FEATURE ARTICLE
More Than Just Word of the Day:
Vocabulary Apps for English Learners
Laura Northrop, Elena Andrei
Learn how to evaluate instructional components of apps and how apps
can support individualized and independent vocabulary learning for English
learners.
A
lthough many English learners (ELs) receive
specialized instruction with a teacher trained
in second-­language teaching and learning,
the majority of ELs reenter the regular classroom
within three years, where many continue to strug-
gle academically (Slama, 2014). One reason for ELs’
continued difficulties with reading is low vocabulary
knowledge, including academic language (Lesaux &
Kieffer, 2010). Especially in this time of growing lan-
guage diversity in public schools (McFarland et al.,
2018), technology can be a powerful tool to augment
vocabulary learning for ELs.
In particular, tablets and smartphones offer
easy access to a variety of language and vocabulary
applications that can be integrated into elemen-
tary and middle school classrooms to support ELs’
English vocabulary learning. For example, applica-
tions can include instructional aids such as trans-
lation of text to native languages; read-­alouds and
narration of text in English; videos, pictures, and
other visual aids; and built-­in multiple exposure of
new words to supplement traditional EL instruction.
For classroom teachers, vocabulary apps can be a
way to individualize instruction, teach new vocabu-
lary words, and reinforce previously learned words.
Although technology use in the classroom has
increased recently, with the adoption of online
standardized testing and district initiatives such
as one-­to-­one programs, the quality of both the
technology and implementation into the class-
room has been uneven. Previous work has pri-
marily focused on evaluating e-­books (Bates et al.,
2017; Roskos, Brueck, & Lenhart, 2017), integrating
technology into the classroom as a way to respond
to texts (Baxa & Christ, 2018), use of technology in
general in EL instruction (Andrei, 2017), creating
rubrics to evaluate educational apps for the class-
room (C.-­Y. Lee & Cherner, 2015) or evaluating iOS
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 0   No. 0   pp. 1–8
apps in terms of diversity and multiculturalism
(Cherner & Fegely, 2018). Specifically, some vocabu-
lary apps were evaluated to identify their effect on
young children’s vocabulary acquisition (Vatalaro,
Culp, Hahs-­Vaughn, & Barnes, 2018; Walter-­Laager
et al., 2017) and with English as a foreign language
students (Guaqueta & Castro-­ Garces, 2018). Not
much attention has been focused on vocabulary
instruction apps for elementary or middle school
students.
First, we share the development of a vocabulary
app evaluation tool that teachers can use to evalu-
ate apps prior to using them in their classroom.
Next, we share our findings after using the tool to
evaluate 53 vocabulary apps. Finally, we discuss
how teachers can successfully integrate vocabulary
apps into their classroom instruction.
Vocabulary App Evaluation Tool
Figure 1 presents the vocabulary app evaluation
tool for teachers. It rates vocabulary apps on three
dimensions: effective vocabulary instruction, type
of instructional activity, and technology features.
These criteria were derived from the literature on
best practices in vocabulary and technology. After
identifying key concepts from the literature, both au-
thors used the tool to evaluate five apps. The results
were compared, and then the tool was revised based
on the results.
Laura Northrop is an assistant professor in the
Department of Teacher Education at Cleveland State
University, OH, USA; email l.northrop@csuohio.edu.
Elena Andrei is an assistant professor in the Department
of Teacher Education at Cleveland State University, OH,
USA; email e.andrei@csuohio.edu.
1 doi:10.1002/trtr.1773   © 2018 International Literacy Association
 Feature Article

Effective Vocabulary Instruction language (L1; Wright, 2015) and the use of cognates
The first component of the evaluation tool exam- (Goldenberg, 2013). Finally, we included whether or
ines whether the app includes effective vocabulary not the app provides feedback to the learner.
practice instruction. Effective teaching of vocabu-
lary for ELs is similar to effective teaching of vo- Instructional Activities
cabulary for all students and includes both direct The second component of the tool is the type of instruc-
and indirect instruction (National Institute of Child tional activity the student encounters while using the
Health and Human Development, 2000; Taboada, app. Here, we included typical vocabulary activities
2009; Wright, 2015). Direct instruction needs to be such as matching, multiple-­choice questions, word
explicit (Taboada, 2009), system- blanks, f lashcards, true/false
atic (Wright, 2015), and intention-
PAUSE AND PONDER questions, word searches, and
al. In our evaluation of apps, we crosswords. We also included
considered direct instruction to three practices known to be ef-
be explicit if it provided a defini- ■ How do you currently teach
vocabulary? How do you fective for teaching vocabulary:
tion for the word and systematic if word mapping/­webbing, struc-
differentiate vocabulary instruction
the words in the same group were for ELs in your classroom? tural analysis, and translating
connected in a logical way (e.g., from one language to another
words about the same topic, such ■ How much vocabulary practice do
(Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton,
as space). Indirect instruction was your ELs get in your classroom? Are
they learning the new vocabulary? & Johnston, 2016; Goodwin &
incidental, and apps included in- Jiménez, 2016).
cidental instruction if students ■ Do your ELs know some of the words
encountered new words wh ile and concepts in their native
reading (National Institute of Child language? Are they using that to Effective Technology
Health and Human Development, their advantage to learn new Practices
2000; Taboada, 2009) but without vocabulary in English? Our tool includes four compo-
a formal definition. We also evalu- ■ How do you currently use technology nents to evaluate the technol-
ated the types of words the apps in your classroom? Does any of the ogy in the apps: features that
included, as ELs benefit from in- technology support students’ contribute to ease of use (C.-­Y.
struction on all three tiers of vo- vocabulary learning? Lee & Cherner, 2015), features
cabulary: Tier 1 (everyday), Tier ■ Think about your classroom routine. that enhance learning opportu-
2 (general academic), and Tier 3 What challenges to implementing nities, the level of interactivity
(content-­specific; Beck, McKeown, more independent, student-led the student has with the app
& Kucan, 2013). vocabulary learning can you (C.-­Y. Lee & Cherner, 2015), and
Multiple exposure to words is identify? how much the app augments
an important component of vocab- traditional instruction.
ulary learning (Blachowicz, Fisher, Some affordances to con-
Ogle, & Watts-­Taffe, 2006), and our tool evaluates for sider that enhance (or detract from) teacher and
multiple exposure in two ways. First, it asks wheth- student ease of use are whether the app has extra
er multiple exposure is built in, that is, if the student paid content, whether it requires each user to have
will encounter the same words multiple times with- an individual login, whether it records student data
in and across activities in the same app. Second, our (such that a teacher could later review the student’s
tool asks whether multiple exposure is self-­selected, performance), and whether it provides rewards for
that is, if the student has to intentionally select the making progress (e.g., badges, points).
same activity to see the same words. Incorporation of technology also allows for fea-
Our tool further evaluates apps on several key tures not found in traditional vocabulary instruc-
aspects of vocabulary instruction: use of visuals, tion. These include narration, animation, hot spots
use of example sentences, use of context clues, pre- (a link to additional content, either within the app,
teaching of the words prior to completing the activ- such as a word definition, or outside of the app, such
ity, and use of association (Blachowicz et al., 2006; C. as a website), recording your own voice, and input-
Lee, Roberts, & Coffey, 2017; Peregoy & Boyle, 2012; ting your own photos or other visuals (Vaala, Ly, &
Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Additionally, we included Levine, 2015). These affordances can be beneficial to
two practices specific to ELs: the use of their first ELs; for example, if students come to a word they do

2
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 0   No. 0   Month 0000literacyworldwide.org
 Feature Article

Figure 1
Vocabulary App Rubric

Effective practices Instructional activities Technology features

Yes No Yes No Yes No
Direct instruction Matching/multiple Extra paid content
(systematic) choice
Direct instruction Word blanks Records student data
(explicit)
Indirect instruction Flashcards Rewards for progress
Translating Sign-­in needed
sentences
Multiple exposure True/false
(self-­selected)
Multiple exposure Word search Narration
(built in)
Mapping or webbing Animation
Use of visuals Structural analysis Translates languages
Use of examples Crossword Record own voice
(sentences)
Use of L1 Hot spots
Use of context clues Input photos
Preteaching
Use of cognates No interactivity
Use of associations Low interactivity
High interactivity
Tier 1 words
Tier 2 words SAMR: Substitution
Tier 3 words SAMR: Augmentation
SAMR: Modification
Provides feedback SAMR: Replacement

Additional observations:

not know, the narration feature would allow them
to hear the word read out loud and thus allow them
to work more independently if that word is part
of their oral language. Additionally, our tool asks
whether or not the app will automatically translate
words into another language.
Next, our tool evaluates the level of interactivity
the student has while engaging with the app. No in-
teractivity means the app does not have any interac-
tive instructional activities and the student is pas-
sive while using the app. Low interactivity means
the app has only one type of instructional activity,
such as only allowing the student to complete word
searches or matching activities. High interactivity
means the app includes two or more different types
of activities for the student to complete.
Finally, technology allows for augmentation of tra-
ditional instruction. The Substitution, Augmentation,
Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) framework
(Puentedura, 2013) suggests four levels of technol-
ogy integration: substitution, in which the technol-
ogy is a direct substitute for the traditional activity;
augmentation, in which the technology is mostly a
substitute for the traditional activity but with some
functional improvement; modification, in which the
technology allows for significant task redesign; and

3
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 0   No. 0   Month 0000literacyworldwide.org
 Feature Article

redefinition, in which the technology creates new Table 1

tasks previously inconceivable. iPad Vocabulary Apps in Analysis

ABA Learn English With Films

Vocabulary App Evaluation Alphabet Organizer
We then tested our evaluation tool with 53 apps Aprender Ingles
available for iPads in Apple’s App Store. Our search Bluster!
process for apps was designed to mimic as closely as Busuu—Learn Languages English
possible the steps a classroom teacher is likely to take Doodle Hangman Free
when searching for iPad vocabulary apps. The first Drops: Learn 24 Languages
search used the term “vocabulary,” and the results Duolingo
were sorted by price, education category, and popu- Friendzy—Grade 1
Fun English Study Cat
larity. The second search used the term “TESOL,” and
iTouch Middle School
the results were sorted by price, education category,
Kahoot
and popularity. The third search examined the “Top Kids A–Z
Charts” in the education category for free apps. The Knowji Vocabulary Lite
last search included the list of apps that were recom- Learn English by Conversation
mended in the vocabulary category on the Reading Learn English Grammar (UK edition)
Rockets website. The word “ESL” was also used as a Learn English With Johnny Grammar
search term, but it did not return any relevant apps. Learn English, Speak English SpeakingPal
The first 20 apps that fit the inclusion criteria from Learn Languages With Rosetta Stone
each category were included for analysis. To be includ- Mad Libs
ed, an app must focus on vocabulary, be intended for Memrise
Middle School Vocabulary 7th grade
students at the third-­to eighth-­grade level, and be free.
Mondly: Learn 33 Languages
We included only free apps because we realized that
Mondly: Learn American English
many classroom teachers and schools might have a Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
limited budget and may not be able to use funds for Oxford English Dictionary 2017
educational apps. In all but the first search, which used Quizlet
“vocabulary” as the keyword, fewer than 20 apps met The Right Word
the inclusion criteria. The same searches were repeat- Vocab Genius
ed in February 2017, April 2017, and October 2017. In to- Vocabulary Builder
tal, 164 apps were examined. Of those, 63 fit the criteria Vocabulary Builder From Magoosh
to be included in the study and 53 were analyzed, after Vocabulary Builder Games Free
excluding apps with technology bugs such as not being Vocabulary Builder Level 1
Vocabulary Builder Level 2
able to be downloaded or not being able to open on the
Vocabulary Builder Level 3
iPad. Table 1 lists the apps included in our analysis. A
Vocabulary Builder Level 4
subset of the apps (20) were coded by two researchers, Vocabulary Builder Level 5
with an overall inter-­rater reliability of .90. Vocabulary Builder Level 6
Vocabulary Builder Level 7
Vocabulary Builder Level 8
Types of Apps Vocabulary Builder Level 9
Apps designed to teach vocabulary fell into five broad Vocabulary Builder Quiz Generator
categories: games (47%), language instruction (26%), Vocabulary Spelling City
word apps (13%), applications and practice (9%), and Word Jewels 2 Wordsearch
Word Jigsaw
e-­texts (4%). The games category included apps that
Word of the Day
focused primarily on teaching vocabulary through
Word Pash
games such as word searches or hangman. Language Word Runners
instruction apps were designed specifically to teach Word Search Little Books
English or another language. Word apps included Word Search Star
dictionaries and word-­of-­the-­day apps and primarily Word Search+
focused on providing a definition and/or an example Workabulary
for each word. Applications were apps that could be World’s Worst Pet Vocabulary

4
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 0   No. 0   Month 0000literacyworldwide.org
 Feature Article

modified to include teacher-­created sets of words; for
example, they allowed teachers to create their own vo-
cabulary flashcards. Finally, e-­text apps provided both
indirect vocabulary instruction through wide reading
on a variety of topics and embedded vocabulary words,
definitions, and a glossary for direct instruction.
Effective Vocabulary Instruction
Table 2 presents the percentage of apps that have the
features identified as best practices, instructional
activities, and technology features. Overall, few vo-
cabulary apps mimicked best practices in vocabulary
learning. Less than half of the apps included explicit
instruction, in which the app would provide a defini-
tion for the word (40%), or the use of built-­in multiple
exposure (32%), in which the student would practice
the same word more than once. The majority of the
apps also provided some sort of feedback (75%), al-
though this varied in depth. Some apps provided a
simple correct/incorrect response, whereas other
apps offered hints or explanations of the answer.
Additionally, approximately 42% of the apps used visu-
als to teach the words, whereas 30% of the apps used
example sentences. Largely absent from the apps were
the use of cognates, preteaching words prior to read-
ing, use of a student’s first language, use of context
clues, and use of connections or associations. In terms
of words taught, most apps that came with preload-
ed vocabulary words taught Tier 1 words (83%), 49%
taught Tier 2 words, and only 26% taught Tier 3 words.
Instructional Activities
There was not a large variety in the instructional
activities offered in the apps. The three primary

Table 2
Percentage of Features in Vocabulary Apps

Effective practices % Instructional activities % Technology features %

Direct instruction 70% Matching/multiple choice 63% Extra paid content 64%
(systematic)
Direct instruction (explicit) 40% Word blanks 23% Records student data 51%
Indirect instruction 9% Flashcards 19% Rewards for progress 36%
Translating sentences 13% Sign-­in needed 21%
Multiple exposure 55% True/false 9%
(self-­selected)
Multiple exposure (built in) 32% Word search 8% Narration 58%
Mapping or webbing 4% Animation 19%
Use of visuals 42% Structural analysis 0% Translates to other 15%
languages
Use of examples 30% Crossword 0% Record own voice 11%
(sentences)
Use of L1 19% Hot spots 8%
Use of context clues 13% Input photos 2%
Preteaching 11%
Use of cognates 4% No interactivity 8%
Use of associations 4% Low interactivity 66%
High interactivity 26%
Tier 1 words 83%
Tier 2 words 49% SAMR: Substitution 25%
Tier 3 words 26% SAMR: Augmentation 60%
SAMR: Modification 4%
Provides feedback 75% SAMR: Replacement 13%

5
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 0   No. 0   Month 0000literacyworldwide.org
 Feature Article
activities were matching or multiple choice (63%),
word blanks (23%), and flashcards (19%). Structural
analysis and word mapping/webbing, two power-
ful practices, were almost nonexistent as instruc-
tional activities. Translating from native language
to English (or vice versa) was present only in the
language apps, which were specifically designed to
teach a new language.
Effective Technology Practices
The vocabulary apps analyzed also had a variety of
technological features. Although we only evaluated
free apps, the majority of these apps (64%) offered
extra paid content. About half of the apps recorded
data such that the student or teacher could go back
into the app and see the progress made, although the
quality of the data varied across apps. Some apps
would record data on correct/incorrect concepts,
whereas other apps only recorded whether or not a
learning module was completed.
Features that could augment traditional learning
were relatively scarce, suggesting that the apps are
not as effective as they could be. Most apps included
narration (58%), but additional features for students
learning English—such as animation, automatic
translation of the text to a different language, the
ability to record your own voice or input your own
photos, and the use of hot spots to provide extra
free learning content—were largely absent from the
vocabulary apps.
In terms of interactivity, the apps were mostly
split between low interactivity (66%), in which the
app offered only one type of activity, and high inter-
activity (26%), in which the app offered two or more
types of activities. Eight percent of the apps includ-
ed no interactive activities at all.
Finally, we evaluated the apps using the SAMR
framework. We found that most apps (60%) aug-
mented traditional instruction, typically with
some narration function that could read the
words or text to the student. In general, it was
the ability to include narration, visuals, and in-
teractive practice that placed the apps in the aug-
mentation category. Twenty-­five percent of apps
acted as a direct substitution for the traditional
paper-­a nd-­p encil classroom version of the activ-
ity. We found few apps that acted to significantly
modify the learning experience. Thirteen percent
of apps acted as a replacement for traditional in-
struction; these were typically language instruc-
tion apps (e.g., Duolingo, Rosetta Stone) that were
6
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 0   No. 0   Month 0000literacyworldwide.org
prepackaged programs designed to teach English
(or another language).
Classroom Implications
Overall, we found in our analysis that vocabulary
apps do not generally follow effective practices and
thus need careful consideration before being imple-
mented in classrooms for use with ELs. There were
several common problems across the apps that made
them less effective, engaging, or useful, as well as
clunky to use. Common issues were apps that do not
allow the teacher to control the words the student is
working with, apps that do not record student prog-
ress, apps that do not provide explicit instruction in
word meanings, apps that do not provide multiple
exposure to new vocabulary in a variety of contexts,
and apps that have too little content.
However, there were many positives to the tech-
nology, including features such as narration of text,
interactive practice, use of visuals, voice recording,
and multiple exposure to vocabulary words. For ex-
ample, one app with high interactivity and built-­in
multiple exposure to vocabulary words was World’s
Worst Pet Vocabulary, in which students were
­g iven opportunities to match words to definitions,
match words to phrases, and identify synonyms
and antonyms after being taught word meanings
directly and explicitly. Although Quizlet requires
­
teachers to create their own vocabulary materials,
it allows students to have both direct instruction of
vocabulary words and multiple exposure with dif-
ferent types of activities and with the augmentation
of narration to hear the words and definitions out
loud. In addition, Quizlet has some vocabulary lists
already created by other users, which might allow
teachers to avoid starting from scratch.
Although we were disappointed overall in the
quality of vocabulary apps, the world of apps is rap-
idly changing, and teachers should not feel dissuad-
ed from using these apps in the classroom to en-
hance vocabulary instruction. New vocabulary apps
are being created at a quick pace, and even within
our nine-­month search period, we saw many apps
become defunct and new apps created. Many apps
were lacking in overall quality but still had some
usable features that would be beneficial to ELs. We
have included our database of reviewed apps in the
Appendix (available as supporting information for
the online version of this article) for teachers who
wish to search for apps by specific characteris-
tics. In addition, we recommend the following four
 Feature Article
practices for classroom teachers who would like to
use apps to bolster vocabulary instruction:
1. Try the app first before letting the students
use it. Even if you do not have time to com-
plete the formal evaluation of the app us-
ing the evaluation tool, a 3–5-minute tryout
should be enough to get the general gist of
the app. Look at the following key features in
a speedy evaluation: (a) Does the teacher con-
trol the words? (b) Does the app provide word
meanings? (c) Does the app provide interac-
tive games or other activities to apply the
words? (d) Does the app offer technology af-
fordances meaningful to ELs, such as the abil-
ity to narrate the words or translate the words
into the students’ native language?
2. Look for apps that allow you to create your own
word lists. Although these apps can be more
time consuming with the preparation involved,
they offer more extensive learning opportuni-
ties for ELs, such as learning important vocab-
ulary they might need for future lessons and
units. These apps could be also used as review
in which the students themselves can create
their own lists of words to practice. Apps that
can include customizable flashcards, which al-
low definitions, examples, and visuals, as well
as the use of the students’ native languages,
can be adapted to fit with any content area.
3. Think about the stage of English language
proficiency your students have and try to
match the type of app to their instructional
needs and their grade level. For example, if
students know very little English, they can
be paired with English-learning apps that fo-
cus on teaching basic English words such as
colors, clothing, and food items, in addition
to apps that expose them to rigorous grade-
level vocabulary. Students with more fluency
in English may benefit from apps that include
more academic language. All apps need to be
age appropriate; apps that target lower grade
levels are not appropriate for older ELs, even if
they contain language your older ELs might be
able to access.
4. Integrate vocabulary technology into all con-
tent areas. In addition to language arts, think
about ways technology can support the learn-
ing of academic vocabulary in your class-
room. Many apps group words systematically
by topic or can include customizable words.
7
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 0   No. 0   Month 0000literacyworldwide.org
TAKE ACTION!
1. Think about the ELs in your classroom. What is their
level of English language proficiency? What vocabu-
lary do they need to practice?
2. Explore four or five vocabulary apps using the vocabu-
lary app evaluation tool. Try to identify apps that you
can match to students’ instructional needs based on
their English proficiency and the vocabulary content
of units that you are teaching. You can use the data-
base (the Appendix) that we created for our evalu-
ation; in the database, an X means the app has that
feature.
3. Teach your students how to use the selected vocabu-
lary apps, creating procedures and routines to encour-
age independent use and learning with the apps.
Although we found vocabulary app quality to be
poor overall, there are several benefits to this type
of technology that make it possible, with careful
use, to bolster ELs’ vocabulary learning in the class-
room. A good vocabulary app used strategically, for
example, to preteach, practice, and review vocabu-
lary can be beneficial. The use of the app can be an
activity by itself planned for the day or an activity
that students can do at home or if they finish their
work early. Apps with narration and translating ca-
pacities can be used as a bridge between the stu-
dent’s native language and the English spoken in
the classroom. Finally, our findings may have impli-
cations beyond the classroom; app developers may
also find these criteria important when creating
new classroom vocabulary applications.
REFERENCES
Andrei, E. (2017). Technology in teaching English language
learners: The case of three middle school teachers. TESOL
Journal, 8(2), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.280
Bates, C.C., Klein, A., Schubert, B., McGee, L., Anderson, N.,
Dorn, L., … Ross, R.H. (2017). E-­ books and e-­ book apps:
Considerations for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher,
70(4), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1543
Baxa, J., & Christ, T. (2018). The DigiLit framework. The Reading
Teacher, 71(6), 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1660
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2016).
Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and
spelling instruction (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to
life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Blachowicz, C.L.Z., Fisher, P.J.L., Ogle, D., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2006).
Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(4), 524–539. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.4.5
 Feature Article
Cherner, T., & Fegely, A. (2018). Answering Damarin’s call: How
iOS apps approach diversity, equity, and multiculturalism.
International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20(1), 21–47.
https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1464
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English
learners: What we know—and don’t yet know—about
effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4–11.
Goodwin, A.P., & Jiménez, R. (2016). TRANSLATE: New strategic
approaches for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 69(6),
621–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1400
Guaqueta, C.A., & Castro-Garces, A.Y. (2018). The use of
language learning apps as a didactic tool for EFL vocabulary
building. English Language Teaching, 11(2), 61–71. https://doi.
org/10.5539/elt.v11n2p61
Lee, C., Roberts, C., & Coffey, D. (2017). Using purposefully
created stories to teach academic vocabulary. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 52(5), 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053
451216676802
Lee, C.-Y., & Cherner, T.S. (2015). A comprehensive evaluation
rubric for assessing instructional apps. Journal of Informa­
tion Technology Education: Research, 14, 21–53. https://doi.org/
10.28945/2097
Lesaux, N.K., & Kieffer, M.J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading
comprehension difficulties among language minority
learners and their classmates in early adolescence.
American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 596–632. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0002831209355469
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K.,
Rathbun, A., & Bullock Mann, F. (2018). The Condition of
Education 2018 (NCES 2018-144). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018144.pdf
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children
to read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Peregoy, S.F., & Boyle, O.F. (2012). Reading, writing, and learning in
ESL: A resource book for teaching K–12 English learners (6th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Puentedura, R.R. (2013). SAMR: A contextualized introduction.
Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/
2014/01/15/SAMRABriefContextualizedIntroduction.pdf
Roskos, K., Brueck, J., & Lenhart, L. (2017). An analysis of
e-­book learning platforms: Affordances, architecture,
functionality, and analytics. International Journal of Child-­
Computer Interaction, 12, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijcci.2017.01.003
Slama, R.B. (2014). Investigating whether and when English
learners are reclassified into mainstream classrooms
in the United States: A discrete-­ t ime survival analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 220–252. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0002831214528277
Stahl, S.A., & Fairbanks, M.M. (1986). The effects of
vocabulary instruction: A model-­ based meta-­ analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543056001072
Taboada, A. (2009). English language learners, vocabulary,
and reading comprehension: What we know and
what we need to know. In F. Falk-Ross, S. Szabo, M.B.
Sampson, & M.M. Foote (Eds.), College Reading Association
yearbook: Vol. 30. Literacy issues during changing times: A
call to action (pp. 307–322). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading
Association.
8
The Reading Teacher   Vol. 0   No. 0   Month 0000literacyworldwide.org
Vaala, S., Ly, A., & Levine, M.H. (2015). Getting a read on the app
stores: A market scan and analysis of children’s literacy apps. New
York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Vatalaro, A.A., Culp, A.M., Hahs-Vaughn, D.L., & Barnes,
A.C. (2018). A quasi-­ experiment examining expressive
and receptive vocabulary knowledge of preschool Head
Start children using mobile media apps. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 46(4), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10643-017-0877-3
Walter-Laager, C., Brandenberg, K., Tinguely, L., Schwarz,
J., Pfiffner, M.R., & Moschner, B. (2017). Media-­ assisted
language learning for young children: Effects of a word-­
learning app on the vocabulary acquisition of two-­year-­
olds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 1062–1072.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12472
Wright, W. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners:
Research, theory, policy, and practice (2nd ed.). Philadel­phia,
PA: Caslon.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in
the online version of this article at onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.1773/suppinfo:
■ Appendix: EL Vocabulary App Database
MORE TO EXPLORE
■■ Gallagher, M.A., & Anderson, B.E. (2016). Get all “ jazzed
up” for vocabulary instruction: Strategies that engage.
The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 273–282. https://doi.org/
10.1002/trtr.1498
■■ Kingsley, T.L., & Grabner-Hagen, M.M. (2018).
Vocabulary by gamification. The Reading Teacher,
71(5), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1645
■■ Nurmukhamedov, U. (2017). Lexical coverage of TED
Talks: Implications for vocabulary instruction. TESOL
Journal, 8(4), 768–790. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.323
■■ ¡Colorín Colorado! is a website that features articles
for teachers on a variety of topics about ELs. This
webpage is on vocabulary for ELs: http://www.
colorincolorado.org/article/best-practice-ells-vocabulary-
instruction.
■■ Larry Ferlazzo is a high school EL teacher from
California who has a very active blog. This section of
the blog is on language and vocabulary: http://
larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/category/vocabulary/.
■■ The Understanding Language website, provided by
the Stanford Graduate School of Education, features
papers and videos from experts in teaching ELs,
including papers and video on language: http://ell.
stanford.edu/papers/language.