Classroom Vocabulary Assessment for Content

Areas
By: Katherine A. Dougherty Stahl, Marco A. Bravo

What are some ways that we can gauge vocabulary development in the content areas? In this article,
the authors explain how the intricacies of word knowledge make assessment difficult, particularly
with content area vocabulary. They suggest ways to improve assessments that more precisely track
students' vocabulary growth across the curriculum, including English language learners.
Osa (all names are pseudonyms) teaches third grade in a high-poverty urban setting with a diverse
population that includes a majority of children of color and a high percentage of English-language
learners (ELLs). During the most recent school year, she instructed vocabulary in a deliberate way
during the literacy block and content area instruction. In light of the increased time and attention to
vocabulary instruction, she felt confident that her students had increased word knowledge and word
consciousness.
However, Osa was disappointed and discouraged by the outcomes of the yearly standardized
assessment used by her district, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). Her students' scores on the
vocabulary sub-test did not indicate any significant gains from their previous year's scores.
She knew that her students had increased knowledge about words, but she wanted quantitative
evidence of that increased knowledge. If the standardized test scores did not demonstrate growth, was
this instruction worth the time invested? What might be other evidence-based ways to document her
students' growth?

"But the words I taught weren't on the test"

Vocabulary instruction plays an essential role during both literacy and disciplinary area instruction.
Vocabulary knowledge is inextricably linked to reading comprehension and conceptual knowledge
(Anderson & Freebody, 1985). The content disciplines are particularly rich areas for vocabulary
development. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) referred to disciplinary vocabulary for which the
concept is unknown as tier 3 words. Teaching tier 3 vocabulary requires situating the word within a
system of ideas to be developed (Stahl & Nagy, 2006).
One of the challenges of teaching disciplinary vocabulary effectively is the paucity of available,
classroom-friendly vocabulary assessments that can be used to inform instruction and to measure
vocabulary growth, especially with the fastest growing sector of the school-age population ELLs
(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2007).
Often vocabulary is assessed at the end of a unit using a multiple-choice task, a fill-in-the-blank task
or matching task. These modes of vocabulary assessment are shallow metrics of possible word
knowledge. Further, more general measures such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III)
or large-scale standardized tests that are used to compare students' vocabulary scores with a
psychometrically derived norm are not helpful in informing instruction or sensitive to students'
knowledge of lexical nuances.
What are some ways that we can gauge vocabulary development in the content areas? In this article,
we articulate how the intricacies of word knowledge make assessment difficult, particularly with
disciplinary vocabulary. Next we address some considerations in improving teacher-made vocabulary
tests and evaluating commercially produced tests.
We introduce a collection of techniques that teachers can adapt to provide evidence of vocabulary
knowledge and vocabulary growth in the content areas that are appropriate for English-Only (EO)
students and ELLs. We close with final thoughts for Osa and other teachers to encourage the
development of contemporary content area vocabulary assessments that more precisely track students'
vocabulary growth across the curriculum.
Back to top

The intricacies of word knowledge

Theoretical Underpinnings
The report of the National Reading Panel (NRP; National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development [NICHD], 2000) and the implementation of No Child Left Behind resulted in an
emphasis on the five pillars of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension. This emphasis has included a push to measure students' growth in each of these areas.
Commercially produced assessments of phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency have proliferated.
However, it is more challenging to find vocabulary and comprehension assessments that adhere to a
conceptually rich construct that can serve as an instructional compass. This might be explained by
Paris's (2005) interpretation of the five pillars within a developmental frame. Phonemic awareness,

phonics, and fluency are considered constrained because they are fairly linear and students develop
mastery levels (test ceilings) within a few years.
Alternatively, vocabulary and comprehension are multidimensional, incremental, context dependent,
and develop across a lifetime. As a result, they simply do not lend themselves to simplistic, singular
measures (NICHD, 2000; Paris, 2005). Our discussion addresses the unconstrained nature of
vocabulary knowledge and describes some assessments that are suited to a complex theoretical
construct.

What Does It Mean to Know a Word?

Knowing a word involves more than knowing a word's definition (Johnson & Pearson, 1984; Nagy &
Scott, 2000). Word knowledge is multifaceted and can be characterized in various ways. Some facets
of this complexity include (a) incrementality, (b) multidimensionality, and (c) receptive/productive
duality.
Knowing a word is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Word learning happens incrementally; with
each additional encounter with a word, depth of understanding accrues. Dale (1965) posited the
existence of (at least) four incremental stages of word knowledge:

Stage 1: Never having seen the term before

Stage 2: Knowing there is such a word, but not knowing what it means
Stage 3: Having context-bound and vague knowledge of the word's meaning
Stage 4: Knowing the word well and remembering it

The final stage of Dale's conceptualization of word knowledge can be further broken down into
additional stages, including the ability to name other words related to the word under study and
knowing precise versus general word knowledge.
Instead of stages, Beck, McKeown, and Omanson, (1987) referred to a person's word knowledge as
falling along a continuum. These include (a) no knowledge of the term, (b) general understanding, (c)
narrow but context-bound understanding, such as knowing that discriminate means to pay special
attention to subtle differences and exercise judgment about people but unable to recognize that the
term could also be used to refer to singling out sounds in phonemic awareness activities, (d) having
knowledge of a word but not being able to recall it readily enough to use it appropriately, and (e)
decontextualized knowledge of a word's meaning, its relationship to other words, and extensions to
metaphorical uses.
Bravo and Cervetti (2008) posited a similar continuum for content area vocabulary. These points on a
continuum can range from having no control of a word (where students have never seen or heard the
word) to passive control (where students can decode the term and provide a synonym or basic
definition) and finally active control (where students can decode the word, provide a definition,
situate it in connection to other words in the discipline, and use it in their oral and written
communications).
For example, some students may have never heard the term observe while others may have a general
gist or passive control of the term and be able to mention its synonym see. Yet others may have active
control and be able to recognize that to observe in science means to use any of the five senses to
gather information and these students would be able to use the term correctly in both oral and written
form. Such active control exemplifies the kind of contextual and relational understanding that

characterizes conceptual understanding. Word knowledge is a matter of degree and can grow over
time. Incremental knowledge of a word occurs with multiple exposures in meaningful contexts.

"For each exposure, the child learns a little about the word, until the child develops a full and flexible
knowledge about the word's meaning. This will include definitional aspects, such as the category to which it
belongs and how it differs from other members of the category It will also contain information about the
various context in which the word was found, and how the meaning differed in the different contexts." (Stahl &
Stahl, 2004, p. 63)

Along the stages and continuum put forth by Beck et al. (1987), Bravo and Cervetti (2008), and Dale
(1965), respectively, there are also qualitative dimensions of word knowledge. Multidimensionality
aspects of word knowledge can include precise usage of the term, fluent access, and appreciation of
metaphorical use of the term (Calfee & Drum, 1986).
Understanding that a term has more than one meaning and understanding those meanings is yet
another dimension of word knowledge. Multiple meaning words abound in the English language.
Johnson, Moe, and Baumann (1983) found that among the identified 9,000 critical vocabulary words
for elementary-grade students, 70% were polysemous, or had more than one meaning.
Within content areas, polysemous words such as property, operation, and current often carry an
everyday meaning and a more specialized meaning within the discipline. Understanding the shades of
meanings of multimeaning words involves a certain depth of knowledge of that word.
Additional dimensions of word knowledge include lexical organization, which is the consideration of
the relationship a word might have with other words (Johnson & Pearson, 1984; Nagy & Scott, 2000,
Qian, 2002). Students' grasp of one word is linked to their knowledge of other words. In fact, learning
the vocabulary of a discipline should be thought of as learning about the interconnectedness of ideas
and concepts indexed by words. Cronbach (1942) encapsulated many of these dimensions, including
the following:

Generalization: The ability to define a word

Application: Selecting an appropriate use of the word
Breadth: Knowledge of multiple meanings of the word
Precision: The ability to apply a term correctly to all situations
Availability: The ability to use the word productively

Cronbach's (1942) final dimension leads us into the last facet of word knowledge, the
receptive/productive duality. Receptive vocabulary refers to words students understand when they
read or hear them. Productive vocabulary, on the other hand, refers to the words students can use
correctly when talking or writing. Lexical competence for many develops from receptive to
productive stages of vocabulary knowledge.
Vocabulary knowledge is multifaceted. Word knowledge is acquired incrementally. At each stage or
point on a continuum of word knowledge, students might be familiar with the term, know words
related to the term, or have flexibility with using it in both written and oral form. It is clear that to
know a word is more than to know its definition. Teaching and testing definitions of words looks
much different than contemporary approaches to instruction and assessment that consider
incrementality, multidimensionality, and the students' level of use.

Back to top

Vocabulary assessment considerations

Approaches to Vocabulary Assessment
Assessments may emphasize the measurement of vocabulary breadth or vocabulary depth. As defined
by Anderson and Freebody (1981), vocabulary breadth refers to the quantity of words for which
students may have some level of knowledge. Multiple-choice tests at the end of units or standardized
tests tend to measure breadth only. The breadth of the test itself may be extremely selective if it is
testing only the knowledge of words from a particular story, a science unit, or some passive
understanding of the word like a basic definition or synonym.
Furthermore, the breadth of the test is wider if testing students' knowledge of words learned across the
year in all science units, for example, as might be found in a mandated state standardized test.
However, even this is less comprehensive than a test like the PPVT-III or the ITBS, tests that choose a
sample of words from a wide corpus. Vocabulary depth refers to how much students know about a
word and the dimensions of word learning addressed previously.

Assessment Dimensions
As with any test, it is important to determine whether the vocabulary test's purpose is in alignment
with each stakeholder's purpose. It is likely that this is the reason that Osa felt frustrated. The primary
purpose of the ITBS is to look at group trends. Although it provides insights about students' receptive
vocabulary compared with a group norm, it cannot be used to assess students' depth of knowledge
about a specific disciplinary word corpus or to measure a students' ability to use vocabulary in
productive ways.
In other words, current standardized measures are not suited to teachers' purpose of planning
instruction or monitoring students' disciplinary vocabulary growth in both receptive and productive
ways, or in a manner to capture the various multifaceted aspects of knowing a word (e.g., polysemy,
interrelatedness, categorization; NICHD, 2000).
Read (2000) developed three continua for designing and evaluating vocabulary assessments. His work
is based on an evaluation of vocabulary assessments for ELLs, but the three assessment dimensions
are relevant to all vocabulary assessments. These assessment dimensions can be helpful to teachers in
evaluating the purposes and usefulness of commercial assessments or in designing their own
measures.
DiscreteEmbedded
At the discrete end of the continuum, we have vocabulary treated as a separate subtest or isolated set
of words distinct from each word's role within a larger construct of comprehension, composition, or
conceptual application. Alternatively, a purely embedded measure would look at how students
operationalize vocabulary in a holistic context and a vocabulary scale might be one measure of the
larger construct.

For example, Blachowicz and Fisher's (2006) description of anecdotal record keeping is an example
of an embedded measure. Throughout a content unit, a teacher keeps notes on vocabulary use by the
students. Those notes are then transferred to a checklist that documents whether students applied the
word in discussion, writing, or on a test. See Table 1 for a sample teacher checklist of geometry terms.
Even if words are presented in context, measures can be considered discrete measures if they are not
using the vocabulary as part of a larger disciplinary knowledge construct. The 2009 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) framework assumes an embedded approach (National
Assessment Governing Board [NAGB], 2009). Vocabulary items are interspersed among the
comprehension items and viewed as part of the comprehension construct, but a vocabulary subtest
score is also reported.
SelectiveComprehensive
The smaller the set of words from which the test sample is drawn, the more selective the test. If
testing the vocabulary words from one story, assessment is at the selective end of the continuum.
However, tests such as the ITBS select from a larger corpus of general vocabulary and are considered
to be at the comprehensive end of this continuum.
In between and closer to the selective end would be a basal unit test or a disciplinary unit test. Further
along the continuum toward comprehensive would be the vocabulary component of a state criterion
referenced test in a single discipline.
Context-IndependentContext-Dependent
In its extreme form, context-independent tests simply present a word as an isolated element. However,
this dimension has more to do with the need to engage with context to derive a meaning than simply
how the word is presented. In multiple-choice measures that are context-dependent, all choices
represent a possible definition of the word. Students need to identify the correct definition reflecting
the word's use in a particular text passage.
Typically, embedded measures require the student to apply the word appropriately for the embedded
context. Test designers for the 2009 NAEP were deliberate in selecting polysemous items and
constructing distractors that reflect alternative meanings for each assessed word (NAGB, 2009).
Back to top

Three classroom assessments

We intend that our selected assessments be used as a pretest and posttest providing a means of
informing instruction as well as documenting vocabulary development during a relatively limited
instructional time frame. There is empirical support for all three tasks (Bravo, Cervetti, Hiebert &
Pearson, 2008; Stahl, 2008; Wesche & Paribakht, 1996). These studies applied the assessment to
content area vocabulary, but each may be adapted to conceptual vocabulary within a literature theme.
They are all appropriate for use with EO students and ELLs. Table 2 categorizes each assessment
using Qian's (2002) Vocabulary Knowledge Dimensions and Read's (2000) Assessment Dimensions.

Vocabulary Knowledge Scale

The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) is a self-report assessment that is consistent with Dale's
(1965) incremental stages of word learning. Wesche and Paribakht (1996) applied the VKS with ELL
students in a university course. They found that the instrument was useful in reflecting shifts on a selfreport scale and sensitive enough to quantify incremental word knowledge gains.
The VKS is not designed to tap sophisticated knowledge or lexical nuances of a word in multiple
contexts. It combines students' self-reported knowledge of a word in combination with a constructed
response demonstrating knowledge of each target word. Students identify their level of knowledge
about each teacher-selected word. The VKS format and scoring guide fall into the following five
categories:
1. I don't remember having seen this word before. (1 point)
2. I have seen this word before, but I don't think I know what it means. (2 points)
3. I have seen this word before, and I think it means __________. (Synonym or translation; 3
points)
4. I know this word. It means _______. (Synonym or translation; 4 points)
5. I can use this word in a sentence: ___________. (If you do this section, please also do category
4; 5 points).
Any incorrect response in category 3 yields a score of 2 points for the total item even if the student
attempted category 4 and category 5 unsuccessfully. If the sentence in category 5 demonstrates the
correct meaning but the word is not used appropriately in the sentence context, a score of 3 is given.
A score of 4 is given if the wrong grammatical form of the target word is used in the correct context.
A score of 5 reflects semantically and grammatically correct use of the target word. The VKS is
administered as a pretest before the text or unit is taught and then after instruction to assess growth.
One important finding of Wesche and Paribakht's (1996) study of the VKS was the high correlation
between the students' self-report of word knowledge and the actual score for demonstrated knowledge
of the word. Correlations of perceived knowledge and attained scores for four content area themes
were all above .95. This should help alleviate concerns about incorporating measures of self-reported
vocabulary knowledge.
In addition, Wesche and Paribakht (1996) tested reliability for the VKS in their study of ELLs with
wide-ranging levels of proficiency using a test-retest format. Although we cannot generalize to other
vocabulary knowledge rating scales, Wesche and Paribakht obtained a high test-retest correlation
above .8. Such a tool can potentially account for the confounding factors of many vocabulary
measures, including literacy dependency and cultural bias.
Table 1: Design Features of Highlighted Assessments
Qian's
(2002)
Assessments vocabulary
knowledge
dimensions

Read's
Read's (2000)
(2000)
assessment
assessment
dimensions
dimensions

Read's
(2000)
assessment
dimensions

Vocabulary
Knowledge
Scale

Depth

Discrete

Selective

Contextindependent

Vocabulary
Recognition
Task

Size, depth,
lexical
Discrete
organization

Selective

Contextdependent

Vocabulary
Assessment
Magazine

Size, depth,
productive Embedded
knowledge

Comprehensive

Contextdependent

It is possible to modify the VKS to assess the key vocabulary in content area units in elementary
classrooms for even the youngest students. Blachowicz and Fisher (2006) applied the principles of the
VKS in a table format making it possible to assess a larger number of words. Kay (first author)
used the Native American Home VKS (see Figure 1) as a pretest with her second-grade class. As a
posttest, she used the VKS in conjunction with Figure 2, which required students to specify the tribe
and resource materials used to build the home and to compose an illustration of the home.
Figure 1: Native American Home VKS Pretest

Vocabulary
words

I have Never
heard of this
Native
American
dwelling.

I have heard
of this kind of
home, but I
can't tell you
much about
it.

I can tell you

what this home
looks like and the
materials used to
make it.

Wigwam
Apartment
Longhouse
Tipi/teepee
Brush lodge
Asi
Figure 2: Native American Home VKS Pretest
Vocabulary
words
Wigwam
Apartment
Longhouse
Tipi/teepee
Brush lodge

Name of the
tribe who once
lived in this
home

Resources used
to make this
home

Draw a quick
picture of this
home

Asi

Vocabulary Recognition Task

The Vocabulary Recognition Task (VRT) is a teacher-constructed yes-no task used to estimate
vocabulary recognition in a content area (Stahl, 2008). Like the VKS, it combines self-report with
demonstrated knowledge. Stahl applied the VRT with second graders reading at a mid-first-grade
level. The purpose was to identify content-related words that the students could both read and
associate with a unit of study.
In the study, each VRT consisted of a list of 25 words; 18 of the words were related to the content in
each of four themed science units and 7 words were unrelated foils. See Figure 3 for a sample VRT
comprised of vocabulary associated with the insect unit. Students circled the words that they were
able to read and that were related to the topic. As a posttest, students completed the VRT and
categorized the selected words under provided headings on a concept web (see Figure 4).
Figure 3: VRT
Figure 4: VRT Concept Web
Anderson and Freebody's (1983) correction formula was applied to obtain a score that adjusts for
possible guessing. A student scored a "hit" (H) when the word was circled correctly or a "false alarm"
(FA) if an unrelated word was incorrectly circled. The proportion of words truly known, P(K), was
determined with the following formula:

P(K) = P(H) - P(FA) / 1 - P(FA)

Webs received two scores, (1) total number of words correctly sorted by category and (2) percentage
of words correctly selected on VRT that were correctly sorted by category.
The VRT requires teachers to select a bank of words that students are held accountable for in a
content unit, thus measuring breadth of vocabulary knowledge on a topic. Using correlations with
other vocabulary tests, Anderson and Freebody (1983) determined that the yes-no task is a reliable
and valid measure of vocabulary assessment. They found that it provides a better measure of student
knowledge than a multiple-choice task, particularly for younger students.
Teachers of novice readers know how important it is for them to be able to independently read words
encountered in content units, something taken for granted with older students. This assessment is
more adaptable to a larger corpus of target words than the VKS. The web that is included as part of
the posttest provides a lens for depth of knowledge and lexical organization (Qian, 2002). Its
simplicity also makes it a user-friendly format for ELLs.
Kay also used the VRT regularly in her second-grade classroom. Because the social studies and
science units were more in depth than the mini-units in the research project (Stahl, 2008), the
classroom VRT typically contained a total of 33 words: 25 hits and 8 foils. When using the VRT in

the classroom, a
simple scoring
system was used, H FA or the percentage
of correct responses.
For classroom use,
the web score was
simply the total
number of words
placed correctly in
each category.
Using the VRT as a
pretest allows
teachers to
determine which
words are known
and unknown. As a
result, less
instructional time
can be devoted to
known words while
providing more
intense instruction to
less familiar
vocabulary.
In addition to
learning about the
students' vocabulary
growth, the VRT
posttest can assess
our teaching. An
interesting first-year
consequence was
discovering that
there were weak pockets of instruction. For example, at the conclusion of the state-mandated unit on
Australia the students did very well webbing animals and geographic regions of Australia. However,
most students had less success webbing people and foods associated with Australia. This was a clear
indication that the instruction and materials on these subtopics needed bolstering.

Vocabulary Assessment Magazine

The Vocabulary Assessment Magazine (VAM) was originally created to measure students' science
knowledge, comprehension strategy use, and reading comprehension of science texts. Incidentally, as
the analysis of the findings from this measure began, we noted that second-and third-grade students
were using the science words in their responses to open-ended questions and were doing so with
higher frequency at posttest than pretest (see Bravo et al., 2008).

Students were not

prompted to use the
science vocabulary
in their responses
during the time they
completed the VAM.
The words noted in
students' responses
included two types
of words: (1) science
inquiry, words that
describe aspects of
scientific
investigations such
as observe, evidence,
investigate, and
predict, like those
found in Beck et al.'s
(2002) tier 2 words
and (2) science
concept (e.g.,
organism, erosion,
shoreline, and
adaptation), words
that Beck et al.
would categorize as
tier 3 words. Tier 3
words require
conceptual
development within
a disciplinary
construct.
There are two main parts to the VAM. The first includes brief reading passages with open-ended
literacy questions pertaining to the passage. The open-ended questions associated with the passage
prompted students to use comprehension strategies (e.g., making predictions, posing questions,
making inferences, summarizing) and text feature (use of illustrations) knowledge.
The second part of the assessment is made up largely of science knowledge items. In Figure 5,
students are asked to draw and label two different types of roots and write a sentence about their
drawings. Drawing and labeling are literacy practices germane to the scientific enterprise, and the
reason for their presence in the VAM is to measure students' science knowledge.
Figure 5: Vocabulary Assessment Magazine Items
Another item, from a physical science unit, prompts students to "draw and describe the steps you
would take to design a new kind of ice cream using flavorings, milk, and sugar as the main
ingredients." These item types lend themselves to students' usage of both science inquiry and science
concepts terminology, as they describe both a process and a larger scientific concept.

The analysis of the

703 VAMs
completed by
second-and thirdgrade students
involved a frequency
of word use.
Statistically
significant results
were found for EO
students and ELLs in
the sample. On
average, students
were using 2.76
more science
vocabulary at
posttest than pretest.
Gauging students'
depth of word
knowledge was
possible through this
alternative
vocabulary
assessment that
involved students
with authentic literacy practices used by the scientific community.
Although our research analysis addressed students' vocabulary use in the short-answer and openended questions in response to short, unfamiliar texts only, classroom teachers might consider
additional practical applications of this format to assess vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary frequency
counts might be performed on students' responses to open-ended or essay questions on more
traditional pre- and post-unit tests.
In addition, teachers can consider honoring students' approximations of terminology, perhaps
assigning partial credit for imprecise use. The reason for assigning partial credit even for approximate
uses is that if we consider Cronbach's (1942) receptive/productive duality using a term, albeit
incorrectly, is more than having receptive knowledge of the term and it is through use that we sharpen
our understanding of vocabulary. Second, because one aspect of the multidimensionality of
vocabulary knowledge is interrelatedness, it would be useful to note which additional vocabulary
students used in concert.
Important considerations when implementing a format like the VAM to measure vocabulary
knowledge include (a) insuring student access to any texts that students are asked to read and respond
to, (b) documenting both inquiry and core conceptual vocabulary, (c) assuring that students have
ample opportunities to use these terms in their responses, and (d) focusing on a core set of vocabulary
words that can be taught extensively and to the point where students feel confident using them in oral
and written form. A final consideration, although not a part of the design of the original VAM, is
prompting students to use the vocabulary of the content.

Implementing a Content Vocabulary Assessment System

We recommend that grade-level teams of teachers work together to identify a list of targeted
conceptual vocabulary and inquiry-process words for each disciplinary unit. This list should include
words that are essential for understanding the conceptual ideas and engaging in disciplinary activities
within the unit. They are likely to be words that students will be held accountable for on assessments
driven by the state standards. The words are pretested before the unit, posted on a content area word
wall, deliberately taught, used (by both student and teacher) multiple times throughout the unit, and
posttested at the conclusion of the unit (Stahl & Nagy, 2006).
In keeping with NRP recommendations (NICHD, 2000), teachers should use multiple measures to
capture the multidimensionality of students' vocabulary knowledge. One possible system might be to
use a general measure such as the VRT consistently for several units and to supplement it with more
in-depth measures specific to disciplinary vocabulary (e.g., VAM, VKS, checklists of students' word
use in oral or written form) that could be strategically developed over time in a phased approach.
Back to top

Where do we go from here?

We hope that we have provided useful suggestions for guiding Osa and other classroom teachers to
document their students' content area vocabulary development. The measures that we provided as
examples are to be viewed as a starting point for creating one's own assessment system, with attention
to theoretical considerations. These types of measures are in keeping with the NRP's determination
that current standardized measures lack sensitivity, provide only a baseline measure of global
vocabulary knowledge, and that in practice, teacher-generated instruments are recommended
(NICHD, 2000).
Although researchers are working to improve standardized measures, teachers can feel confident in
taking an assertive stance in developing vocabulary assessments based on their own curriculum needs.
In the words of the NRP, "the more closely assessment matches the instructional context, the more
appropriate the conclusions about the instruction will be" (NICHD, 2000, 4.26).
Back to top

About the authors

Stahl teaches at New York University, USA; e-mail kay.stahl@nyu.edu. Bravo teaches at Santa Clara
University, California, USA; e-mail mbravo@scu.edu.
Back to top
References

References
Click the "References" link above to hide these references.
Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J.T. Guthrie (Ed.),
Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77117). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. (1983). Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition
of word knowledge. In B. Hutson (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research (pp. 231256).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. (1985). Vocabulary knowledge. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 343371). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Omanson, R.C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary
instructional techniques. In M.G. McKeown & M.E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary
acquisition (pp. 147163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Fisher, P.J. (2006). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Bravo, M.A., & Cervetti, G.N. (2008). Teaching vocabulary through text and experience in content
areas. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction
(pp. 130149). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Bravo, M.A., Cervetti, G.N., Hiebert, E.H., & Pearson, P.D. (2008). From passive to active control of
science vocabulary (56th yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 122135). Chicago:
National Reading Conference.
Calfee, R.C., & Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (pp. 804849). New York: Macmillan.
Cronbach, L.J. (1942). Measuring knowledge of precise word meaning. The Journal of Educational
Research, 36(7), 528534.
Dale, E. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elementary English, 42
(8), 895901.
Johnson, D.D., Moe, A.J., & Baumann, J.F. (1983). The Ginn word book for teachers: A basic
lexicon. Boston: Ginn.
Johnson, D.D., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Nagy, W.E., & Scott, J.A. (2000). Vocabulary Processing. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269274). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2009). Reading framework for the 2009 National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved December 29, 2009, from
www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/reading09.pdf
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2007). National Clearinghouse for
English Language Acquisition Report: NCELA frequently asked questions. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved October 2, 2007, from www.ncela.gwu.edu/faqs
National Institute of Child Health and Human, Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading
Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington,
DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Paris, S.G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40
(2), 184202. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.2.3
Qian, D.D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic
reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513536.
doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00193
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, K.A.D. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods on the reading comprehension and
content acquisition of novice readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(3), 359393.
doi:10.1080/10862960802520594
Stahl, S.A., & Nagy, W.E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stahl, S.A., & Stahl, K.A.D. (2004). Word wizards all! Teaching word meanings in preschool and
primary education. In J.F. Baumann & E.J. Kame'enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to
practice (pp. 5978). New York: Guilford.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T.S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth
versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 1340.
Dougherty Stahl, K.A., & Bravo, M.A. (2010, April). Contemporary Classroom Vocabulary
Assessment for Content Areas. The Reading Teacher, 63 (7), 566578. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.7.4

Reprints
For any reprint requests, please contact the author or publisher listed.
"The things I want to know are in books. My best friend is the man who'll get me a book I [haven't]
read." Abraham Lincoln