Specially Designed Vocabulary Instruction in the Content Areas: What Does High Quality Instruction Look Like?

Michael J. Kennedy, John Wills Lloyd, Mira T. Cole, & Emily Ely

University of Virginia

Who is Steve - Click here to Learn More

Steve, an eighth-grader with a learning disability (LD) in reading comprehension and language processing, is a nice young man with a solid circle of friends; he hopes to go out for the cross-country team once he reaches high school. Steve is enrolled in general education sections of U.S. History, Earth Science, American Literature, and Algebra alongside peers with and without disabilities in his home school district. He is passing his classes, but his grade point average hovers in the C range, and it is thanks to his teachers using various accommodations and modifying key assignments and assessments that it is that high. Steve’s difficulties in school stem from his limited capacity to (a) read and comprehend his courses’ textbooks and other print-based materials; (b) keep up with the amount and pacing of information provided during lectures (especially vocabulary terms and concepts); and (c) demonstrate learning on typical assessments, assignments, and projects. In short, Steve wants to do well and please his teachers and parents, but he cannot keep up with the demands of his coursework.  

Mrs. Saint supports Steve and several other students with various exceptionalities in their core academic classrooms. Mrs. Saint earned her master’s degree in special education several years ago, and meets her state’s requirements to be highly qualified, but she does not think of herself as an expert in any of the core academic areas (e.g., social studies, math, science, and language arts). Steve’s IEP states that he is to receive evidence-based, specially designed reading instruction every day, but Mrs. Saint struggles to find the time, space, and support from the school’s administration to do anything but to use the admittedly limited tools currently at her disposal to keep Steve moving forward within the general education curriculum. Steve is hesitant to read any textbook on his own, and rarely reads anything other than ESPN online and some cheat sheets that help him conquer video games. As a result, Steve’s underlying weaknesses in literacy skills are causing him to fall farther behind his peers, and Mrs. Saint is concerned that his limited skills will result in course failures once he reaches high school.  Please click here to hear Mrs. Saint discussing the challenges of teaching students like Steve in general education classrooms.  

Students like Steve want to succeed, they try hard, but are often unable to keep pace.

Students like Steve, and some with much worse outcomes, are enrolled in virtually every middle and high school in the United States, if not the world. These are students who to a large extent try hard and want to succeed, but who are unable to keep pace, meet demands, and make adequate progress given the way their respective disabilities affect the way they learn (Deshler, 2005; Hallahan, Lloyd, Kauffman, Weiss, & Martinez, 2005). Although individual schools interpret it differently (Zigmond & Kloo, 2011), according to federal law, if students’ disabilities affect their academic performance, they should receive specially designed instruction that is based on their unique educational needs and that addresses their individualized goals and objectives in the least restrictive environment possible. One common problem Mrs. Saint faces in designing instruction for Steve’s content area classes is that evidence-based practices and other specially designed instruction are not consistently provided (Kennedy & Ihle, 2012). Although Mrs. Saint possesses a strong repertoire of evidence-based strategies for helping students succeed on their own (e.g., explicit instruction, learning strategies), her limited knowledge in some content areas limits her ability to implement to provide the intensity of instruction and implement it with the fidelity that her students need (see Kennedy & Ihle, 2012 for a thorough discussion of this common, but problematic phenomenon).

Vocabulary is critical to student success at the secondary level, and there are several high-quality, empirically validated strategies for teaching and learning across various content areas (e.g., D. P. Bryant, Goodwin, Bryant, & Higgins, 2003; Ebbers & Denton, 2008; Jitendra, Edwards, Sacks, & Jacobson, 2004).  In addition, educators can access content acquisition podcasts (CAPs; see the supplemental media file, "What are CAPs?"), which introduce key evidence-based practices and demonstrate various strategies and practices (e.g., watch a CAP on phonological awareness at https://vimeo.com/40105175). 

The Importance of Specially Designed Vocabulary Instruction

It is important to critically examine the individual building blocks of success within content-area learning tasks when searching for logical yet powerful ways to improve academic outcomes for adolescents with LD. Success in secondary-level courses requires students to read and comprehend narrative and expository texts (Faggella-Luby & Deshler, 2008), participate in higher order thinking skills during reading (Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, & Scammacca, 2008), contribute to discussions and assignments using knowledge from various content areas (de la Paz, 2005), and create written products for a variety of purposes (e.g., informative, persuasive; Graham & Perin, 2007). A cornerstone for building learning capacity and overall achievement in each of these respective and intertwined activities is vocabulary proficiency.

The National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) and others (e.g., Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Graetz, 2003) have documented the impact of vocabulary performance on comprehension. Despite its importance for students with LD and others who struggle with reading, vocabulary proficiency is generally not attained through "typical" methods such as vast quantities of reading practice and participation in content-rich discussions with adults and peers (Baumann, Kame’enui, & Ash, 2003).  Instead, evidence-based, specially designed instruction delivered with fidelity and sufficient intensity and duration is needed (King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2010).  

Regardless of instructional methods, some students with LD struggle to remember definitions of vocabulary terms and concepts (Ebbers & Denton, 2008).  Using evidence-based practices can boost the chances that students will remember definitions, but memorization alone is not sufficient for success in secondary-level content area coursework.  Although some students can efficiently and effectively memorize definitions, many students with LD have difficulty in using learned definitions to respond to oral or written questions, comprehend narrative or expository texts, or participate in the higher order thinking skills required by the respective content areas (D. P. Bryant et al., 2003; Jitendra et al., 2004).  These difficulties reflect (a) limited exposure and opportunity to practice using new terms, (b) confusion in making cognitive connections between complex or abstract concepts and existing knowledge, and (c) the overwhelming number of new terms that must be learned across content-area courses (Kennedy, 2011).

Directions for Creating Content Acquisition Podcasts (Part 1) 

Effective Practices for Teaching Vocabulary

Key themes in the broad field of vocabulary instruction include helping students become aware of the semantic parts of words (Bos & Anders, 1990), dedicating instructional time to teaching word parts and meanings (Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006), and explicitly teaching strategies for forming connections between semantically related terms (Graves, 2006). Students with LD benefit from instruction that incorporates these three themes, but they also benefit from (a) multiple opportunities to learn words through direct or explicit insruction (Swanson & Deshler, 2003); (b) strategic apporach to learning new terms and concepts, including explicit strategy instruction (Dexter, Park, & Hughes, 2011); and (c) careful application of instructional technology (Kennedy, 2011).

Teachers who simply tell students the meanings of terms or expect them to learn meanings of new vocabulary by using glossaries or the context in which the words appear are effectively creating conditions where many of their students will fail and become frustrated. Instead, with minor changes to instruction, teachers can explicitly teach the meanings of terms and concepts to students, and that teaching will have a measurable payoff with respect to comprehension, participation in class, and overall academic performance.

Two categories of vocabulary instruction are necessary to help translate these themes into practice; (a) teaching the definitions of terms and (b) teaching students skills and strategies needed to decipher words (Graves, 2006).  Harris, Shumaker, and Deshler (2011) referred to these categories as non-generative and generative teaching strategies, respectively. For successful learning, students with LD need both direct instruction in word meanings (non-generative) and to build capacity through the use of strategies (generative; Jitendra et al., 2004). A variety of instructional activities can lead to increases in vocabulary knowledge; watch a sample CAP on teaching the term malfunctioning at https://vimeo.com/37764041).   

Simple vocabulary teaching methods (e.g., non-generative approaches such as using a dictionary) are not sufficient for students with LD, who need more complete, comprehensive instruction. In addition, students with LD retain more new vocabulary terms when the number of new terms is limited, and when vocabulary instruction is a consistent element of classroom instruction. This aligns with research on the instructional benefits of limiting the number of items to be mastered during instruction (e.g., N. D. Bryant, Drabin, & Gettinger, 1981) and on the importance of developing a series of generative and non-generative methods for teaching essential terms (Ebbers & Denton, 2008; Swanson & Deshler, 2003; watch a CAP on evidence-based vocabulary instruction at https://vimeo.com/3215668).

Vocabulary Instruction in Mathematics

Although high-quality vocabulary instruction is recommended across all content areas, recent research shows that relatively few mathematics teachers routinely and explicitly teach vocabulary to students (Monroe & Orme, 2002; Pierce & Fontaine, 2009). The lack of explicit vocabulary instruction can create unique problems for students with LD, as students need to “develop a language for expressing mathematical ideas and an appreciation of the need for precision in that language” (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, NCTM, 2000, p. 60). However, in mathematics many terms represent abstract concepts, not tangible objects (Miller, 1993), and are largely taught as such given the NCTM standards (see Allsop, Kyger, & Lovin, 2007). 

Although mathematics learning is much more complex than remembering definitions of terms and concepts, a breakdown in vocabulary capacity can easily derail student capacity to succeed during virtually any task. At the secondary level, students are expected to have mastered the basic facts required for successful completion of more difficult math problems, comprehend what they are taught during instructional activities, and apply learned information to solve problems (Montague & Jitendra, 2006). At the same time, students with LD in the area of math “are poor problem solvers, have deficient conceptual knowledge, have difficulty formulating and verbalizing concepts, and lack strategies that good problem solvers use" (Montague & Jitendra, 2006, p. 2). Thus, special educators should prioritize approaches to instruction that support students by ensuring they possess the basic knowledge of mathematics language needed to be successful.

Some terms have very different meanings in math than they do in real life (e.g., key, model, problem, true, shade; Pierce & Fontaine, 2009). Students with LD are frequently tripped up when called upon to use such words in various contexts quickly and accurately. To master the meanings of these terms, students with LD require (a) direct and explicit instruction about the mathematical meaning of the term, (b) direct and explicit comparison of the similarities and differences between students’ current understanding of the term and the new meaning, and (c) multiple opportunities to practice using the new term while receiving feedback from the teacher (Swanson & Deshler, 2003). Even though this type of instruction is time consuming, it is important. Given the seemingly simple nature of these math-specific terms, student understanding may be taken for granted, but educators who do so will have student who are likely to fail. It is incumbent upon special educators to be wary of such deceptively simple terms, and actively pre-correct misconceptions.

Other math-related vocabulary terms and concepts, such as quadrilateral and polynomial, are not typically encountered in day-to-day conversations (Monroe & Panchysyn, 1996). These unfamiliar terms can be difficult to remember given their multisyllabic nature and students’ limited or nonexistent prior knowledge. Students with LD benefit from multiple types of direct and explicit instruction in word meanings, and also should be taught explicit learning strategies that can help with word identification (e.g., Lenz & Hughes, 1990). Providing students with explicit learning strategies can help build capacity to complete tasks that might otherwise overwhelm limited cognitive resources. 

The word identification strategy (Word ID; Bryant et al, 2000; Lenz & Hughes, 1990) is an evidence-based practice that can be used to help students with LD improve their knowledge of complex vocabulary terms. Students can learn to use Word ID to independently figure out the meaning of unknown terms. Word ID uses the mnemonic DISSECT, where each letter represents a specific step in the strategy: 

1.  Discover the context (examine syntactic and semantic clues).

2.  Isolate the prefix (divide the prefix from the root word).

3.  Separate the suffix (divide the suffix from the root word). 

4.  Say the stem (read what is left of the word).

5.  Examine the stem (apply knowledge of phonics rules).

6.  Check with someone.

7.  Try the dictionary (Lenz & Hughes, 1990, p. 151-152).

Teachers explicitly teach students how to complete each step of the learning strategy, provide opportunity to practice while receiving feedback on performance, and gradually fade and cede control of the strategy to student’s independent use (see Pressley & Harris, 2006 for an excellent discussion regarding explicit learning strategies). Word ID may be useful for helping students with LD in mathematics classrooms, given the large number of complex terms and concepts that must be learned to complete many types of math-related problems. This strategy should also be considered for use in other content areas.

Vocabulary Instruction in Science

Many science teachers, researchers, and teacher educators promote hands-on, inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning in science (Villanueva & Hand, 2011). However, to use higher order thinking skills in inquiry activities, students need a strong foundation of basic literacy skills, and content-specific background knowledge (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Students' literacy skills and background knowledge are put to the test in most science classrooms, as textbooks play a predominant role in science instruction (Brigham, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2011; Mason & Hedin, 2011; Therrien, Taylor, Hosp, Kaldenberg, & Gorsh, 2011). If students are to succeed in science coursework, strategies for vocabulary learning and comprehension must be addressed (Dexter et al., 2011).

A key feature of many science vocabulary words is that they are multimorphemic, and have Latin and/or Greek origins (Fang, 2006). Direct instruction of the various roots, prefixes, and affixes can provide a starting place for understanding more complex words and concepts in content-area classes (Harris et al., 2011). Helping students understand word meanings with sufficient comprehensiveness so that they can quickly apply understanding of words in various contexts is the primary goal of vocabulary instruction at the secondary level (Ebbers & Denton, 2008). Teachers can use listings of common prefixes, suffixes, and Greek/Latin root words used in science terms (see Fang, 2006), and can provide direct and systemic instruction to students as a generative learning approach. Over time, generative vocabulary instruction, when coupled with other high-quality approaches to learning, can result in important learning gains for students with LD (Harris et al., 2011; Therrien et al., 2011).

The effects of the keyword mnemonic strategy (KMS) instruction on student vocabulary learning have been extensively studied with students with LD (Brigham et al., 2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, 2010). Although there are several high quality approaches to vocabulary learning in science (Therrien et al., 2011), given its strong empirical record for improving vocabulary-related outcomes in science (as well as other content areas), the KMS is especially valuable.

The KMS provides students with a keyword (remembering term) and a graphic depiction that facilitates learning of new vocabulary (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Okolo, 2008). The keyword should be a term that the student(s) are familiar with, and also sounds like, or is very similar to, the vocabulary term being taught. To illustrate, a good keyword for the term alliance is a lion, because a lion sounds like alliance, is easy to remember, and should be known to all learners. Images used in the KMS can be hand drawn or computer generated. An image that could be used in the alliance example would be a lion teaming up with another species of animal for mutual protection. Thus, the keyword is depicted interacting with the definition of the original term, and students have a remembering tool to call upon when they encounter the term when reading independently or when taking a test or quiz. Teachers should use principles of explicit instruction to teach students how to use the KMS in various learning scenarios. (Watch a sample CAP that teaches students the KMS, using the term biodegradable, at https://vimeo.com/37765820.) 

Mnemonics assist with vocabulary learning as they enhance learning and memory by connecting new information with familiar words and images (Scruggs et al., 2010).  In this way, mnemonics facilitate definitionalrecall, comprehension, and have been shown to facilitate generalization of content to unique tasks (Brigham et al., 2011).  Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Levin (1987) said that mnemonic instruction:

... interacts positively with the characteristics of learning disabilities, because it enhances meaningfulness and concreteness in learning, and because it emphasizes relative strengths of students with learning disabilities (memory for pictures, use of acoustic encoding and retrieval) and deemphasizes relative weaknesses (automatic semantic processing, memory for abstract vocabulary). (p. 506).  

Vocabulary Instruction in Social Studies

Much like science and mathematics, social studies courses are filled with vocabulary terms and concepts that have special meanings. As in the other areas, social studies terms (a) take on different meanings when used in specific contexts (e.g., revolution); (b) are multisyllabic and can be difficult to pronounce and remember, as they have no obvious anchor in the daily lives of most adolescents (e.g., existentialism); and (c) are terms and phrases that were once commonly used but are now nearly exclusively found in primary source documents or historical writings (e.g., hitherto) (Harmon, Wood, & Hedrick, 2009).

In addition, vocabulary terms are spread across texts that are quite varied with respect to structure, purpose, reading level, and intended audience (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). For example, social studies textbooks are generally expository, and present a linear view of history (Weinberg, 1991). On the other hand, primary source documents (which are often contained in textbooks) are narrative in structure, and provide contextual information to help understand an event or phenomenon (VanSledright, 2008; Weinberg, 1991). Although both textbooks and primary source documents can include terms and concepts likely to be unknown to struggling learners, specific strategies used to comprehend these two different types of text are quite disparate (Faggella-Luby & Deshler, 2008).

Switching between these different types of text can be very difficult for readers who have weak vocabularies, and who are not skilled in rapidly identifying and using strategies to meet this challenge (Lee & Spratley, 2010). To read the different types of text in the social studies, students need not only to master basic literacy skills (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008) but also to develop the ability to apply background knowledge, recognize unique language structures, and interpret meaning intended by authors (Kennedy & Ihle, 2012). No student is able to meet this content specific demand without significant literacy skills and explicit instruction in the thinking habits and knowledge construction traditions of historians (Conley, 2008). These features of historical texts lend further rationale for the need to provide specially designed instruction for students with disabilities.

Each discipline has a bank of common root words that are used repeatedly within various terms to convey meaning (Harmon et al., 2009). For example, Milligan and Ruff (1990) analyzed several elementary- and secondary-level social studies textbooks and estimated that 71% of terms had common roots. Examples include demo- (democracy, demonstration) and merc- (mercantilism, merchant). From a teacher’s perspective, being cognizant of common word parts may help promote students’ word consciousness (Graves, 2006), which in turn helps build students’ capacity to expand the bank of words that they know (Baumann et al., 2003).

An effective practice for teaching common roots and other word parts is promoting semantic awareness, accomplished through explicit instruction and use of graphic organizers (Ebbers & Denton, 2008; Harris et al., 2011). The use of graphic organizers helps students see connections among semantically similar terms (Deshler & Shumaker, 2006). For students with LD, semantic awareness is an effective practice recommended by several reviews of the literature on this topic (Bryant et al., 2003; Ebbers & Denton, 2008; Jitendra et al., 2004).

A specific instructional approach that utilizes semantic awareness is known as morphemic analysis instruction (Ebbers & Denton, 2008; Harris et al., 2011). Morphemic analysis involves isolating, identifying, and then retrieving the individual meanings of parts of words (i.e., morphemes) such as prefixes, suffixes, and root words; teaching students to analyze the morphemes in words allows them to determine the meaning of a term or concept (Harris et al., 2011). As with any explicit learning strategy, teachers must explicitly teach students the steps for isolating individual morphemes within words, and carefully use working and long-term memory skills in concert to assemble individual word parts into a meaningful whole (Deshler & Shumaker, 2006; Pressley & Harris, 2006). Harris and colleagues (2011) tested the Word Mapping Strategy (WMS), an example of morphemic analysis instruction, and found students with and without disabilities made progress when using this explicit, generative learning strategy. 

Vocabulary Instruction in Language Arts

Language arts courses require students to recognize and understand various types of texts (e.g., poetry, short stories, and novels), and various literacy concepts (e.g., imagery, metaphor, and point of view) (Morocco, Hindin, Mata-Aguilar, & Clark-Chiarelli, 2001). As noted, students with LD and other reading challenges often face difficulty in switching reading lenses as called for between different types of texts. In addition, students need to use various strategies, such as making inferences and predictions, to determine how and why characters in stories act in certain ways to aid in comprehension and enjoyment of reading (Faggella-Luby, Shumaker, & Deshler, 2007). Although there are emerging practices to support students during these challenging literacy-related tasks (see Berkeley, Marshak, Mastropieri, & Scuggs, 2011), much work remains for researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners.

Many reading selections in secondary-level language arts courses contain language conventions that are unfamiliar to students with reading challenges. For example, consider this well known line from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (1813): “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” This sentence contains four vocabulary terms that might cause students difficulty (i.e., universally, acknowledged, possession, fortune). More important, simply decoding the words in this sentence, however fluently, will not necessarily give a reader an understanding of what the author is conveying, or her intent to skewer social conventions. Whether encountering novels, short stories, or poems, students must be able to “read between the lines,” to question and ascertain the author’s intent—an ability that requires direct, explicit, or strategic instruction (or all three) to master (Berkeley et al., 2011). 

Consider this selection from Robert Frost’s poem “Mending Wall” (1914):

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,

That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,

And spills the upper boulders in the sun,

And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.

The work of hunters is another thing:

I have come after them and made repair

Where they have left not one stone on a stone,

But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,

To please the yelping dogs. 

In this poem, Frost uses terms potentially unfamiliar to a struggling learner (e.g., ground-swell, abreast, yelping). In addition—and similar to math, science, and social studies—vocabulary terms in language arts classes have numerous context-based meanings that commonly confuse students who struggle with reading. Frost uses several common terms (e.g., spills, stone, please) in clever ways to convey a different meaning than usual and promote imagery, which may be missed by a struggling reader.  

Proper interpretation of poetry and narrative texts requires focused cognitive attention, strong fluency skills and vocabulary, and familiarity with specific methods for interpreting and comprehending these types of writing (Swanson, 2001). Students with LD are likely to struggle in each of these areas, and therefore, are at risk for not succeeding on tasks and assessments that follow assignments to read stories or poems.  

Any of the previously mentioned evidence-based practices (e.g., Word ID strategy, KMS, and WMS) are appropriate choices for supporting vocabulary development of students with disabilities in language arts courses. Another alternative is to use instructional technology (sometimes referred to as computer-aided instruction; CAI). Instructional technology not only grants access to information or content, but also provides actual instruction to boost student capacity for independent functioning. Although there are several issues to consider when creating and selecting instructional technology for use in the classroom (see Kennedy & Deshler, 2010 for a review), it is most important that the technology is not used simply because it is available and aesthetically pleasing. Any technology that employed with students with disabilities should specifically address individual learning needs, and provide direct, explicit, or strategic instruction that supports one or more of the student’s IEP goals and objectives. 

A Framework for Teaching Vocabulary to Students with Learning Disabilities

Providing specially designed instruction that meets the specific cognitive learning needs of students with disabilities can be difficult in general education instructional settings. Challenges include the content knowledge of special educators and the availability of time and other resources to provide individualized instruction. Although there are many excellent options for promoting vocabulary learning (see Ebbers & Denton, 2008; D. P. Bryant et al., 2003; and Jitendra et al., 2004, for thorough reviews), the four evidence-based practices described above combine reflect current knowledge regarding high quality explicit and strategy instruction to offer practitioners with multiple options for improving teaching and learning.  

Vocabulary Planning Framework

The Vocabulary Planning Framework (VPF) (see Figure 1 – VPF) is comprised of four key elements: (1) Examining the identified vocabulary term/concept for morphemes (e.g., prefix, suffix, root word), (2) Listing all possible meanings for the term or concept given its typical use in language, and then the specific context in which the term is used in a piece of required text, (3) Selecting from a menu of evidence-based practices for explicit and direct instruction, and explicit strategy instruction that are logical given the selected term/concept, and (4) Combining the characteristics of the term/concept to be taught with the selected evidence-based approaches for instruction that meet the individualized needs of specific students.  See Figure 1 for a visual representation of this framework and supplementary materials that can be used to plan vocabulary instruction.  

The VPF is intended to promote generative approaches to vocabulary instruction, although non-generative methods play an important role. This framework utilizes approaches to developing and delivering high quality vocabulary instruction described by Graves (2006), and Harmon et al., (2009). The VPF builds upon these well-known frameworks, and in some ways, narrows their scope, by way of offering practitioners a personalized method for preparing vocabulary instruction that is individualized for students with disabilities. Students with LD require high quality individualized vocabulary instruction on an ongoing basis in order to be successful. One-shot attempts to teach word meanings to students with specific learning challenges are not sufficient. Therefore, the VPF may be an option to help teachers continuously consider, and plan for the needs of students who require additional supports. 

Final Thoughts

Vocabulary instruction is an essential tool in special and general education teachers’ respective repertoires. Although it is difficult to find time to integrate systematic vocabulary instruction into daily instruction, many students with LD and other learning challenges desperately need access to evidence-based instruction. In this article we provide numerous online learning materials, and a new framework for creating and delivering individualized vocabulary instruction. Our hope is practitioners are able to use this information to support the learning needs of their students.

About the Authors

Michael J. Kennedy (MKennedy@Virginia.edu) is Assistant Professor of Special Education at the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia; John Wills Lloyd (JohnL@Virginia.edu) is Professor of Special Education at the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia; Mira T. Cole (mtc5x@virginia.edu) is a doctoral candidate at the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia; and Emily Ely (ee7xa@virginia.edu) is a doctoral candidate at the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. 

Resources

Directions for Creating Content Acquisition Podcasts (Part 1) 

Directions for Creating Content Acquisition Podcasts (Part 2) 

Directions for Creating Content Acquisition Podcasts (Written)

Figure 1: Vocabulary Planning Framework

Vocabulary Planning Framework

References