in this study point to the necessity of a comprehen-
sive and evolving approach to vocabulary instruction for ELs. By aligning instructional
strategies with students’ developmental needs and by utilizing a range of methods, edu-
cators can better support ELs in mastering both the academic and everyday vocabulary
essential for their success.

4.2. Limitations and Research Directions

While this study provides valuable insights into trends in vocabulary instruction, it is
not without limitations. First, we chose to focus on three practitioner journals because they
serve as flagship publications for the two leading professional organizations in the field.
These journals are widely cited and are expected to have the greatest influence on practice.
However, this selective approach may have excluded relevant practices documented in
other practitioner journals. Second, despite the careful development of our coding scheme
and the high interrater reliability achieved, mapping vocabulary strategies to various
theoretical frameworks inherently involves a degree of subjectivity. This subjectivity may
have influenced the data analysis and the interpretation of findings. A third limitation of
this study is the inability to report effect sizes, as the included studies primarily focused
on describing vocabulary instructional practices rather than quantitatively assessing their
impact on literacy outcomes. Since many of these studies were published in practitioner-
oriented journals, they prioritized pedagogical recommendations over statistical analyses,
limiting the availability of effect size data.
To build upon the current study, future research should consider the following di-
rections: (1) Expand the study’s journal range: Incorporating a more diverse range of
journals could provide a more comprehensive analysis of vocabulary instruction trends.
(2) Investigate vocabulary programs: Future studies could investigate vocabulary programs
that incorporate best practices, examining their efficacy and adaptability in different educa-
tional settings. By addressing these limitations and exploring the suggested avenues, future
research can enhance the understanding of the theory, research, and practice of vocabulary
instruction, particularly in the evolving educational landscape following the pandemic.
(3) Incorporate more EL-focused empirical studies that measure the effectiveness of vocab-
ulary instruction through experimental or quasi-experimental designs. By including effect
size reporting, future systematic reviews could provide a more robust evidence base for
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 18 of 22

determining which instructional strategies yield the most significant benefits for English
learners’ vocabulary acquisition and literacy development.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.-J.K., Y.Z., L.C. and J.-A.L.; methodology, Y.Z., L.C. and
J.-A.L.; software, L.C., J.-A.L. and H.S.; validation, Y.Z., J.-A.L., L.C. and H.S.; formal analysis, L.C.,
J.-A.L. and H.S.; investigation, H.S.; resources, L.-J.K., Y.Z. and J.-A.L.; data curation, Y.Z., L.C., J.-A.L.
and H.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z., L.C. and J.-A.L.; writing—review and editing,
Y.Z., J.-A.L. and L.-J.K.; visualization, H.S.; supervision, L.-J.K.; project administration, Y.Z. and L.C.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Note
1 This paper has been submitted to and accepted for presentation at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2025
Annual Meeting.

References
Abrams, S. S., & Walsh, S. (2014). Gamified vocabulary. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(1), 49–58. [CrossRef]
Adlof, S. M. (2019). Prologue to the forum: Vocabulary across the school grades. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4),
461–465. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation
(DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 68–82. [CrossRef]
Aldossary, N., Curwood, J. S., & Niland, A. (2021). Fostering multilingual children’s language development through iPad apps. The
Reading Teacher, 75(3), 329–338. [CrossRef]
Allagui, B., & Al Naqbi, S. (2024). The contribution of vocabulary knowledge to summary writing quality: Vocabulary size and lexical
richness. TESL-EJ, 28(1), 1–27. [CrossRef]
Alvermann, D. E., Unrau, N. J., Sailors, M., & Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.). (2019). Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed.). Routledge.
Amendum, S., Amendum, E., & Almond, P. (2013). One dy i kud not red a book bot naw I can: One english learner’s progress. The
Reading Teacher, 67(1), 59–69. [CrossRef]
Amini, D., & Iravani, Z. (2021). Genric differentiation in the relationship between L2 vocabulary knowledge and writing performance.
Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(1), 97–117. [CrossRef]
Anderson, B. E. (2023). Vocabulary talk moves: Using language to promote word learning. The Reading Teacher, 77(4), 439–452.
[CrossRef]
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). Longman, Inc.
August, D., Uccelli, P., Artzi, L., Barr, C., & Francis, D. J. (2020). English learners’ acquisition of academic vocabulary: Instruction
matters, but so do word characteristics. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3), 559–582. [CrossRef]
Baker, D. L., & Santoro, L. (2023). Quality read-alouds matter: How you teach is just as important as what you teach. The Reading
Teacher, 77(3), 310–320. [CrossRef]
Baus, C., Strijkers, K., & Costa, A. (2013). When does word frequency influence written production? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 963.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Black, C. K., & Wright, K. L. (2024). What’s up with words? A systematic review of designs, strategies, and theories underlying
vocabulary research. Reading Psychology, 45(1), 78–103. [CrossRef]
Brandes, D. R., & McMaster, K. L. (2017). A review of morphological analysis strategies on vocabulary outcomes with ELLs. Insights
Into Learning Disabilities, 14(1), 53–72.
Brown, D. (2021). Incidental vocabulary learning in a Japanese university L2-English language classroom over a semester. TESOL
Journal, 12(4), e595. [CrossRef]
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary
development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 431–443. [CrossRef]
Cao, Y., & Kim, Y.-S. G. (2024). Longitudinal relations between literacy instruction and early reading achievement: Findings from
classroom observations in Grades 1–3. Reading and Writing. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 19 of 22

Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research
Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487. [CrossRef]
Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. The Modern Language Journal, 68(4),
332–343. [CrossRef]
Cervetti, G. N., Fitzgerald, M. S., Hiebert, E. H., & Hebert, M. (2023). Meta-analysis examining the impact of vocabulary instruction on
vocabulary knowledge and skill. Reading Psychology, 44(6), 672–709. [CrossRef]
Chowdhury, M., Dixon, L., Kuo, L.-J., Donaldson, J. P., Eslami, Z., Viruru, R., & Luo, W. (2024). Digital game-based language learning
for vocabulary development. Computers and Education Open, 6, 100160. [CrossRef]
Colenbrander, D., Miles, K. P., & Ricketts, J. (2019). To see or not to see: How does seeing spellings support vocabulary learning?
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 609–628. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Collett, J., & Dubetz, N. (2021). Instruction to engage multilingual learners with grade-level content. The Reading Teacher, 75(5), 593–602.
[CrossRef]
Concannon-Gibney, T. (2021). “Teacher, teacher, can’t catch me!”: Teaching vocabulary and grammar using nursery rhymes to children
for whom English is an additional language. The Reading Teacher, 75(1), 41–50. [CrossRef]
Coxhead, A. (2012). Academic vocabulary, writing and English for academic purposes: Perspectives from second language learners.
RELC Journal, 43(1), 137–145. [CrossRef]
Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). Connectives. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 193–200. [CrossRef]
Duff, D. (2019). The effect of vocabulary intervention on text comprehension: Who benefits? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 50, 562–578. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Duff, D., Tomblin, J. B., & Catts, H. (2015). The influence of reading on vocabulary growth: A case for a Matthew effect. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 853–864. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Durrant, P., & Brenchley, M. (2019). Development of vocabulary sophistication across genres in English children’s writing. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(8), 1927–1953. [CrossRef]
Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension
of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44. [CrossRef]
Elleman, A. M., Oslund, E. L., Griffin, N. M., & Myers, K. E. (2019). A review of middle school vocabulary interventions: Five
research-based recommendations for practice. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 477–492. [CrossRef]
Everly, P., & Cai, S. (2020). From wrong word to right word: Equipping ELLs to make correct semantic choices independently. TESOL
Journal, 12(3), e574. [CrossRef]
Filatova, O. (2016). More than a word cloud. TESOL Journal, 7(2), 438–448. [CrossRef]
Ganske, K. (2016). SAIL: A framework for promoting next-generation word study. The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 337–346. [CrossRef]
Ganske, K., & Heller, M. C. (2022). Word knowledge instruction: We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The Reading Teacher,
76(2), 112–121. [CrossRef]
Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 5–16. [CrossRef]
Giguere, D., Tulloch, M. K., Core, C., & Hoff, E. (2024). Early skills that predict English reading ability: A longitudinal study of bilingual
children from 5 to 10 years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 246, 105993. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Giroir, S., Grimaldo, L. R., Vaughn, S., & Roberts, G. (2015). Interactive read-alouds for English learners in the elementary grades. The
Reading Teacher, 68(8), 639–648. [CrossRef]
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—And does not—Say. American Educator, 32(2),
8–23. Available online: https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/2014/ae_summer2008.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2024).
Goodwin, A. P., & Perkins, J. (2015). Word detectives. The Reading Teacher, 68(7), 510–523. [CrossRef]
Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological and lexical processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 251–267). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Graham, S., Kim, Y.-S., Cao, Y., Lee, J. w., Tate, T., Collins, P., Cho, M., Moon, Y., Chung, H. Q., & Olson, C. B. (2023). A meta-analysis of
writing treatments for students in grades 6–12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(7), 1004–1027. [CrossRef]
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. [CrossRef]
Graves, M. F., Baumann, J. F., Blachowicz, C. L., Manyak, P., Bates, A., Cieply, C., Davis, J. R., & Von Gunten, H. (2013). Words, words
everywhere, but which ones do we teach? The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 333–346. [CrossRef]
Graves, M. F., Schneider, S., & Ringstaff, C. (2017). Empowering students with word-learning strategies: Teach a child to fish. The
Reading Teacher, 71(5), 533–543. [CrossRef]
Hernández, A. C., Montelongo, J. A., & Herter, R. J. (2016). Using Spanish-English cognates in children’s choices picture books to
develop Latino English learners’ linguistic knowledge. The Reading Teacher, 70(2), 233–239. [CrossRef]
Janssen, C., Segers, E., McQueen, J. M., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Comparing effects of instruction on word meaning and word form on
early literacy abilities in kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 30(3), 375–399. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 20 of 22

Joseph Picot, C. (2017). Using academic word lists to support disciplinary literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 71(2), 215–220.
[CrossRef]
Kavale, K., & Schreiner, R. (1978). Psycholinguistic implications for beginning reading instruction. Language Arts, 55(1), 34–40.
Kenneth Logan, J., & Kieffer, M. J. (2017). Evaluating the role of polysemous word knowledge in reading comprehension among
bilingual adolescents. Reading and Writing, 30(8), 1687–1704. [CrossRef]
Kintsch, W. (2018). Revisiting the construction—Integration model of text comprehension and its Implications for Instruction. In D.
E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed., pp. 178–203).
Routledge.
Kroll, J. F., Bogulski, C. A., & McClain, R. (2012). Psycholinguistic perspectives on second language learning and bilingualism. In H.
Hopp, & T. Kupisch (Eds.), Linguistic approaches to bilingualism (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 41(3), 161–180. [CrossRef]
Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2008). Conceptual and methodological issues in comparing metalinguistic awareness across languages.
In K. Koda, & A. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages (pp. 39–67). Routledge.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. [CrossRef]
Larragueta, M., & Ceballos-Viro, I. (2018). What kind of book? Selecting picture books for vocabulary acquisition. The Reading Teacher,
72(1), 81–87. [CrossRef]
Lavigne, C. S., Tremblay, K. A., & Binder, K. S. (2022). It’s in the way that you use It: How vocabulary knowledge and usage predict
writing quality among adult basic education learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(5), 1023–1041. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lawrence, J. F., Hagen, A. M., Hwang, J. K., Lin, G., & Lervåg, A. (2019). Academic vocabulary and reading comprehension: Exploring
the relationships across measures of vocabulary knowledge. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 285–306. [CrossRef]
Lawrence, J. F., White, C., & Snow, C. E. (2010). The words students need. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 22–26. Available online:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/46v4m4z0 (accessed on 1 October 2024).
Lee, J. (2011). Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 69–92.
[CrossRef]
Lee, J. W., Wolters, A., & Grace Kim, Y.-S. (2023). The relations of morphological awareness with language and literacy skills
vary depending on orthographic depth and nature of morphological awareness. Review of Educational Research, 93(4), 528–558.
[CrossRef]
Lee, S., Kuo, L.-J., Xu, Z., & Hu, X. (2020). The effects of technology-integrated classroom instruction on K-12 English language learners’
literacy development: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5–6), 1106–1137. [CrossRef]
Little, A., & Kobayashi, K. (2015). Vocabulary learning strategies of Japanese life science students. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 81–111.
[CrossRef]
MacGregor, A. (2013). Young learners and lexical awareness: Children’s engagement with wordlists and concordances. TESOL Journal,
5(1), 120–149. [CrossRef]
Manyak, P. C., Baumann, J. F., & Manyak, A. M. (2018). Morphological analysis instruction in the elementary grades: Which morphemes
to teach and how to teach them. The Reading Teacher, 72(3), 289–300. [CrossRef]
Manyak, P. C., Manyak, A. M., Cimino, N. D., & Horton, A. L. (2019). Teaching vocabulary for application: Two model practices. The
Reading Teacher, 72(4), 485–498. [CrossRef]
Manyak, P. C., Manyak, A. M., & Kappus, E. M. (2021). Lessons from a decade of research on multifaceted vocabulary instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 75(1), 27–39. [CrossRef]
Manyak, P. C., Von Gunten, H., Autenrieth, D., Gillis, C., Mastre-O’Farrell, J., Irvine-McDermott, E., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2014). Four
practical principles for enhancing vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 68(1), 13–23. [CrossRef]
Masrai, A. (2019). Vocabulary and reading comprehension revisited: Evidence for high-, mid-, and low-frequency vocabulary
knowledge. Sage Open, 9(2), 2158244019845182. [CrossRef]
McBreen, M., & Savage, R. (2020). The impact of motivational reading instruction on the reading achievement and motivation of
students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1125–1163. [CrossRef]
McKeown, M. G. (2019). Effective vocabulary instruction fosters knowing words, using words, and understanding how words work.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 466–476. [CrossRef]
Merkel, W. (2016). The potential of crossword puzzles in aiding English language learners. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 898–920. [CrossRef]
Moldavan, A. M., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2021). Navigating (and disrupting) the digital divide: Urban teachers’ perspectives
on secondary mathematics instruction during COVID-19. The Urban Review, 54(2), 277–302. [CrossRef]
Molle, D., de Oliveira, L. C., MacDonald, R., & Bhasin, A. (2021). Leveraging incidental and intentional vocabulary learning to support
multilingual students’ participation in disciplinary practices and discourses. TESOL Journal, 12(4). [CrossRef]
Montelongo, J. A., & Hernández, A. C. (2013). The teachers’ choices cognate database for K–3 teachers of Latino English learners. The
Reading Teacher, 67(3), 187–192. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 21 of 22

Moody, S., Hu, X., Kuo, L. J., Jouhar, M., Xu, Z., & Lee, S. (2018). Vocabulary instruction: A critical analysis of theories, research, and
practice. Education Sciences, 8(4), 180. [CrossRef]
Morita-Mullaney, T., Gao, F., & Zhang, R. (2023). When literacy ate language: An analysis of a research-based literacy intervention for
designated English learners. TESOL Journal, 14(3), e718. [CrossRef]
Mosher, D. M., Burkhauser, M. A., & Kim, J. S. (2024). Improving second-grade reading comprehension through a sustained content
literacy intervention: A mixed-methods study examining the mediating role of domain-specific vocabulary. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 116(4), 550–568. [CrossRef]
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269–284). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly,
47(1), 91–108. [CrossRef]
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). The nation’s report card: Reading 2022; U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ (accessed on 1 October 2024).
Nekrasova-Beker, T., Becker, A., & Sharpe, A. (2017). Identifying and teaching target vocabulary in an ESP course. TESOL Journal, 10(1),
e00365. [CrossRef]
Northrop, L., & Andrei, E. (2018). More than just word of the day: Vocabulary apps for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 72(5),
623–630. [CrossRef]
Nurmukhamedov, U. (2017). Lexical coverage of TED talks: Implications for vocabulary instruction. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 768–790.
[CrossRef]
Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting two and two together: Middle school students’ morphological problem-solving
strategies for unknown words. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541–553. [CrossRef]
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan,
S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald,
S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. [CrossRef]
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37.
[CrossRef]
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Vehoeven. C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional
literacy (pp. 189–213). John Benjamins.
Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., & Montecillo, C. (2012). The role of vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension
among English monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual children in elementary school. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1635–1664.
[CrossRef]
Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Dalton, B., & Snow, C. E. (2009). Understanding depth of vocabulary online with bilingual and monolingual
children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(4), 311–333. [CrossRef]
Protopapas, A., Mouzaki, A., Sideridis, G. D., Kotsolakou, A., & Simos, P. G. (2013). The role of vocabulary in the context of the simple
view of reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29(2), 168–202. [CrossRef]
Raudszus, H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2021). Patterns and predictors of reading comprehension growth in first and second language
readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(2), 400–417. [CrossRef]
Relyea, J. E., Kim, J. S., Rich, P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2024). Effects of tier 1 content literacy intervention on early-grade English learners’
reading and writing: Exploring the mediating roles of domain-specific vocabulary and oral language proficiency. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 116(7), 1172–1195. [CrossRef]
Roessingh, H. (2019). Read-alouds in the upper elementary classroom: Developing academic vocabulary. TESOL Journal, 11(1), e00445.
[CrossRef]
Rosborough, A., Zhang, S., & McCafferty, S. G. (2021). Teacher self-disclosure in adult ESL curriculum. TESOL Journal, 12(3), e588.
[CrossRef]
Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2017). Teaching English stress: A case study. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 943–968. [CrossRef]
Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(3), 221–238. [CrossRef]
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research
Quarterly, 26(4), 463–484. [CrossRef]
Schaefer, V., Darcy, I., & Abe, L. (2019). The distress in not stressing and destressing stress in English: Using wordplay to boost
awareness, intelligibility, and communicative competence. TESOL Journal, 10(3), e00411. [CrossRef]
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human
motivation (pp. 13–27). Oxford University Press. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 262 22 of 22

Silverman, R. D., Johnson, E., Keane, K., & Khanna, S. (2020). Beyond decoding: A meta-analysis of the effects of language com-
prehension interventions on K–5 students’ language and literacy outcomes. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S207–S233.
[CrossRef]
Simonnet, E., Loiseau, M., & Lavoué, É. (2025). A systematic literature review of technology-assisted vocabulary learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), e13096. [CrossRef]
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 56(1), 72–110. [CrossRef]
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2005). Teaching word meanings (1st ed.). Routledge. [CrossRef]
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. [CrossRef]
Suggate, S., Schaughency, E., McAnally, H., & Reese, E. (2018). From infancy to adolescence: The longitudinal links between vocabulary,
early literacy skills, oral narrative, and reading comprehension. Cognitive Development, 47, 82–95. [CrossRef]
Sun, C.-H. (2020). Interactive picture book read-alouds to the rescue: Developing emerging college EFL learners’ word inference ability.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(5), 509–517. [CrossRef]
Sundström, S., Höglund, M., Sällberg, R., & Walsö, H. (2024). Small-group vocabulary intervention combining elements from shared
book reading and the lexicon pirate method—A pilot study of multilingual children with speech, language and communication
needs. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 40(2), 197–212. [CrossRef]
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in
third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381–398. [CrossRef]
Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sánchez, E. (2015). Core academic language skills: An expanded
operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent
learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1077–1109. [CrossRef]
Unrau, N. J., & Alvermann, D. E. (2018). Literacies and their investigation through theories and models. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J.
Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed., pp. 47–90). Routledge.
Velez, E., Silvia, S., & Tolbert, M. (2016). Older adolescent and young adult English learners: A study of demographics, policies, and programs.
Executive summary. Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8–25. [CrossRef]
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Winkler, S., Kuo, L.-J., Eslami, Z., & Kim, H. (2021). Best evidence synthesis of academic vocabulary interventions for post-secondary
English learners. Educational Research and Development Journal, 24(3), 1–19.
Wong, K. M., Flynn, R. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2021). L2 vocabulary learning from educational media: The influence of screen-based
scaffolds on the incidental—Intentional continuum. TESOL Journal, 12(4). [CrossRef]
Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2016). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension.
Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203–226. [CrossRef]
Yang, X., Kuo, L. J., Eslami, Z. R., & Moody, S. M. (2021). Theoretical trends of research on technology and L2 vocabulary learning: A
systematic review. Journal of Computers in Education, 8, 465–483. [CrossRef]
Young, C., Stokes, F., & Rasinski, T. (2017). Readers theatre plus comprehension and word study. The Reading Teacher, 71(3), 351–355.
[CrossRef]
Zoski, J., & Erickson, K. (2017). Morpheme-Based Instruction in Kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 70(4), 491–496. [CrossRef]
Zucker, T. A., Cabell, S. Q., & Pico, D. L. (2021). Going nuts for words: Recommendations for teaching young students academic
vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 74(5), 581–594. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.