c o m m e n t a r y What Is Academic Vocabulary?

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(1)
September 2010
doi:10.1598/JA AL.54.1.1
© 2010 International Reading Association
(pp. 4–12)

commentary

What Is Academic Vocabulary?

James F. Baumann | Michael F. Graves

Our original plan for writing this article was to define academic vocabu-

lary and to specify sources of and processes for identifying academic words to
teach. We assumed that this would be a relatively simple task, thinking that
we knew a bit about words and vocabulary instruction and believing that we
could complete the essay promptly.

Not so. When we began the “simple” task of defining academic vocabu-
lary, it became obvious that there was an entire family of terms surrounding
it, many with disparate definitions. We had expected to find a consistent
definition—something like “the words students encounter when they read
informational texts”—but we soon realized that our sense was not shared by
vocabulary scholars and adolescent literacy educators. Thus, the seemingly
simple task became complex.

In this article, we address the construct of academic vocabulary. First, we
attempt to bring some clarity to a constellation of terms surrounding aca-
demic vocabulary. Second, we compare and contrast definitions of academic
vocabulary. Third, we review typologies that researchers and writers have
proposed to organize academic vocabulary. Fourth, we present some of the
procedures scholars have recommended for identifying academic vocabulary
for instruction. Fifth, we present our scheme for classifying and selecting aca-
demic vocabulary for instruction and provide an example of how a content
teacher might use it. We conclude by recommending a few sources that teach-
ers of adolescents might draw from for teaching academic vocabulary.

A Plethora of Terms and Meanings

Our search for a definition of academic vocabulary led us to terms such as
general academic vocabulary, academic literacy, academic background, general academic
words, domain knowledge, academic competence, linguistic knowledge, domain-specific
vocabulary, content vocabulary, academic language, and academic language skills. After
examining their meanings, we realized that some terms had several defini-
tions and that different terms were sometimes used to mean the same thing.
In the following sections, we attempt to clarify this situation by discussing the
4 meanings of several of the most commonly occurring terms and suggesting a
set of terms with consistent and defined meanings.

Academic Literacy(ies) (2008) described academic language as “a register of What Is Academic Vocabulary?
English that has distinctive lexical, morphological,
Several theorists use academic literacy as a broad term. syntactic, and stylistic features” (pp. 184–185). 5
For instance, Lea and Street (2006) argued that there
are several academic literacies (among other multi- Snow and Uccelli (2009) stated that “there is
literacies) and that their perspective “treats reading no simple definition of what academic language is”
and writing as social practices that vary with context, (p. 112). Instead, they presented a detailed description
culture, and genre” (p. 368). They noted further that of the linguistic features and domains involved with
academic literacies do not necessarily align with spe- academic language—as opposed to more colloquial
cific content areas and disciplines. Similarly, Gutiérrez registers—such as the precision, diversity, and density
(2008) asserted that academic literacy “is often nar- of content words. Snow and Uccelli also noted that
rowly conceived” (p. 149) and that traditional academ- most of the research on academic language has in-
ic literacies ought to be viewed from a sociocritical volved English-language learners (ELLs) rather than
literacy perspective. Janzen (2008) examined linguis- native speakers. They argued that acquiring academic
tic, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of aca- language is challenging for ELLs and native speakers,
demic literacy and noted that the sociocultural view but that much less is known about the teaching and
of academic literacy is “broad, concerning itself with learning of academic language to native speakers. We
the social context of learning, both at school and in the concur. Indeed, many of the sources referred to in this
wider community, and with the ways in which that review on academic language (as well as on academic
context affects students’ academic success” (p.  1013). literacies and academic vocabulary) concern ELLs.
Thus, academic literacy is sometimes viewed pluralis-
tically, with its meaning dependent on the social and In contrast to the notion that academic language
critical contexts within which literacy is practiced. is a linguistic register, Pilgreen (2007) argued that
academic language involves the knowledge of spe-
Several other writers have placed academic lit- cific words, “the basic terms used to communicate
eracy within the school environment. Moore (2008) the tools and tasks across content areas” (p. 239), such
defined academic literacy concisely as “the reading as “title, chapter, paragraph, table, caption, and excerpt”
and writing used in school contexts” (p.  314), and (p.  241). In most instances, however, academic lan-
Lewis and Reader (2009) described it as “the kind guage is represented as a rather extensive construct,
of literacy needed for achievement on traditional somewhat akin to academic literacy.
school tasks and standardized assessments” (p.  105).
Torgesen et al. (2007) expressed a more specific view Academic Domain Knowledge
of academic literacy, defining it as “the kind of read-
ing proficiency required to construct the meaning of Several researchers and theorists place academic lit-
content-area texts and literature encountered in eracy, academic language, and academic vocabu-
school. It also encompasses the kind of reading profi- lary within the context of academic domain knowledge.
ciencies typically assessed on state-level accountabil- Alexander and Jetton (2000), for example, argued that
ity measures” (p.  3). Thus, conceptions of academic fields of study—particular content areas like science,
literacy vary from a wide-ranging view of multiple history, and mathematics—have not only specific
literacies to school-based literacy involving content content but also specific ways in which the content
learning and assessment. is organized. They state that “academic domains have
varied characters that have a direct bearing on the
Academic Language texts created to represent them” (p.  293) and each
domain has “a highly abstracted body of knowledge
The term academic language often appears in the litera- aligned with a designated area of study” (p. 293).
ture in discussions of linguistic registers. Ehlers-Zavala
(2008) described academic language as “a specific The body of knowledge within a domain is typi-
register...that students are expected to use in school cally “organized around core concepts or principles
subjects” (p. 76). Similarly, Scott, Nagy, and Flinspach that distinguish one domain from another” ( Jetton &
Alexander, 2004, p.  16). As an example, Jetton and

It is critical for Alexander noted that biology is often domain-specific academic vocabulary refers to the
learners to acquire organized around systems, whereas content-specific terms and expressions found in con-
the vocabularies of history may be organized according tent area textbooks and other technical writing.
specific academic to time periods or geographical areas.
domains if they are Furthermore, they argued that domains General Academic Vocabulary
to understand and “have their own lexicons or vocabular-
learn the body of ies” (p.  17) and “students who do not General academic vocabulary is used to refer to
domain knowledge. become f luent in the ‘language’ of aca- words that appear in texts across several disciplines
demic domains are unlikely to achieve or academic domains. For example, Townsend
competence” (p.  17). Therefore, it is (2009) defined general academic vocabulary as
critical for learners to acquire the vo- words “which are used across content areas, have
cabularies of specific academic domains abstract definitions, and are a challenge to master”
if they are to understand and learn the (p. 242). Similarly, Hiebert and Lubliner (2008) pro-
body of domain knowledge. vided the definition, “Words whose meanings often
change in different content areas (e.g., form, process)”
Defining Academic Vocabulary (pp.  111–112). They noted further that “writers of
texts as well as teachers often assume that students
Researchers, writers, and theorists tend to define aca- know their meanings” (p. 112).
demic vocabulary in one of two ways: (1) as domain-­
specific academic vocabulary, or the content-specific Coxhead (2000) referred to these words as academ-
words used in disciplines like biology, geometry, civ- ic words and defined them as “lexical items [that] occur
ics, and geography; or (2) as general academic vocabu- frequently and uniformly across a wide range of aca-
lary, or the broad, all-purpose terms that appear across demic material” (p. 218). In fact, she did much more
content areas but that may vary in meaning because of than define general academic vocabulary. Coxhead
the discipline itself. We address each in turn. assembled a corpus of 3.5 million running words from
college-level texts (e.g., journal articles, book chapters,
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(1) September 2010 Domain-Specific Academic Vocabulary full books) in content areas such as history, linguistics,
economics, marketing, law, biology, chemistry, and
Domain-specific academic vocabulary is probably the physics. She then (a) excluded those words that were
most common type of academic vocabulary. Marzano among the most frequent 2,000 English words and
and Pickering (2005) placed this type of academic (b) included words that occurred at least 100 times in
vocabulary within the context of academic domain the 3.5 million running words and occurred in 15 or
knowledge: “Teaching specific terms [academic vo- more of the 28 content areas sampled.
cabulary] in a specific way is the strongest action
a teacher can take to ensure that students have the The resulting list consists of 570 word families,
academic background knowledge they need to un- each of which includes a stem plus “all inf lections and
derstand the content they will encounter in school” the most frequent, productive, and regular prefixes
(p. 1). Marzano and Pickering presented the terms and and suffixes” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 218). For example,
words central tendency, mean, median, mode, range, and the estimate family consists of 15 words that include the
standard deviation as examples of domain-specific aca- inf lected forms estimates and estimated and the prefixed
demic vocabulary used in the field of statistics. derivatives overestimate and underestimate. Coxhead re-
fers to this body of words as the Academic Word List.
Fisher and Frey (2008) referred to these words as
technical vocabulary. Hiebert and Lubliner (2008) called Coxhead grouped the 570 word families into 10
them content-specific. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan frequency blocks of about 60 words each. For ex-
(2002) named them Tier 3 words. Harmon, Wood, and ample, analysis, approach, area, assessment, and assume
6 Medina (2009) labeled them technical terms. Jetton and are in the most frequent block, whereas adjacent, al-
Alexander (2004) used the expression “‘language’ of beit, assembly, collapse, and colleagues are in the least
academic domains” (p. 17). Whatever the exact label, frequent block. These 570 word families are partic-
ularly relevant in content areas, because they make

up approximately 10% of the words in content area 1 million running words. Words such as is, of, and the What Is Academic Vocabulary?
texts. They are much less important in literary texts have high-frequency values, whereas words like co-
(i.e., fiction), because they make up only 1.4% of the rona, eclipse, and penumbral have low-frequency values. 7
words. Although we believe that the Academic Word Dispersion provides an estimate of how widely a word
List provides educators and researchers with a sound, is used across content areas such as math, science,
empirically based set of words that appear frequently literature, and social studies. A low dispersion value
across disciplines, it should be noted that the list was indicates that a word appears within a single or few
drawn primarily from college-level academic reading academic areas (e.g., penumbral in astronomy), whereas
materials published in New Zealand and Britain, with a high dispersion value indicates that a word is likely
no K–12 material included. to appear across several or many content areas (e.g.,
law is likely to appear in social studies, science, math,
Typologies of Academic Vocabulary and literature texts).

Several authorities have suggested structures for cat- Hiebert and Lubliner (2008) specified four
egorizing academic vocabulary. Among the most re- groups of vocabulary: (1) content-specific vocabu-
cent and most useful are the following three, which lary, (2) general academic vocabulary, (3) school-
have both similarities and differences. task vocabulary, and (4) literary vocabulary. Their
content-specific vocabulary category is analogous to
Fisher and Frey.  Fisher and Frey (2008) suggested or- the domain-specific academic vocabulary described
ganizing words into three clusters: (1) general words: earlier, and these words are relatively low in both fre-
basic, high-frequency words needed for reading; (2) quency and dispersion (e.g., penumbral). Their general
specialized words: words that appear frequently across academic vocabulary is similar to Coxhead’s (2000)
different types of texts but whose meanings are disci- definition of academic words; that is, words have rela-
pline specific; and (3) technical words: discipline- or tively high frequency and dispersion values (e.g., law).
content-specific terms.
Hiebert and Lubliner’s (2008) school-task vocab-
Harmon, Wood, and Hedrick.  Harmon, Wood, and ulary consists of “the terms that are now presented
Hedrick (2008) proposed a four-part classification for within English language arts standards [state or na-
domain-specific vocabulary: “(1) academically tech- tional]” (p.  111) and “the many terms that teachers
nical terms, (2) nontechnical words, (3) word clusters use as part of reading instruction or that writers of
or phrases, and (4) symbolic representations” (p. 155). textbook programs use to describe instructional pro-
Their first two categories correspond to Fisher and cesses and tasks” (p.  111). Examples of school-task
Frey’s (2008) technical words and specialized words, vocabulary are capitalization, draft, letter, outline, phrase,
respectively. Harmon et al.’s third and fourth catego- and summarize. This type of vocabulary is similar to
ries are different. Their third category includes “word what Pilgreen (2007) referred to as academic lan-
clusters or phrases that appear frequently within a par- guage and is represented by the “English Language
ticular subject matter area” (p. 156), such as the math- Arts” word lists in Marzano and Pickering’s (2005)
ematical phrases “estimate the amount of, less than twice Building Academic Vocabulary: Teacher’s Manual. School-
a number is, and the product of ” (p. 156). Their fourth task vocabulary has moderately high frequency and
category, symbolic representations, includes special dispersion (e.g., outline).
symbols and abbreviations such as NaCl and 53.
Hiebert and Lubliner’s (2008) literary vocabu-
Hiebert and Lubliner.  Hiebert and Lubliner (2008) lary is a novel category of words. These are the “par-
constructed an elaborate vocabulary classification ticular verbs, nouns, and adjectives [used] to describe
system based on frequency and dispersion data from the states of characters, their actions, and the setting
The Educator’s Word Frequency Guide (Zeno, Ivens, in which these actions occur” (p.  111) that authors
Millard, & Duvvuri, 1995). Frequency is the estimated of children’s and young adult literature use in their
number of times a word appears in a given volume of works. For example, one finds the following literary
text, usually the average number of occurrences in vocabulary in the first several pages of Tex (Hinton,

1979): admitted, bribing, chilly, gravel pits, imagination, Fisher and Frey.  Similar to Graves’s (2006, 2009) ap-

pestering, sarcastic, and terrible. Literary vocabulary proach, Fisher and Frey (2008) recommended that

items tend to be low frequency and have only moder- teachers identify candidate words for instruction by

ate dispersion values, but according to Hiebert and first examining the text to be read and determin-

Lubliner, these words are important to comprehend ing which words fit within their technical words and
and appreciate a narrative. These words might be specialized words categories—generally analogous to
viewed as akin to Beck et al.’s (2002) Tier  2 words what Beck et al. (2002) refer to as Tier 2 and Tier 3
that are found in narrative or literary texts. words, respectively. Then, Fisher and Frey suggested

Selecting Academic Vocabulary that teachers respond to a series of questions such as
for Instruction “Is the concept represented by the word critical to
understanding the text?” and “Will the word be used
Given the diversity of definitions for academic vo- again during the school year?” (p.  26). Fisher and
cabulary and associated terms and the several classi- Frey argued that this process enables teachers to select
fications available, you might be thinking, “This is “big-bang-for-your-buck words that crack open key
all fine, but how do I decide which words to teach?” content understandings” (p. 27).
Fortunately, researchers and theorists have addressed

the thorny topic of identifying academic vocabu- Marzano and Pickering.  Marzano and Pickering

lary for instruction. We describe several of those (2005) have suggested a process for selecting vocabu-

suggestions. lary from their graded lists of academic words in 11

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(1) September 2010 Graves.  Graves (2006, 2009) proposed a three-step content areas. For a middle or high school content
process for selecting words to teach. First, compare area teacher, the following process (which includes
words in the texts your students are currently read- some adaptation and elaboration of Marzano and
ing to words on existing word lists such as (a) Graves, Pickering’s plan) could be implemented. First, iden-
Sales, and Ruda’s (2008) The First 4,000 Words (for ba- tify the domain-specific words at an appropriate level
sic words); (b) Biemiller’s (2010) Words Worth Teaching: (e.g., a middle school math teacher would work from
Closing the Vocabulary Gap (for less basic words); Marzano and Pickering’s Level 3 math list, which
(c) Marzano and Pickering’s (2005) Building Academic correspond to grades 6–8). Second, identify words
Vocabulary: Teacher’s Manual (for domain-specific deemed to be important for instruction (e.g., words

words); (d) Coxhead’s (2000) “A New Academic Word from the Level 3 math list that appear in the adopt-

List” (for words that occur frequently in informational ed math textbook, curriculum, or state standards).

text on various content areas but that are infrequent in Third, select words for instruction by asking “Is this

literary texts); and (e) Dale and O’Rourke’s (1981) The term critically important to the mathematics content

Living Word Vocabulary: A National Vocabulary Inventory I will be teaching this year?” (p. 7). Fourth, organize

(for words representing a range of complexity). These the selected words according to how they occur in

comparisons give you an initial idea of the words you your curriculum.
might teach. Second, increase your understanding of

the sorts of words your students do and do not know Our Scheme for Classifying
by administering teacher-constructed word tests from and Selecting Academic Vocabulary
upcoming reading selections; alternately, you could for Instruction
simply ask the students to identify unknown words.
Third, ask yourself a series of five questions about the Drawing from the extant work on typologies of aca-

words you are considering teaching (e.g., “Does the demic vocabulary, we propose a classification scheme

8 word represent a specific concept students definitely for academic vocabulary. We also provide an example

need to know?”) and then select words on the basis of of how the scheme could be employed for selecting

the number of “Yes” answers to the questions. words within a specific academic domain.

A Classification Scheme available, for each type of vocabulary. Although the
components in Table 1 are not novel, the classification
Our scheme includes five types of academic words scheme may give teachers a way to think about differ-
and conceptual representations: (1) domain-specific ent types of academic words and when and how they
academic vocabulary, (2) general academic vocabu- might be selected for various instructional goals and
lary, (3) literary vocabulary, (4) metalanguage, and purposes (see Baumann, Kame’enui, & Ash, 2003;
(5) symbols. The types are taken directly or adapted Graves & Prenn, 1986).
from labels and descriptions in the works reviewed
thus far in this article and are listed in Table 1. The Selecting Academic Vocabulary
first column lists and defines each type. Examples for Instruction: An Example
of words within each type are shown in the second
column. Terms scholars have used that roughly cor- Following is an example of how the classification
respond to the five types are in the third column, scheme might be used by a middle or high school
and the final column lists sources of words, when mathematics teacher. We believe that a math teacher

Table 1  Classifying Academic Vocabulary

Types and Examples of Terms and scholars/ Sources
definitions words and writers • B uilding Academic Vocabulary: Teacher’s Manual
expressions
(Marzano & Pickering, 2005) [all but the “English
Domain-specific Math: apex, bisect, • Content-specific Language Arts” word lists]
academic vocabu- geometry, polyhe- vocabulary (Hiebert & • Adopted content area textbooks
lary: The relatively dron, Pythagorean Lubliner, 2008) • Informational trade books
low-frequency, theorem, scalene • Internet sources
content-specific triangle • T echnical vocabulary
words and phrases Science: anticy- (Fisher & Frey, 2008) • Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List [www
that appear in con- clone, barometric .victoria.ac.nz/lals/resources/academicwordlist/
tent area textbooks pressure, dew • “ Language” of aca- default.aspx]
and other technical point, isobar, me- demic domains (Jetton
writing materials. teorology, virga & Alexander, 2004) (continued )
Social Studies: atoll,
butte, escarpment, • A cademically technical
geography, tec- terms (Harmon, Wood,
tonic plate, terminal & Hedrick, 2008)
moraine
• T echnical terms
(Harmon, Wood, &
Medina, 2009)

• Tier 3 words (Beck,
McKeown, & Kucan,
2002, 2008)

General academic analyze, assume, • General academic What Is Academic Vocabulary?
vocabulary: Words code, conduct, vocabulary (Hiebert &
that appear reason- context, document, Lubliner, 2008)
ably frequently error, link, minor,
within and across period, project, • Academic words
academic domains. range, register, role, (Coxhead, 2000)
The words may be sum (all selected
polysemous, with from Coxhead’s, • G eneral academic
different definitions 2000, list) vocabulary (Townsend,
being relevant to 2009)
different domains.
• Specialized vocabulary
(Fisher & Frey, 2008)

• Tier 2 words (Beck, 9
McKeown, & Kucan,
2002, 2008)

Table 1  Classifying Academic Vocabulary (continued)

Types and Examples of Terms and scholars/ Sources
definitions words and writers
expressions

Literary vocabu- awkward, chortled, • L iterary vocabulary • “Character Trait Vocabulary” (Manyak, 2007)
lary: Words that diffident, haphazard- (Hiebert & Lubliner, [the words in fifth grade through secondary in
authors of literature ly, hyperbolic, mel- 2008) particular]
use to describe low, sun-drenched,
characters, set- serene, stern, • Tier 2 words (Beck, • Some entries in Words Worth Teaching: Closing
tings, and charac- suavely, tornadic, McKeown, & Kucan, the Vocabulary Gap, Biemiller, 2010
ters’ problems and torrid 2002, 2008)
actions.

Metalanguage: Language of • Academic language • Building Academic Vocabulary (Marzano &
Terms used to de- Literacy and (Pilgreen, 2007) Pickering, 2005) [just the “English Language
scribe the language Instruction: epic, Arts” word lists]
of literacy and genre, glossary, • School-task vocabulary
literacy instruction idiom, infer, inter- (Hiebert & Lubliner, • “Academic Terms for Books Parts” (Pilgreen,
and words used to rogative, main idea, 2008) 2007, pp. 243–244)
describe processes, outline, sonnet,
structures, or con- summarize, table of
cepts commonly contents
included in content Processes in
area texts. Content Area Texts:
calculate, compare,
estimate, explain,
investigate, model,
observe, proof

Symbols: Icons, X-24, > , a2 + b2 = • Symbolic representa- • Computer keyboard, online emoticons, Internet
emoticons, graph- c2, %, ¶, ;-), ™, 5, tions (Harmon, Wood, & images, clipart, symbol-specific websites
ics, mathematical (o_o), $, &, , , , Hedrick, 2008)
notations, elec-
tronic symbols, and , ,,
so forth that are not
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(1) September 2010 conventional words.

could identify words from four of the five academic which they appear. We recommend using the Marzano
vocabulary types listed in Table 1. Only the literary and Pickering (2005) procedure described previously
vocabulary type would not contribute to a pool of po- for determining which of the domain-specific aca-
tential words for instruction by a mathematics teacher. demic vocabulary would be worthy of instruction.

Domain-Specific Academic Vocabulary.  Domain- General Academic Vocabulary.  General academic vo-

specific academic vocabulary includes the low-­ cabulary consists of words that are present at modest

frequency words and phrases that appear in content levels of frequency across multiple academic domains

area textbooks and other technical writing materials. in content area texts but are not nearly as common

Terms and words such as absolute value, bisect, coefficient, in literary texts (e.g., context, evaluate, integrate, predict).

constant, equation, factor, functional notation, inequality, Sometimes general academic vocabulary has different

irrational number, perpendicular, and vertex are likely to senses in different domains (e.g., brief, classic, cycle). We

be included in mathematics textbook lessons, a text- recommend Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List

10 book glossary, or local or state standards. It seems ap- as a source for selecting general academic vocabulary,

propriate for math teachers to teach the meanings of and all italicized words in this paragraph are from

these mathematics-domain terms within the lessons in Coxhead’s list. A mathematics teacher could mine this

list for words that appear frequently in mathematics because literary texts often include fewer words from What Is Academic Vocabulary?
content to provide instruction on them. Examples of the other types in the scheme.
general academic vocabulary that possess a mathemat- 11
ics sense include words to describe numbers (e.g., com- Summary and Resources
plex, irrational, natural, rational, real), geometric terms
(e.g., area, coordinate, parallel, sphere, volume), statistics We have discussed in this article some of the terms
vocabulary (e.g., data, interval, mode, norm, normal, and areas of concerns related to academic vocabulary,
range), or general terms that are used in mathematics defined several types of academic vocabulary, de-
(e.g., discrete, equation, formula, function, percent, ratio). scribed some existing typologies of academic vocabu-
lary, outlined ways authors have suggested to identify
Metalanguage.  Metalanguage is typically defined vocabulary to teach, and provided our own scheme
as words or terms used to describe, discuss, or ana- for classifying and selecting academic vocabulary. Of
lyze a language, such as letter, paragraph, or participle. course, the ultimate goal of selecting academic vo-
Metalanguage is usually thought of and taught with- cabulary that students need to know is to teach it.
in the domains of English and literature (e.g., genre, Unfortunately, we do not have space within this brief
idiom, sonnet). However, metalanguage also includes article to discuss instructional methods.
processes, structures, or routines in other domains.
In mathematics, metalanguage occurs in processes In lieu of information on teaching academic
or expressions such as “ factor a number,” “provide a vocabulary, we conclude by recommending several
proof,” “solve a problem,” “compute an answer,” “estimate books on teaching vocabulary that we believe are
a value,” “round to the nearest thousandth,” or “What useful. The first is Beck et al.’s (2002) Bringing Words
is Euclid’s fifth postulate?” Thus, mathematics teachers to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction. This text presents
need to be aware of and define these terms as they ap- a detailed description and examples of robust vocab-
pear in oral and written mathematical text. ulary instruction, an approach particularly suited to
teaching literary vocabulary in depth. The second
Symbols.  Symbols represent objects, processes, or is Marzano and Pickering’s (2005) Building Academic
verbal expressions. Mathematics is laden with sym- Vocabulary: Teacher’s Manual. This book presents a de-
bols, which involve another type of academic vocabu- tailed description of a six-step procedure designed
lary. Symbols used__in_ mathematical expressions such specifically to teach domain-specific academic vo-
as x2 + 3x and 4√625 need to be taught, along with cabulary. The last three are Blachowicz and Fisher’s
graphics such as those used in geometry for line ( ↔ ), (2010) Teaching Vocabulary in All Classrooms, Graves’s
line segment ( – ), or right angle ( ). Instruction in (2006) The Vocabulary Book: Learning & Instruction,
symbols would also include providing verbal expres- and Stahl and Nagy’s (2006) Teaching Word Meanings.
sions for numerical expressions, such as “3x + 6 means Each book describes and gives illustrations of a vari-
six more than three times a number.” ety of methods for teaching all types of vocabulary—
general academic vocabulary, domain-specific aca-
Using the Classification Scheme demic vocabulary, and literary vocabulary—as well
in Other Domains as methods of teaching other vocabulary, such as ba-
sic words.
Space does not permit us to provide examples of the
use of the academic vocabulary classification scheme References
in other domains. The process, however, would be Alexander, P.A., & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A
similar to the preceding, whether one were identi-
fying academic terms to teach in history, astronomy, multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L.
art, or some other academic domain. One exception Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
might be the domain of English language arts and lit- Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ:
erature, in which a teacher might draw primarily from Erlbaum.
the literary vocabulary and metalanguage categories Baumann, J.F., Kame’enui, E.J., & Ash, G. (2003). Research on
vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp,
J.R. Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on

teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp.  752–785). Lea, M.R., & Street, B.V. (2006). The “academic literacies” mod-

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. el: Theory and applications. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 368–

Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to 377. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11

life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford. Lewis, J., & Reader, T. (2009). How can we help adolescent readers
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust meet the challenges of academic text? In J. Lewis (Ed.), Essential
questions in adolescent literacy: Teachers and researchers describe what
vocabulary: Frequently asked questions & extended examples. New works in classrooms (pp. 101–131). New York: Guilford.
York: Guilford.
Biemiller, A. (2010). Words worth teaching: Closing the vocabulary gap. Manyak, P. (2007). Character trait vocabulary: A schoolwide ap-
Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill. proach. The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 574–577.
Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Fisher, P.J. (2010). Teaching vocabulary in all
classrooms (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Marzano, R.J., & Pickering, D.J. (2005). Building academic vo-
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, cabulary: Teacher’s manual. Alexandria, VA: Association for
34(2), 213–238. Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary: A na-
tional vocabulary inventory. Chicago: World Book-Childcraft Moore, D.W. (2008). Program development. In K.A. Hinchman
International. & H.K. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent lit-
eracy instruction (pp. 313–338). New York: Guilford.

Ehlers-Zavala, F.P. (2008). Teaching adolescent English language Pilgreen, J. (2007). Teaching the language of school to secondary

learners. In S. Lenski & J. Lewis (Eds.), Reading success for strug- English learners. In J. Lewis & G. Moorman (Eds.), Adolescent

gling adolescent learners (pp. 74–89). New York: Guilford. literacy instruction: Policies and promising practices (pp. 238–262).

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Word wise and content rich: Five es- Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

sential steps to teaching academic vocabulary. Portsmouth, NH: Scott, J.A., Nagy, W.E., & Flinspach, S.L. (2008). More than

Heinemann. merely words: Redefining vocabulary learning in a cultur-
Graves, M.F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. ally and linguistically diverse society. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J.
Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary in-
New York: Teachers College Press; Newark, DE: International struction (pp. 182–210). Newark, DE: International Reading
Reading Association; Urbana, IL: National Council of Association.
Teachers of English. Snow, C.E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic lan-
Graves, M.F. (2009). Teaching individual words: One size does not guage. In D.R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge
fit all. New York: Teachers College Press; Newark, DE: handbook of literacy (pp.  112–133). New York: Cambridge
International Reading Association. University Press.
Graves, M.F., & Prenn, M.C. (1986). Costs and benefits of vari- Stahl, S.A., & Nagy, W.E. (2006). Teaching word meanings.
ous methods of teaching vocabulary. Journal of Reading, 29(7), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
596–602.
Graves, M.F., Sales, G.C., & Ruda, M. (2008). The first 4,000 Torgesen, J.K., Houston, D.D., Rissman, L.M., Decker, S.M.,

words. Retrieved May 19, 2010, from www.thefirst4000words.
com Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., et al. (2007). Academic literacy in-
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(1) September 2010
Gutiérrez, K.D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in struction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on

the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. Instruction. Retrieved May 19, 2010, from www.centeron

doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3 instr uction.org/f iles/Academ ic%20Literacy.pdf

Harmon, J.M., Wood, K.D., & Hedrick, W.B. (2008). Vocabulary Townsend, D. (2009). Building academic vocabulary in after-

instruction in middle and secondary content classrooms: school settings: Games for growth with middle school English-
Understandings and direction from research. In A.E. Farstrup language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(3),
& S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary 242–251. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.3.5
instruction (pp. 150–181). Newark, DE: International Reading Zeno, S.M., Ivens, S.H., Millard, R.T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995).
Association. The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone
Harmon, J.M., Wood, K.D., & Medina, A.L. (2009). Vocabulary Applied Science Associates.
learning in the content areas: Research-based practices for

middle and secondary school classrooms. In K.D. Wood &

W.E. Blanton (Eds.), Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research- Literature Cited
based practice (pp. 344–367). New York: Guilford. Hinton, S.E. (1979). Tex. New York: Dell.
Hiebert, E.H., & Lubliner, S. (2008). The nature, learning, and

instruction of general academic vocabulary. In A.E. Farstrup

& S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary

instruction (pp. 106–129). Newark, DE: International Reading Baumann holds the Chancellor’s Chair for Excellence

Association. in Literacy Education at the University of Missouri-
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the con- Columbia, USA; e-mail [email protected].

tent areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1010–1038.

doi:10.3102/0034654308325580 Graves is Professor of Literacy Education Emeritus at
Jetton, T.L., & Alexander, P.A. (2004). Domains, teaching, and the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, USA; email

12 literacy. In T.L. Jetton & J.A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy

research and practice (pp. 15–39). New York: Guilford. [email protected].

Copyright of Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy is the property of International Reading Association and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.