




































 Freimuth 32 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

Are Academic English Words Learned Incidentally? A Canadian Case Study 

 

Hilda Freimuth 

Thompson Rivers University 

 

Abstract 

 

This study at a Canadian university grew out of the need to know whether students acquired 

academic vocabulary incidentally through text exposure (extensive reading) in class. The ability 

to explicitly teach all the words on the academic word list is an unreasonable expectation for a 

one-semester course. This study, therefore, investigated whether thirteen English as an additional 

language (EAL) students in a capstone foundation course (academic reading and writing) 

acquired vocabulary simply through exposure to a variety of different academic texts (such as 

policy papers, essays, journal articles, and book chapters) in class. Students assessed their own 

vocabulary knowledge and development through Paribakht and Weschke’s (1993) Vocabulary 

Knowledge Scale (VKS) at the beginning of the study (Week 3) and again at the end of the 

semester (Week 13). Results indicated a vocabulary gain for almost all students, even with word 

exposure frequencies as low as one to four. Further research on incidental academic vocabulary 

acquisition is needed using other instrumentation to confirm the findings. 

 

Introduction 

 

The important role lexical knowledge plays in an additional language learner’s linguistic 

development cannot be underscored enough. In fact, a number of linguists believe vocabulary 

development is the key to language learning. Lewis (1993), Schmitt (2010), Nation (2006), and 

Folse (2004)—to name but a few prominent experts—all believe that vocabulary knowledge is 

central to language acquisition. Wilkins (1972) goes one step further and makes the claim that 

“…while without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be 

conveyed” (pp. 111-112). 

 

With so much emphasis in the literature on the importance of vocabulary learning, the 

question to ask, then, is—how is this best done? There are two overarching approaches to 

teaching vocabulary: explicit teaching of vocabulary items (which is a conscious effort) or 

incidental acquisition through exposure to words in authentic contexts (an unconscious effort). 

The latter type of acquisition is not a mindful act but rather a result of natural contact with 

language (Ellis, 1994). Incidental vocabulary learning tends to take place when learners are able 

to understand the context of a word in its authentic setting. In the case of academic vocabulary, 

however, words are often multi-syllabic and abstract in meaning—possibly making incidental 

acquisition of academic words more difficult than non-academic ones.  

 

When non-native English-speaking students come to universities in English speaking 

countries, they often lack the academic language needed to succeed (Aldawsari, 2017; Galloway 

& Jenkins, 2005). This is true for international students at institutions in British Columbia as 

well (Keefe, 2016). Yet, they are placed by their institutions into high-level academic reading 

and writing foundation courses to prepare them for entry into university. In some cases, no lists 

of academic words appear in the syllabi of these courses, leaving instructors to determine which 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 33 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

words, if any, to teach explicitly. With 570 word families on the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 

2000), it makes it nearly impossible for a teacher to explicitly teach all the words in one 

semester. This near impossibility means a good number of academic words have to be acquired 

incidentally by the students. But is this even possible?  
 

The aim of this case study is to determine if English as an additional language (EAL) 

students in a foundation class at a Canadian university acquire academic vocabulary incidentally 

through exposure to a variety of academic texts in class.  

 

Literature Review 

 

The incidental learning of vocabulary is widely believed to be linked to extensive reading 

(Huckin & Coady, 1999; Pigada & Smith, 2006). Before a thorough review of incidental 

vocabulary acquisition through reading can take place, it is first important to understand what is 

meant by the act of reading. Since an extensive review of all the existing reading theories is 

beyond the scope of this paper, only a brief review and definition will be given here. This review 

is important in that it contextualizes the learning of incidental vocabulary.  

 

According to Johns (2010), the first occurrence of the act of reading and its original 

purpose remains unknown. However, reading is believed to have originated with the Sumerians 

thousands of years ago at which time the act of reading referred to many different things: 

counting, memorizing, reciting, reading aloud, and calculating (Fischer, 2003). But, the 

definition of reading has changed with the passage of time. What was first understood to be a 

simple task of interpreting visual information is now understood to be much more complex in 

nature. At some point in time, the act of reading morphed into more of a process than end result, 

meaning it became more of an interaction between the reader and text (Alderson, 2000). This 

interaction moved beyond that of the literal decoding act to include inferencing and critical 

evaluation. Rumelhart’s (1977) interactive model of reading is an example of this. In this model, 

the literal level of reading is viewed as an automatic operation, like tying your shoe or riding a 

bicycle. Beyond this, however, lie many other complex processes. In other models (see Klein, 

Peterson, & Simington, 1991), readers are seen as “strategists” where they engage in a number of 

different tasks. These include looking at text type, establishing the purpose of the text, and 

making predictions before, during, and after text interaction. This paper looks at incidental 

vocabulary acquisition through this lens of reading.  

 

 The meaning of incidental vocabulary learning also needs to be examined. Although 

some linguists make a clear distinction between learning and acquisition (Krashen, 1982), this 

study will use the two terms interchangeably to mean a change in knowledge, capability, 

expertise, or behaviour. This definition is fashioned from those originally proposed by Gagne 

(1977) and Knowles et al. (2015). Incidental vocabulary learning in this study refers to the 

unintentional acquisition of new singular words as a result of reading. It is not the result of direct 

instruction but simply a by-product of exposure to written discourse. Research shows that much 

of the vocabulary acquisition that takes place in second language learning is a result of this 

exposure (Huckin & Coady, 1999).  

 

 Although incidental vocabulary learning has already been proven to occur, there are 

several conditions that need to be in place before it does. Firstly, according to Huckin and Coady 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 34 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

(1999), the reader must have knowledge of between 3000–5000 word families for general 

English language learning. In the case of academic level learning—as is the focus of this study—

students may require knowledge of up to 10,000 word families. Secondly, incidental vocabulary 

acquisition is known to occur more frequently if students have interest in the texts they are 

reading (Grabe & Stoller, 1997; Parry, 1993, 1997). Thirdly, it is believed that multiple exposure 

to a word in context is needed for incidental vocabulary learning to take place. According to 

Nation (1990), this can be anywhere between five to sixteen exposures. However, Brown (1993) 

noted the context in which a word appears and its importance within this context plays a much 

more important role than the number of exposures to a word. Zahar et al. (2001) contended 

advanced learners of English should spend much of their time reading contextually rich work to 

broaden their vocabulary. Ideally, students should understand around 98% of a text for incidental 

vocabulary learning to take place, regardless of frequency of exposure. In a study conducted by 

Pellicer-Sanchez and Schmitt (2010), however, advanced learners were able to recognize, spell, 

and recall a good number of words incidentally only after at least ten exposures in an authentic 

text. Stahl (2003) believed the learning of vocabulary through contextual exposure does not 

occur all at once, but rather incrementally through a number of exposures as well. As readers 

engage with new words, they slowly begin to understand the meaning of the words. In fact, no 

real consensus can be found in the literature in terms of the ideal number of exposures to new 

words. According to Uchihara et al. (2019), the wide variation in the studies can be attributed to 

a number of factors, including learner variables, different methodologies, and treatment variables 

in the different studies. 

 

 To further support the notion that incidental vocabulary learning takes place through the 

act of reading, Krashen (1989) drew on the findings of 144 studies. Only two of these, however, 

focus on second language acquisition. Ferris’s study (as cited in Krashen, 1989) had EAL 

students at the University of Southern California read Animal Farm. Ferris found that those who 

read the book made greater gains in vocabulary than those who had not. Pitts, White, and 

Krashen (as cited in Krashen, 1989) had similar results to Ferris with the use of Clockwork 

Orange in a university EAL class. In this study, the incidental vocabulary gain was close to 7%.  

 

 More recently, Ponniah (2011) conducted a study on adult EAL students at the National 

Institute of Technology in India. Students were divided into two groups: one group read a short 

story for comprehension only and one group made use of a dictionary while reading. Post-test 

results indicated that the students who learned the words incidentally were able to use the newly-

acquired words in sentences whereas those who had used a dictionary were generally unable to 

do so. An earlier study conducted by Kweon and Kim (2008) in Korea on EAL students studying 

at the Pohang University of Science and Technology showed similar results. In this study, 

students read three chapter-books without dictionaries or explicit vocabulary instruction. The 

post-test indicated that a significant number of words were learned incidentally and retained. In 

fact, the pure word gain rate came in at 40%.  

 

Most of the studies found in the review focused on the reading of literature. Studies on 

academic vocabulary learning were few and far between. One study (Shin, 2006), however, used 

selected readings from textbooks instead. This study revealed that only 3.6 out of 40 new words 

were acquired incidentally. This number seems low in comparison to the other findings. Parry 

(1991) also used textbooks for her study on a group of four students and found similar results. In 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 35 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

her study, reasonable vocabulary gains were made with the use of an anthropology textbook. 

Lastly, Vidal (2011) tested EAL students at a university in Madrid, Spain in incidental 

vocabulary acquisition in both listening and reading. In terms of the reading, students were given 

academic lectures on tourism in written form. This part of the study involved 80 students. The 

listening part of the study involved 112 students and used three authentic video-taped lectures on 

tourism. The control group who partook in neither treatment consisted of 38 students. Results 

indicated that incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention was greater in reading than in 

listening. Beyond these studies, not much exists in the literature in terms of English for academic 

purposes (EAP) students and incidental vocabulary acquisition, particularly in context of 

Canadian universities. This case study, therefore, aims to fill this gap in the literature.  

 

Methodology 

 

Although a number of ways could have been used to test for incidental vocabulary acquisition, 

this particular case study used a self-survey scale test. The reason for this choice is that the 

students rate their own knowledge of a given word rather than the instructor—which is a more 

student-focused view of analysis. For this reason, this method of investigation was used. The 

survey scale test used, outlined in detail later in this section, has also been used successfully in 

previous studies, thereby adding to this study’s reliability. In fact, the reliability of the scale has 

been shown to be 0.89 despite some of its short-comings (Schmitt, 2010). Firstly, the scale is not 

meant to measure a student’s overall lexical knowledge just that of singular words. Nor is it 

meant to describe how a word is learned. Where the higher levels require a student to produce 

(verify) knowledge of the word, the lower levels do not. As a result, the researcher needs to trust 

the student’s self-assessment at the lower levels as no verification is possible. 

 

Participants 

 

The participants in this case study came from one academic reading and writing capstone class at 

a foundation program at a university in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada. In 

total, 13 students took part in the study. They were a mix of international students and recently 

landed immigrants aged 19 to 29—two hailed from India, two from the Middle East, and the rest 

from China. Their estimated levels of English proficiency fell between 5.5 and 6 IELTS in 

writing, according to the researcher.  

 

Instrumentation  

 

There were two parts to the study, both of which used a tried and tested instrument of 

measurement created by Paribakht and Wesche (1993): The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale 

(VKS). The VKS measures the degree of word knowledge a student has through a self-perceived 

reporting format and the use of production questions. It speaks to the notion that vocabulary is 

developed through various stages, moving from initial word recognition to eventual mastery of 

use (Waring, 2002). The original 1993 VKS consisted of the following five categories:  

 

I.  I don’t remember having seen this word before.  

II.  I have seen this word before but I don’t know what it means. 

III.  I have seen this word before and I think it means ___. (synonym or translation) 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 36 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

IV.  I know this word. It means ___. (synonym or translation) 

V. I can use this word in a sentence: ___. 

 

Level I categorizes what the learner does not know. Levels II–IV measure word recognition and 

level V measures production.  

 

The original VKS was adapted to the following for the purpose of this study: 

 

I.  I have never seen this word before. 

II.  I have seen this word before but don’t know what it means. 

III.  I have seen this word before and I think it means ___. 

IV.  I know this word. Here is a sentence with it: ___. 

 

 The VKS initially set out to measure the knowledge of 15 words found in academic texts. 

These words were chosen by the researcher/instructor from a variety of texts to be read in class. 

The words were chosen for their level of difficulty and common usage in academic writing as 

determined by the researcher/instructor. Academic text types included such things as policy 

papers, book chapters, essays, and journal articles ranging anywhere between 750–7000 words. 

A variety of academic texts was chosen to expose students to different formats and prepare them 

for university courses. There was to be no explicit teaching of these words in the course; students 

engaged with the material on their own, in groups, or with the instructor in class where 

approximately 50% of class time was spent working with texts and 50% was spent on writing 

their own texts. After the pre-test, two words had to be removed from the test due to lack of data 

(words 8 and 15). The final words analyzed on the VKS were (note the number following 

indicates frequency of exposure):  

 

1. factor  (4) 

2. perspective  (3) 

3. emerge  (4) 

4. phenomenon (3) 

5. substantial  (2) 

6. notable  (2) 

7. theory  (4) 

9. sustainable  (3) 

10. cite   (2) 

11. illustrate  (2) 

12. collective   (1) 

13. significant   (4) 

14. correlation  (1) 

   

 The reason for the limited word choice is two-fold: to counteract test fatigue in students 

and to limit the class time spent on the test as production questions in level 4 require a significant 

amount of response time.  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 37 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

Procedures  

 

Students were given the pre-test in week 3 of class and the post-test in week 13. They were not 

allowed to use a dictionary or thesaurus or speak to one another during the test. Both times, the 

tests were given at the start of class by the researcher/instructor. Students were exposed to the 

words to varying degrees through the texts given in class from weeks 4 to 12. Only the texts for 

the study were used in class between weeks 4 and 12; there was no textbook.  

 

Analysis  

 

The VKS tests were scored using a 1–5 point system, depending on what level the student chose 

and how he or she performed on the higher levels. The bold explanations under each level was 

used to assess the students’ responses. 

 

1 POINT  I.  I have never seen this word before. 

    The word is not familiar at all to student. 

 

2 POINTS  II.  I have seen this word before but don’t know what it means. 

     The word is familiar but its meaning is not known to student. 

 

3 POINTS  III.  I have seen this word before and I think it means ___. 

    A correct synonym or definition is given here by student. 
 

4 POINTS   IV.  I know this word. Here is a sentence with it. 

    The word is used with semantic appropriateness in a sentence. 

 

5 POINTS  IV.  I know this word. Here is a sentence with it. 

    The word is used with both semantic appropriateness and  

    grammatical accuracy in a sentence. 
 

 For example, if a student wrote a sentence using the word in question both semantically 

and grammatically correct, the score of 5 would be given. If, however, only the meaning was 

correct in the sentence, then a score of 4 would be given. If the sentence had neither correct, a 

score of 2 would be given. An example of this can be seen in the following sentence for the word 

“sustainable,” where the student is familiar with the word but does not know its true meaning (as 

is evidenced by the nonsensical meaning): “The sustainable energy required effort.” A sentence 

such as this, would be graded as a 2 as it makes very little sense. The grading begins at level 5 

because the student has written a sentence. But since the word is not used appropriately 

semantically, it cannot be given a 5 or 4. Therefore, there is no choice but to assign 2 points. A 

score of 3 is given if a student chooses this level and gives a correct synonym or definition. If the 

answer is incorrect, then a score of 2 is given. A score of 2 is automatically given if the student 

chooses level 2. A score of 1 is automatically given if the student chooses level 1.  Once the 

analysis was done and points were assigned, the results in the pre-test and the post-test were 

compared to see if there was a difference.  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 38 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

Findings 

 

The pre-test results (see Table 1) show the number of points given per word per student. As 

discussed earlier, the points represent the level of vocabulary knowledge of a given word. Each 

student also has an average vocabulary point range. For example, Student A has an average of 

2.9/5 on vocabulary knowledge. This means, overall, the student has seen the words before but 

needs to guess at their meanings. In contrast, Student F has an average score of 1.8. This shows 

his/her vocabulary knowledge is very limited, having seen the words before but not knowing any 

of their meanings.  

 

Table 1 

 

Pre-test Results 

 

 
 

 The post-test results are calculated, analyzed, and displayed in exactly the same manner 

(see Table 2).  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 39 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

Table 2 

 

Post-test Results 

 

 
 

 Upon comparison, individual student scores showed some significant increases. Student 

F, for example, scored 18 more points on the post-test than on the pre-test. Student D scored 15 

more and Student A 13 more. In fact, all students except for one (who had made no gains at all) 

showed an increase in points to some degree, ranging from 1 to 18 (see Table 3 next page). 

 

Since these findings show a clear increase in individual vocabulary level gains for almost 

all students, it can be concluded that academic vocabulary is indeed learned incidentally through 

the reading of academic texts—at least in the context of this study. Moreover, these gains 

occurred despite the different frequencies of exposure to the word, which ranged from 1 to 4, a 

relatively low exposure rate. For example, the word “correlation” (Word 14) only appeared once 

in the readings, yet six students reported an increase in understanding, with two students jumping 

three levels. The word “substantial” (Word 5) also saw a jump in levels of understanding, with 

four students reporting an increase of three points. This word, however, appeared only two times 

in the readings. A word that appeared four times (significant) saw only one such jump with most 

remaining students reporting no gains.  

 

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 40 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

Table 3 

 

Individual Student Vocabulary Gain 

 

 
 

Discussion 

 

The aim of this study was to determine if academic vocabulary could be learned incidentally 

through reading various academic texts. Although students had varying scores, all but one 

increased their vocabulary knowledge level. These findings support other studies that claim 

incidental vocabulary learning can and does take place through extensive reading—even when 

using academic texts. The one anomaly in this study was a student who had very little interest in 

the course and only did the minimal work. Perhaps the lack of interest in the texts/topics/course 

affected the student’s ability to acquire words incidentally. This would support the findings of 

Parry (1993; 1997) and Grabe and Stoller (1997) which state interest plays an important role in 

incidental vocabulary acquisition. One noteworthy finding, however, is that some students 

recorded a negative vocabulary gain score for some words. This indicates that whatever 

knowledge they originally had of the word was re-examined through the reading of the texts. 

One word in particular was affected by this: sustainable. One student recorded a drop of three 

levels of understanding while another recorded a drop of four. According to Green (1989) and 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344


 Freimuth 41 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

Nagy (1997) this could be explained by the notion that learning a new word is multi-

dimensional, not linear on a continuum. Perhaps as words are encountered in new and different 

contexts, they are re-examined, questioned, and re-defined. The word “sustainable,” according to 

the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2019) has a long and varied history. It first appeared in 

1775 and originally meant maintained over a long period of time without pause. Now the word 

has a myriad of meanings and is often featured in environmental discourse. Synonyms for this 

word now include defendable and justifiable in addition to maintainable. The new exposure to 

the word “sustainable” (there were three instances) could have prompted students to question the 

meaning of the word and therefore dropped down in levels of understanding, rather than moving 

up. More research is needed into the processes involved in vocabulary learning to understand the 

anomaly better.  

 

Conclusion 

 

Although this study was limited in terms of the number of students and vocabulary items to be 

learned, it does suggest that academic vocabulary can be learned incidentally through the act of 

reading, even with little repeated exposure. This finding is important for instructors to know as it 

alleviates the pressure to teach the academic word list to students in their academic English 

classes. Making students aware of this finding also alleviates pressure on them to learn the word 

list on their own. Some students, depending on their educational background, were trained to 

memorize lists of words every day in their home countries. Rote memorization, for example, is a 

popular way of teaching vocabulary in China. According to Yang and Dai (2011, p. 62) “for 

most Chinese students, learning English means memorizing a certain number of words a day and 

reciting as much of the book as possible.” Perhaps these findings will allay the fears of both 

instructors and students that vocabulary must be taught or self-memorized. 

 

References 

 

Aldawsari, H. (2017). The challenges of learning academic vocabulary among post-graduate 

Saudi students at a New Zealand university (Master thesis, Auckland University of 

Technology, Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved from 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/132419344.pdf  

Alderson, C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Brown, C. (1993). Factors affecting the acquisition of vocabulary: Frequency and saliency of 

words. In T. Huckin & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary 

learning (pp. 263–286). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University 

Press. 

Fisher, S. (2003). A history of reading. London, UK: Reaktion Books. 

Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. 

Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 

Gagne, R. (1977) The conditions of learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/132419344.pdf
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951


 Freimuth 42 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

Galloway, F. & Jenkins, J. (2005). The adjustment problems faces by international students in 

the United States: A comparison of international students and administrative perceptions 

at two private, religiously affiliated universities. NASPA, 42(2), 175–187. 

https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1471  

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (1997). Reading and vocabulary development in a second language: A 

case study. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A 

rationale for pedagogy (pp. 98–121). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.  

Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 

Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies 

in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 181–193. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263199002028  

Johns, A. (2010). A history of reading [Class Outline]. Department of History, University of 

Chicago, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from 

http://home.uchicago.edu/~johns/historyofreading.htm  

Keefe, K. (2016). The impact of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programs on 

international students’ success in university courses (Master thesis, University of British 

Columbia, Vancouver, Canada). Retrieved from 

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0306924  

Klein, M., Peterson, S., & Simington, L. (1991). Teaching reading in the elementary grades. 

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn Bacon. 

Knowles, M., Holton III, E., & Swanson, R. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in 

adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: 

Pergamon Press Inc. 

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the 

Input Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440–464. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x  

Kweon, S., & Kim, H. (2008). Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in 

extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 191–215. Retrieved from 

http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/October2008/kweon/kweon.pdf 

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications. Merriam-

Wester Online Dictionary (2019). Sustained. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/sustained  

Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In N. 

Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 

64–83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Nation, I. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 

Nation, I. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian 

Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59  

Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1993). The relationship between reading comprehension and 

second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada 

Journal, 11(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v11i1.623  

Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 

629–653. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587080  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344
https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1471
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263199002028
http://home.uchicago.edu/~johns/historyofreading.htm
https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0306924
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/October2008/kweon/kweon.pdf
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sustained
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sustained
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v11i1.623
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587080


 Freimuth 43 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 32–43 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344 

Parry, K. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary of an academic subject. In T. 

Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary 

learning (pp. 109–129). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 

Parry, K. (1997). Vocabulary and comprehension: Two portraits. In J. Coady & T. Huckin 

(Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 55–68). 

New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Pellicer-Sanchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic 

novel: Do things fall apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31–55. Retrieved 

from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ887875 

Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading. Reading in a 

Foreign Language, 18(1). Retrieved from 

https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2006/pigada/pigada.html 

Ponniah, R. (2011). Incidental acquisition of vocabulary by reading. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 

135–139. Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/ponniah.pdf 

Rumelhart, D. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and 

Performance IV (pp 573–603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.  

Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New York, NY: 

Palgrave Macmillan. 

Shin, S. (2006). Incidental vocabulary learning from reading course materials. Foreign 

Languages Education, 13(3), 321–337. Retrieved from 

http://db.koreascholar.com/article.aspx?code=282570  

Stahl, S. (2003). Words are learned incrementally over multiple exposures. American Educator, 

27(1), 18–19. Retrieved from 

https://www.mcelmeel.com/curriculum/childrenslit/stahl_vocabulary.pdf  

Uchihara, T., Webb, S., & Yanagisawa, A. (2019). The effects of repetition on incidental 

vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. Language Learning, 

69(3), 559–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12343  

Vidal, K. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidental vocabulary 

acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 219–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9922.2010.00593.x  

Waring, R. (2002). Basic principles and practice in Vocabulary Instruction. The Language 

Teacher, 26(7). Retrieved from https://jalt-

publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2002/07/waring?y=2002&mon=07&page=waring 

Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics and language teaching. London, UK: Edward Arnold. 

Yang, W., & Dai, W. (2011). Rote memorization of vocabulary and vocabulary development. 

English Language Teaching, 4(4), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p61  

Zahar, R., Cobb, R., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of 

frequency and contextual richness. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 541–572. 

https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.4.541  

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the authors. 

 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/344
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ887875
https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2006/pigada/pigada.html
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/ponniah.pdf
http://db.koreascholar.com/article.aspx?code=282570
https://www.mcelmeel.com/curriculum/childrenslit/stahl_vocabulary.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12343
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00593.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00593.x
https://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2002/07/waring?y=2002&mon=07&page=waring
https://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2002/07/waring?y=2002&mon=07&page=waring
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p61
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.4.541
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

