





































GEORGIA JOURNAL OF READING 13 VOLUME 41, NUMBER 1   2018

by MariSa gonZaLeZ anD Dr. robert a. griffin, uniVerSity of WeSt georgia

Building Comprehension 
Through Explicit and Organic 

Vocabulary Instruction for 
English Learners

Abstract
This article closely examines the relationship between 
vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension, 
specifically for English learners. The authors first set 
out to identify the relationship between vocabulary 
knowledge and comprehension. Research-based 
instructional strategies are then described with 
discussion centering on how these strategies 
specifically benefit English learners. Central to the 
thesis is that a reader must be able to decode words 
and assign meaning to those words with little to no 
effort to fully engage in and comprehend any type 
of text. Due to the language barrier, some English 
learners have a particularly difficult time decoding and 
assigning meaning to words. The research presented 
here supports the integration of reading strategies 
that can be used to build English learners’ reading 
comprehension, both explicit vocabulary instruction 
combined with organic, student-centered language 
learning. Some of the strategies discussed include daily 
interactive read aloud, audio recordings of students 
reading, whole group shared reading experiences, 
and direct and explicit vocabulary instruction.

Growing diversity throughout recent decades in 
American education has resulted in large populations 

of English learners (ELs) in contemporary classrooms. 
As a result, educators must ask themselves a critical 
burning question: What are the most pressing hurdles 
my ELs must overcome, and what best practices 
can be implemented in my classroom to help them 
comprehend grade-level texts? This question 
encapsulates a wide range of teaching and learning 
possibilities which are relevant to the success of these 
students, and many of these possibilities begin with 
the successful acquisition of English vocabulary, not 
only for speaking purposes, but ultimately for the 
total comprehension of a wide variety of English-
language texts. Thus, the purpose of this article is to 
explore how vocabulary acquisition relates to reading 
comprehension for ELs and what best practices 
teachers can use to enhance the English vocabularies 
of language-minority students in order to boost their 
total reading comprehension. Relevant theoretical 
grounding for this type of instruction is found within 
the constructs of automaticity and literacy processing, 
and various instructional practices such as explicit 
teaching of vocabulary, morphology instruction, and 
interactive read aloud will be discussed.

The complex process of reading requires multiple 
processes to occur simultaneously: decoding, 



GEORGIA JOURNAL OF READING 14 VOLUME 41, NUMBER 1   2018

assigning meaning to words, and comprehending 
the text. Decoding and assigning meaning to words 
need to be done with little or no effort to enhance 
comprehension. Assigning meaning to words is 
certainly part of the comprehension process, but 
the speed at which one assigns meaning is where 
comprehension can potentially break down for some 
English learners. For English learners, this automatic 
approach to reading is complicated. As students 
from non-English-speaking cultures, ELs often have 
personal experiences and background knowledge 
that differ from native English speakers. Decoding 
unfamiliar vocabulary is a significant obstacle some 
English learners must overcome before they can focus 
on comprehension.

The process of acquiring an additional language and 
becoming fluent English readers is a complex one for 
English learners. Providing all students, specifically 
English learners, with a classroom environment that 
is print-rich and that fosters reading and vocabulary 
growth is crucial. Educators should employ a 
combination of traditional and modern techniques to 
provide ELs with well-rounded literacy instruction, but 
explicit vocabulary instruction combined with organic, 
student-centered instruction remains crucial. Organic 
vocabulary instruction involves utilizing teachable 
moments to bring to the class’s attention a word or 
term that, for example, a student asks about while 
reading or that one overhears on the intercom. 
Although there has been a push away from authentic, 
unplanned, organic, or implicit vocabulary instruction 
in recent years, using both methods to provide 
maximum exposure to vocabulary should be a best 
practice for all language teachers. Class time should 
be devoted to explicitly teaching decoding strategies 
and morphological derivations, but one should not 
neglect the unplanned, teachable moments that arise 
during the school day. Interactive read aloud, partner 
reading, and audio recordings of books can be used to 
foster expressive reading and build vocabulary.

Theoretical Frameworks
Understanding how vocabulary acquisition and 
reading comprehension are linked is crucial because 
English learners face unique obstacles in these areas 
(Graves, Juel, Graves, & Dewitz, 2011). Theories of 
automaticity and literacy processing demonstrate the 
link between the ability of students to automatically 
decode and assign meaning to words and their 
reading comprehension, thus elucidating the critical 
issues ELs face as they overcome various hurdles 
toward acquiring vocabulary and improving their 
reading comprehension.

Automaticity
LaBerge and Samuel’s (1974) theory of automaticity 

essentially suggests that comprehension follows from 
automatically recognizing words as well as assigning 
meaning to words. This bottom-up theory posits that 
“learning to read progresses from learning parts of 
the language [letters] to understanding the whole text 
[meaning]” (Reutzel & Cooter, 2013, para. 1). Reading 
involves many processes occurring simultaneously—
recalling words, connecting meaning to words, 
building sentences and paragraphs, and drawing upon 
prior knowledge to make text connections. Some of 
these processes must become automatic for readers 
to manage them all at once (LaBerge & Samuels, 
1974), and when students’ working memories are 
consumed with the challenges of basic decoding and 
other fundamental reading processes, less capacity 
remains for the purpose of comprehension (Kaufman, 
2010). The more often students need to pause, 
decode, and work to determine meaning while reading 
a text, the less likely they will be able to fully engage in 
the reading and comprehend the text.

Literacy Processing
While observing students interacting authentically 
with texts over the course of a school year, Marie Clay 
(1982) found that learning to read is a continuous 
process of change and will likely look different from 
child to child. She confirmed that students’ reading 
growth and learning as well as their ability to utilize 
more advanced literacy processes stemmed from 
ongoing exposure to increasingly complex texts over 
the course of their school careers (Doyle, 2013). 

Over time and through guided interactions with texts, 
children leave the emergent reading phase and enter 
the conventional reading phase. Clay (1982) carefully 
considered the foundational processing and the 
cyclical process of reading to determine that “what on 
the surface looks like simple word-by-word reading . 
. . involves children in linking many things they know 
from different sources . . . to read a precise message” 
(Doyle, 2013, p. 644). Thus, to be a proficient reader, 
one must draw on a variety of strategies and knowledge 
to determine a text’s meaning.

Convergence of Theories
Theories of automaticity and literacy processing 
converge to provide a relevant foundation for exploring 
the relationship between vocabulary acquisition 
and comprehension in ELs. Consider an individual 
of any age who is learning English: performing all 
of the aforementioned mental processes are an 
overwhelming task until at least one or many become 
automatic. ELs are often less capable during the 
language acquisition period than native speakers of 
automatically recognizing and decoding unfamiliar 
vocabulary (Lesaux, Kieffer, Kelley, & Harris, 2014). 
Thus, they are at a disadvantage in learning when 



GEORGIA JOURNAL OF READING 15 VOLUME 41, NUMBER 1   2018

compared to their native-speaking peers because “they 
have yet to develop the rich and varied knowledge that 
many children internalize from growing up in a literate 
culture” (Graves et al., 2011, p. 412).

For students who have a strong literacy foundation 
in their native language, learning another language, 
typically English, is a much easier task. However, few 
ELs have an established literate culture in their own 
native language, so they essentially must begin anew 
when working toward English language acquisition. 
Because many ELs are distanced from their native 
cultures and language at an early age, neither their 
native language nor the English language is well 
developed (Bowman-Perrott, Herrera, & Murry, 2010).

Native English speakers acquire large English 
vocabularies from conversations, books, television, 
and cultural experiences. When native speakers 
encounter words in a text, they often can automatically 
recognize and assign meaning to those words. Due 
to the myriad of cognitive processes that must be 
mastered within second-language acquisition, ELs 
often cannot process information in their second 
languages at the same speed as in their native 
languages, thus slowing comprehension (Burns & 
Helman, 2009).

Selected Review of Literature
A review of relevant literature details the relationship 
between vocabulary acquisition and comprehension, 
with specific focus given to how English learners best 
acquire vocabulary. Factors inhibiting comprehension 
and research-based instructional techniques that can 
be utilized to build vocabulary acquisition and improve 
reading comprehension are also discussed. Central 
to this discussion are the importance of vocabulary 
knowledge, morphology instruction, and repeated 
reading to improve reading comprehension.

Vocabulary and Reading Linked
As founded extensively within relevant theoretical 
frameworks, learning to read is a complex endeavor. 
Students spend much of their time in the primary 
grades learning basic phonics skills and strategies to 
decode words (Graves et al., 2011). This work lays 
the foundation for text comprehension and paves the 
route for the comprehension of texts of increased 
complexity in the middle and upper grades (Lewis, 
Walpole, & McKenna, 2014). Because vocabulary 
acquisition and background knowledge help provide 
meaning and depth to texts, students’ comprehension 
improves as they acquire new vocabulary and learn 
new concepts (Graves et al., 2011; Hastings, 2016; 
Lewis et al., 2014). Simply put, the more words 
readers understand when reading a text, the easier it 
will be for them to comprehend the text (Lewis et al., 

2014; Nagy, 2005). As such, “vocabulary occupies an 
important middle ground in learning to read” (National 
Reading Panel, 2008, para. 5).

Limited Vocabularies of English Learners
While it is well-established that reading achievement is 
built on vocabulary acquisition, often, English learners 
know far fewer English words than their monolingual 
peers. Beck and McKeown (1991), for example, 
highlight the gap in vocabulary mastery, citing that 
native English speakers master approximately 5,000 
words by the end of first grade and 50,000 words 
when they graduate from high school. On average, the 
English vocabularies of language-minority students 
are but a fraction of the working vocabularies of native 
English speakers (Duncan & Paradis, 2016; Filippini, 
Gerber, & Leafstedt, 2012; Lesaux et al., 2014). These 
gaps are particularly problematic when Matthew effects 
in literacy—ideally, the notion of continually-widening 
knowledge gaps—are considered (Stanovich, 1986). 
Such are the bases for improved teaching and 
learning endeavors targeted specifically at improving 
the vocabularies of ELs.

Because their vocabularies may be limited, the 
process of learning to read in English proves to be 
quite challenging for ELs. Many factors influence the 
vocabulary acquisition of English learners, including 
the prior knowledge they have gathered from personal 
experiences (Richgels, 1982; Sheridan, 1981), their 
access to English books at home, and the frequency 
of their exposure to written and oral English (Graves 
et al., 2011; Griffin, 2016). Educators, therefore, 
should consider how best to deliver academic content 
to English learners to make vocabulary acquisition 
and reading more enjoyable (Lesaux et al., 2014). 
Focusing on designing curriculum and strategies 
to enhance the vocabulary development of English 
learners in an effort to bridge existing achievement 
gaps between English learners and native speakers is 
an excellent place to start (Gibson, 2016).

Furthermore, developing the vocabularies of English 
learners in the primary grades to prepare them for the 
higher conceptual loads of the upper grades is crucial 
(Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Nagy, 2005; Nagy, Berninger, 
& Abbott, 2006). Rich and varied learning strategies—
e.g., explicitly teaching word-learning techniques 
or building word consciousness—are necessary to 
effectively foster and enhance the vocabularies of 
English learners (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Lesaux et 
al., 2014; Pacheco & Goodwin, 2013). Rich, extensive 
vocabularies assist students in becoming successful 
long-term readers and writers by allowing them to 
determine meanings of words and phrases with ease 
and in using precise language in their own writing and 
reading. English learners, by nature of the language-



GEORGIA JOURNAL OF READING 16 VOLUME 41, NUMBER 1   2018

learning process, need additional targeted support 
in vocabulary acquisition (Graves et al., 2011). 
Teachers of English learners, therefore, should rely on 
a variety of researched-based strategies to develop 
the vocabularies of their language-minority students 
(Gibson, 2016).

When explicit teaching of vocabulary and vocabulary 
strategies are implemented in the instruction of ELs, 
it is critical to ensure that these explicitly-taught 
fundamentals of language usage be translated 
into authentic transfer through student support and 
guidance (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017). Many websites 
and teacher manuals provide resources for traditional 
skill-and-drill practices with the hope that if words are 
heard and seen enough times, students will eventually 
commit them to memory. However, this type of explicit 
instruction does not lead to application in broader 
contexts; it must be ongoing and integrated with other 
literacy initiatives within the classroom (Nagy, 2005). 
When explicit vocabulary instruction is combined with 
student-centered instruction, which has been shown 
to have a positive effect on many children’s learning 
(Davis, 2010; Roskos & Neuman, 2014), students 
tend to be more engaged in the learning process as 
a whole (Davis, 2010). Combining student-centered 
approaches, such as interactive read aloud, with 
explicit instruction in vocabulary acquisition proves 
to be particularly useful for ELs (Roskos & Neuman, 
2014).

Factors Inhibiting Text Comprehension
For ELs, multiple factors contribute to difficulty with 
text comprehension. Some of these factors include, 
but are not limited to, lack of English vocabulary and 
gaps in fluency and prosody. The following sections 
will examine these inhibiting factors more closely.

Some ELs, especially those from home environments 
with little or no literacy in their first languages, 
sometimes struggle to comprehend text because 
of their limited vocabularies. Automaticity is limited 
because they can only adequately attend to one task at 
a time (Graves et al., 2011). Word attack skills must be 
explicitly taught to make up for this deficiency (Hendrix 
& Griffin, 2017). Graves et al. (2011) maintain that 
“having a small vocabulary is a very serious detriment 
to success in reading” (p. 254). Lower vocabulary 
acquisition is a major hurdle to overcome for students 
whose native language is not English.

Recent research highlights how vocabulary 
acquisition influences comprehension and also points 
to inadequate morphology instruction as a contributing 
factor of poorer comprehension. Kieffer and Lesaux 
(2007) focused on upper elementary students’ 
morphological awareness. One of their key findings 

was that “morphological awareness predicts reading 
comprehension” in English learners (Kieffer & Lesaux, 
2007, p. 783). Students’ morphological awareness 
contributed to both their knowledge of individual words 
and their overall reading comprehension.

Not only do many English learners have limited 
vocabularies, but they also receive limited morphology 
instruction, making it difficult for them to determine 
word meanings on their own based on roots, 
prefixes, or suffixes. Therefore, educators should 
recognize that teaching basic vocabulary should be 
in conjunction with providing consistent morphology 
instruction. Kieffer and Lesaux’s (2007) study should 
be extended to determine what conditions maximize 
this type of explicit vocabulary teaching and provide 
concrete evidence to determine specific morphological 
instructional techniques that yield positive results. 
Morphological awareness is emphasized in the upper 
elementary grades, but it is a skill that should be 
gradually reinforced throughout students’ school years 
(Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007).

Instructional Techniques to Build Vocabulary
Vocabulary acquisition is critical in improving text 
comprehension (Lesaux et al., 2014). Research-
based instructional strategies to implement in the 
classroom are also important to consider when 
designing curriculum. Some studies encourage 
explicit and systematic vocabulary instruction (Filippini 
et al., 2012; Lesaux et al., 2014), while others imply 
that enriching daily instruction with student-centered 
activities, such as poetry readings, repeated readings, 
and Readers Theater, helps foster vocabulary growth 
(Tsou, 2011; Young & Nageldinger, 2014).

Providing students with only phonological awareness 
instruction in the primary grades is not sufficient. ELs 
make greater strides in reading when they are taught 
vocabulary in an explicit manner, consistently and with 
fidelity (Hendrix & Griffin, 2017; Lesaux et al., 2014). 
Filippini et al. (2012), in an empirical study employing 
repeated measures of literacy intervention treatment 
among several experimental groups composed of 
elementary students (including 66 students with 
limited English proficiency), concluded that direct, 
targeted interventions added to vocabulary instruction 
provided substantial literacy growth among the 
lowest-performing students. Interventions included 
direct phonics instruction, semantic feature analysis 
among synonymous vocabulary, and direct morpheme 
instruction (Filippini et al., 2012). Additionally, as a 
result, 70% of students receiving interventions in the 
study showed larger gains in reading comprehension 
than their peers who did not receive explicit instruction 
(Filippini et al., 2012). These interventions addressed 
the notion that ELs sometimes lack the same cultural 



GEORGIA JOURNAL OF READING 17 VOLUME 41, NUMBER 1   2018

experiences as native English speakers, making the 
contextualization of vocabulary words challenging 
(Filippini et al., 2012). Explicit instruction of this sort 
in school is especially important for students who lack 
rich language experiences in English at home (Griffin, 
2016).

While targeted vocabulary instruction results in growth 
for ELs, this growth neither negates nor replaces the 
growth that organic language experiences with native 
speakers provide. As previously stated, vocabulary 
interventions are powerful, but they must supplement 
authentic uses of language along the road to mastery. 
ELs make greater gains when they are exposed to 
organic language-learning experiences (Lesaux et 
al., 2014), but these experiences may be scaffolded 
and created for ELs within the classroom setting. 
Language-minority students learn a great deal about 
language through interactions with native-speaking 
peers. As student-centered instructional approaches, 
Readers Theater and poetry readings have been 
shown to improve reading and writing skills (Tsou, 
2011; Young & Nageldinger, 2014). Tsou (2011) found 
that the vocabulary and writing skills of Taiwanese 
fifth graders who received instruction through 
Readers Theater as opposed to traditional skill-and-
drill exercises improved significantly. Giving students 
opportunities to reread accessible texts multiple times 
and to kinesthetically interact with texts increases their 
ability to assign meaning to words through context 
clues. Thus, interactions with language in authentic 
contexts leads ELs to greater synthesis of language 
as a whole.

Using a similar approach to instruction, a third-
grade teacher used poetry to target automatic word 
recognition skills and comprehension with her English 
learners (Wilfong, 2015). She found that giving English 
learners multiple opportunities to read poetry aloud 
to their peers, teachers, and family members helped 
strengthen their fluency and word recognition skills. 
Once per week for 12 consecutive weeks, students 
worked with a trained professional from The Poetry 
Academy. The teacher modeled reading poems with 
fluency before the students independently conducted 
repeated readings among themselves and then read 
the poems to their family members at home. Finally, 
they performed the poetry recitations for the class 
after a week of practice.

Similar to Tsou (2011), Wilfong (2015) found that 
students almost doubled their scores from pre- to 
post-tests regarding fluency and automatic word 
decoding. The short stanzas in poetry made reading 
manageable and achievable. LaBerge and Samuels 
(1974) indicated that the first step to comprehension 
is being able to attack words. Once readers master 

that skill, then they can focus on assigning meaning 
to those words (Wilfong, 2015). The research on 
Readers Theater and poetry reveals that vocabulary 
growth naturally follows one’s growth in decoding 
and automatic word recognition (Tsou, 2011; Wilfong, 
2015).

While considering the best instructional approaches 
for English learners, teachers must first determine 
the factors that are contributing to their struggle to 
comprehend texts. From there, educators must rely 
on research-based practices to implement strategies 
in the classroom in order to support the diverse 
needs of English learners. The research discussed 
here posits that limited vocabulary is one of the 
predominant reasons English learners have difficulty 
comprehending texts.

Instructional Implications
The correlation between vocabulary knowledge, 
morphological instruction, and reading comprehension 
for English learners is clear. Isolating concrete 
instructional strategies that yield academic growth 
is imperative. When addressing vocabulary and 
morphology instruction with young English learners, 
various methods can be employed in the classroom. 
Simple read alouds to bolster English learners’ 
vocabulary and demonstrate fluent reading are 
appropriate, or technological tools can be utilized to 
build vocabulary and morphology awareness, such as 
using voice recordings and student support websites 
(Griffin, Martinez, & Martin, 2014).

Teachers would be wise to incorporate daily read 
aloud, shared reading and writing, and word walls to 
maximize the rate at which students can recall words 
and their meanings. Additionally, English learners 
would benefit from having a reading partner who is a 
native English speaker. This will give them additional 
opportunities to hear how books should be read 
fluently and with expression in the English language 
(Graves et al., 2011).

Vocabulary Flashcards
Preserving small group time for direct and explicit 
vocabulary instruction is a research proven method 
to reinforce language skills with ELs (Filippini et 
al., 2012; Lesaux et al., 2014). Utilizing illustrated 
flashcards, providing synonyms and antonyms, and 
generating examples are necessary components 
of effective vocabulary instruction. As previously 
mentioned, strategies related to direct phonics 
instruction can be used in conjunction with read 
alouds and explicit modeling of decoding skills and 
phonological awareness to promote gains in reading 
comprehension. Since many English learners have 
difficulty interpreting, visualizing, and making meaning, 



GEORGIA JOURNAL OF READING 18 VOLUME 41, NUMBER 1   2018

it is helpful for them to be able to see and create 
concrete examples in a systematic manner, and in 
lessons that are implemented consistently (Filippini et 
al., 2012).

Read Alouds
While a multitude of strategies exist to support Englis 
learners’ vocabulary growth, traditional teacher-led 
read alouds are an effective way to teach vocabulary. 
While many English learners lack the experience and 
background knowledge necessary to fully engage 
in reading, providing them with an opportunity to 
hear fluent reading while developing vital listening 
comprehension and vocabulary development skills is 
beneficial (Graves et al., 2011).

An ever-widening gap between middle-class students’ 
vocabularies and the vocabularies of students in 
poverty exists. Students who come from families 
where vocabulary-rich conversations are part of their 
everyday lives tend to perform better in reading (Hart 
& Risley, 1995). Teachers can, to some extent, make 
up for the lack of language-rich home environments by 
facilitating meaningful discussions in the classroom. 
These discussions can be done through interactive 
oral reading. Teachers select a text to read aloud 
to the whole class, demonstrating fluency and 
expression. The book is read once without any pauses 
or interruptions. Then, the teacher reads the book 
again, this time stopping to direct students’ attention 
to seven or eight vocabulary words, providing a 
brief definition and adding to a vocabulary chart for 
students to reference. Rereading the text a third and 
fourth time, after teaching vocabulary, helps students 
to absorb more information without being bogged 
down by unfamiliar text (Graves et al., 2011; Wilfong, 
2015). 

The goal behind interactive read alouds and 
vocabulary development is that it will transfer into 
students’ ability to “build knowledge networks—
connections between concepts that are meaningful 
and enduring in their longer-term memory and are 
primary in comprehension development” (Roskos & 
Neuman, 2014, p. 508). Over time, automaticity will be 
fostered through repeated readings and exposure to 
new vocabulary words, thus building a solid foundation 
for comprehension.

Recorded Readings
All students, especially English learners, strongly 
benefit from the integration of audio recorders in 
the classroom. Teachers can provide pre-recorded 
readings of books for students to listen to and 
follow along, allowing them exposure to fluent and 
expressive reading. English learners often spend such 
a significant amount of time decoding that they have 

limited mental energy left to find meaning in a text. 
Modeling reading for them not only boosts vocabulary 
but also allows for the meaning-making process to 
occur more automatically. Additionally, a teacher can 
have an audio recorder available at literacy stations 
for students to record themselves reading a book 
of their choice. When students are able to listen to 
themselves read, they can often catch their mistakes 
and self-correct, ideally reading more fluently and 
expressively during repeated readings (Graves et al., 
2011). Recorded readings also offer students who may 
be more timid and less confident readers a chance to 
engage and participate in a more private and risk-free 
setting. With recorded readings, ELs do not have the 
added stress of reading in front of peers and the fear 
of making mistakes.

Image Galleries
An additional way to support English learners 
with vocabulary acquisition is to accompany new 
vocabulary words with images from the Internet. 
Having an iPad or computer handy in small groups, 
or a Smart Board for whole groups, provides students 
with an extra layer of support for unfamiliar words. 
Google Images, for example, is an excellent tool for 
showcasing various illustrations for a given vocabulary 
word (Figure 1). When students can envision those 
new words, they can more fully engage in the reading 
process, and comprehending the text becomes more 
automatic without having to waste mental stamina 
on assigning meaning to unfamiliar words (Graves 
et al., 2011). This is particularly useful—and, truly, 
imperative—for ELs in the middle and upper grades 
who are not only faced with automaticity and mastery 
of common vocabulary, but also the content-specific 
vocabulary that permeates most of their course loads 
and advanced nonfiction texts (Lewis et al., 2014). 
 

Figure 1. Sample Google images when conducting 
search for “geology.” In public domain.



GEORGIA JOURNAL OF READING 19 VOLUME 41, NUMBER 1   2018

Document Cameras
Finally, a handy technological tool teachers should 
take advantage of in their classrooms is a document 
camera. During interactive read-alouds, students 
do not necessarily need to see any text in order to 
participate. However, during a shared reading or 
writing lesson, a document camera can be used to 
display text on a larger screen for students to follow 
along. 

Conclusion
The central issue for English learners is evident: 
automaticity and reading comprehension cannot be 
achieved with a limited vocabulary. Language-minority 
students will benefit if vocabulary development is 
targeted systematically in the primary grades in order 
to advance them before school content becomes 
much more intense and complex. A sense of urgency 
is appropriate for teachers to support their English 
learners in literacy instruction in order to promote 
vocabulary growth, thus leading to successful 
comprehension. In short, the development of a wide 
vocabulary and morphological knowledge promotes 
automaticity and thus comprehension and is essential 
for reading achievement in the upper grades.

References
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Social studies 

texts are hard to understand: Mediating some of the 
difficulties. Language Arts, 68(8), 482–490.

Bowman-Perrott, L. J., Herrera, S., & Murry, K. (2010). 
Reading difficulties and grade retention: What’s the 
connection for English language learners? Reading & 
Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 
26(1), 91–107. doi:10.1080/10573560903397064

Burns, M. K., & Helman, L. A. (2009). Relationship 
between language skills and acquisition rate of 
sight words among English language learners. 
Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(3), 221–232. 
doi:10.1080/19388070802291547

Clay, M. M. (1982). Observing young readers: Selected 
papers. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Revisiting 
assumptions about the relationship of fluent 
reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ text-
reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing: 
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(5), 475–494. 
doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9168

Davis, L. (2010). Toward a lifetime of literacy: The 
effect of student-centered and skills-based reading 
instruction on the experiences of children. Literacy 
Teaching and Learning, 15(1/2), 53–79.

Doyle, M. A. (2013). Marie M. Clay’s theoretical 
perspective: A literacy processing theory. In D. 
Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), 
Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 
636–655). Newark, DE: International Reading 
Association. doi:10.1598/0710.26

Duncan, T. S., & Paradis, J. (2016). English language 
learners’ nonword repetition performance: The 
influence of age, L2 vocabulary size, length of L2 
exposure, and L1 phonology. Journal of Speech, 
Language & Hearing Research, 59(1), 39–48. 
doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0020

Filippini, A. L, Gerber, M. M., & Leafstedt, J. M. (2012). 
A vocabulary-added reading intervention for English 
learners at-risk of reading difficulties. International 
Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 14–25.

Gibson, C. (2016). Bridging English language learner 
achievement gaps through effective vocabulary 
development strategies. English Language 
Teaching, 9(9), 134–138. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n9p134

Graves, M., Juel, C., Graves, B., & Dewitz, P. (2011). 
Teaching reading in the 21st century: Motivating all 
learners (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Griffin, R. A. (2016). Motivating high school Latina/o 
English learners to engage in reading: An exploratory 
study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from the 
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. 
(Accession No. 10109231)

Griffin, R. A., Martinez, J., & Martin, E. P. (2014). 
Rosetta Stone and language proficiency of 
international secondary school English language 
learners. Engaging Cultures & Voices, 6(2), 36–73.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences 
in the everyday experiences of young American 
children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hastings, K. (2016). Leveled reading and engagement 
with complex texts. Reading Improvement, 53(2), 
65–71.

Hendrix, R. A., & Griffin, R. A. (2017). Developing 
enhanced morphological awareness in adolescent 
learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 
doi:10.1002/jaal.642

Kaufman, C. (2010). Executive function in the 
classroom: Practical strategies for improving 
performance and enhancing skills for all students. 
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.



GEORGIA JOURNAL OF READING 20 VOLUME 41, NUMBER 1   2018

Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2007). The role 
of derivational morphology in the reading 
comprehension of Spanish-speaking English 
language learners. Reading and Writing: An 
Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 783–804. 
doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9092-8

Kim, Y. G. (2015). Developmental, component-
based model of reading fluency: An investigation 
of predictors of word-reading fluency, text-reading 
fluency, and reading comprehension. Reading 
Research Quarterly, 50(4), 459–481. doi:10.1002/
rrq20/107

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a 
theory of automatic information processing in 
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. 
doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2

Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelley, J. G., & Harris, 
J. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary 
instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: 
Evidence from a randomized field trial. American 
Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194. 
doi:10.3102/0002831214532165

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2017). Qualitative reading 
inventory (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Lewis, W. E., Walpole, S., and McKenna, M. C. (2014). 
Cracking the Common Core: Choosing and using 
texts in grades 6–12. New York: The Guilford Press.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). 
Vocabulary results from the 2013 Reading 
Assessment Report Card: Summary data tables 
for performance results [Data file]. Retreived 
from https://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2013/
vocabulary/fi les/2013_Reading_Vocabulary_
Appendix_Tables.pdf

National Reading Panel. (NRP). (2008). Chapter 4 – 
Comprehension [Scholarly project]. Retrieved from 
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/
Documents/ch4-II.pdf

Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting 
two and two together: Middle school students’ 
morphological problem-solving strategies for 
unknown words. Journal of Adolescent & Adult 
Literacy, 56(7), 541–553. doi:10.1002/JAAL.181

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2013). Bottom-up 
theories of the reading process. Retrieved from 
http://www.education.com/reference/article/bottom-
up-theories-reading-process/

Richgels, D. J. (1982). Schema theory, linguistic theory, 
and representations of reading comprehension. 
Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 54–62. doi:
10.1080/00220671.1982.10885424

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. B. (2014). Best practices 
in reading: A 21st century skill update. The Reading 
Teacher, 67(7), 507–511. doi:10.1002/trtr.1248

Sheridan, E. M. (1981). Theories of reading and 
implications for teachers. Reading Horizons, 22(1), 
66–71. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.
edu/reading_horizons/

Tsou, W. (2011). The application of Readers Theater 
to FLES reading and writing. Foreign Language 
Annals, 44(4), 727–748. doi:10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2011.01147.x

Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., Verhoeven, L. 
(2015). What oral text reading fluency can reveal 
about reading comprehension. Journal of Research 
in Reading, 38(3), 213–225. doi:10.1111/1267-
9817.12024

Wilfong, L. G. (2015). ¡Puedo hacerlo!–“I can do it!” 
Using poetry to improve fluency, comprehension, 
word recognition and attitude toward reading in 
struggling English language learners. The NERA 
Journal, 51(1), 41–49.

Young, C., & Nageldinger, J. (2014). Considering the 
context and texts for fluency: Performance, Readers 
Theater, and poetry. International Electronic Journal 
of Elementary Education, 7(1), 47–56.

n Empower members of the GRA and local 
councils to become effective leaders in the 
field of literacy.

n Provide quality reading education services to 
all Georgia educators.

n Recognize exemplary individuals, local, and 
state literacy efforts.

n Achieve maximum involvement of members 
at the local, state, and international levels to 
receive maximum benefits.

n Promote the goals and objectives of  
the International Reading Association  
of Georgia.

Georgia Reading Association

   GOALS


