Multilingual Learners
Multilingual learners (MLs), referred to in U. S. code as English learners (ELs), are “all children and youth who are, or have been, consistently exposed to multiple languages” (WIDA, 2020). They are the fastest-growing group of students in U.S. schools, representing about 5 million, or 10.6% of students (NCES, 2024). They are a diverse group of learners, speaking languages including Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Vietnamese. Literacy instruction must include and supports MLs, building on their existing language knowledge. Research on MLs shows that building upon similarities between languages when teaching new vocabulary makes the existing language knowledge a powerful asset, rather than a barrier (Odlin, 1989).
Vocabulary Knowledge and Academic Development of MLs
Vocabulary knowledge is a key predictor of reading comprehension for MLs, as research consistently shows that larger vocabularies strongly support meaning‑making and overall reading performance (Wright & Cervetti, 2016). Studies focused on MLs also demonstrate that academic vocabulary growth directly contributes to improvements in their reading comprehension and engagement (Gallagher et al., 2023).
However, MLs show slower vocabulary and academic language development than their monolingual peers, with persistent gaps even after several years of English education. Long-term research demonstrates that, even after six years of English schooling, MLs have not fully closed vocabulary gaps (Farnia & Geva, 2011). Additional studies confirm that MLs require more time to develop vocabulary breadth, academic vocabulary, morphological skills, and listening comprehension, all of which contribute to slower academic growth compared to their monolingual peers (Wong & Butler, 2012).
Morphology is the study of meaningful word parts—roots, prefixes, and suffixes—that combine to form new words, and teaching students to analyze morphemes helps them make sense of unfamiliar academic vocabulary while growing both breadth (more words) and depth (richer knowledge) (Bowers et al., 2010; Carlisle, 2000; Sparks & Deacon, 2013). Across multiple reviews and classroom studies, explicit morphology instruction contributes to reliable gains in vocabulary and reading, with notably strong benefits for MLs and other striving readers (Goodwin & Ahn, 2010; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012). Recent syntheses continue to find small‑to‑moderate improvements at the word level when morphology is taught as part of comprehensive literacy instruction (Colenbrander et al., 2024).
Morphology instruction is important because it increases phonological awareness, morphological awareness, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and spelling for MLs (August et al., 2003; García et al., 2020; Nagy et al., 1997). These findings underscore the importance of integrating morphology into everyday vocabulary instruction, especially as a way to help MLs approach unfamiliar academic words with confidence.
Implementing Morphology and Vocabulary Instruction
Research recommends explicitly teaching academic language, building background knowledge, using visual supports, providing scaffolding, and integrating oral and written practice when teaching academic content and literacy to MLs (What Works Clearinghouse, 2014). To maximize instructional effectiveness, teachers can follow these practical steps when implementing morphology and vocabulary instruction:
Teach vocabulary intensely several days a week.
Using explicit instruction, teach students how to identify word parts and break long words down into individual morphemes.
Explicitly teach roots, prefixes, and suffixes to students.
Preview key vocabulary and word parts before reading to allow students to explore word meanings and structures before encountering them in text.
Use visuals and multimodal presentations so learners can associate morphemes with word meanings (i.e., pictures, drawings, real objects).
Use graphic organizers and word-study tools to guide learners to break down words into parts and identify their meanings.
Provide repeated and varied word exposure opportunities. After explicitly teaching words and their parts, encourage students to use new complex words in writing, speaking, discussion, and other academic tasks.
In addition, research recommends using shared words between languages, or cognates, in improving second language reading (Moughamian et al., 2009).
Cognates
Cognates are words in two languages that share similar spelling, pronunciation, and meaning (Honig et al., 2018). For example, the words “transportation” in English and “transportación” in Spanish look similar, and they both refer to the act of movement from one place to another. Cognates are common in language pairings such as English and Spanish, as they share the same Latinate origin (Hout et al., 2023).
The use of cognates in English language vocabulary instruction can improve MLs’ second language reading (Moughamian et al., 2009). For example, Spanish speakers can use roots or affixes shared between English and Spanish words (e.g., “trans” and “port” in “transportation” and “transportación”) to determine the meaning of new words. Identifying roots and affixes from their home language strengthens students’ word recognition skills in English.
Language transfer research explains why this strategy of using shared words or cognates is effective. MLs draw on similarities between known and unknown languages to improve vocabulary and comprehension (Odlin, 1989). Research shows that shared words/cognates are processed more efficiently than non‑cognates because similarities in form and meaning facilitate positive lexical transfer and allow learners to connect new English vocabulary to existing linguistic knowledge (Helms‑Park & Dronjic, 2016; Odlin, 1989). Furthermore, research shows that cognate recognition supports reading comprehension among MLs, especially when the text includes a high density of cognate words (Nagy et al., 1997).
Consider the following tips when using cognates.
Cognates are not the same. Cognates have different categories (Honig et al., 2018).
Cognates that are spelled identically (e.g., “doctor” in both English and Spanish)
Cognates that are spelled nearly the same (e.g., “class” in English and “clase” in Spanish)
Cognates that are pronounced nearly the same (e.g., “peace” in English and “paz” in Spanish)
In addition, ensure that students are aware of false cognates, or two words in different languages that are similar in form or sound but have different meanings. They can have identical spelling, such as “pan” (meaning a utensil for cooking) in English and “pan” (meaning bread) in Spanish. Or they can have similar spelling, such as “exit” (meaning the act of going out) in English and “éxito” (meaning success) in Spanish. Use false cognates as a fun way to teach students to check meaning in context.
Use of cognates is not automatic. Cognate recognition is not automatic for all MLs, and Spanish bilinguals in particular. Many students require explicit instruction to recognize cognates (Nagy et al., 1997). Even for strong readers, cognates may not be automatically noticed (García et al., 2020). Below are tips for using cognates in the classroom based on García et al. (2020).
Encourage students to notice and compare words. Translation and glossaries can be helpful.
Provide ML students with written cognate definitions and examples or ask students to write down cognates they find in a notebook.
Model how to use cognates to identify the meaning of unknown words.
Incorporate cognates with morphology instruction. Help students look beyond cognate word pairs and focus on shared roots and affixes.
Non-bilingual teachers can use cognate instruction. Teachers can match MLs in pairs according to their home language while verifying cognates using online tools or dictionaries.
Morphology and cognates give students powerful, everyday tools for unlocking academic vocabulary. When we preview key words and word parts, make meaning visible with visuals and examples, and invite students to connect English to their home languages, we widen students’ access to complex texts—especially for MLs.
To learn more about morphology instruction, see our Morpheme Lab and the supplemental resources linked below.
Supplemental Resources
Cognate List: English and Spanish: This guide from Colorín Colorado lists common words in English and their Spanish cognates.
Bilingual Glossaries and Cognates: This resource from NYU Steinhardt Metro Center provides downloadable, subject‑area glossaries and cognate lists in multiple languages that help MLs access academic vocabulary through word‑to‑word translations and cross‑language connections.
NTC’s Dictionary of Spanish Cognates Thematically Organized: This dictionary of Spanish cognates is organized by themes, such as pastimes, transportation, and medical matters.
References
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604
Colenbrander, D., von Hagen, A., Kohnen, S., Wegener, S., Ko, K., Beyersmann, E., Behzadnia, A., Parrila, R., & Castles, A. (2024). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy outcomes for children in English-speaking countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational psychology review, 36(4), 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09953-3
Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 711–738. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000038
Gallagher, M. A., Beck, J. S., Ramirez, E. M., Taboada Barber, A., & Buehl, M. M. (2023). Supporting multilingual learners’ reading competence: A multiple case study of teachers’ instruction and student learning and motivation. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1085909
García, G. E., Sacco, L. J., & Guerrero‐Arias, B. E. (2020). Cognate instruction and bilingual students’ improved literacy performance. The Reading Teacher, 73(5), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1884
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(2), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
Helms‑Park, R., & Dronjic, V. (2016). Crosslinguistic lexical influence: Cognate facilitation. In T. Angelovska & A. Hahn (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 83–104). Multilingual Matters.
Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2018). Teaching reading sourcebook (3rd ed.). CORE Learning.
Hout, M. C., Montelongo, J., White, B. L., Hernandez, A., & Serrano-Wall, F. (2023). Orthographic similarity ratings for English-Spanish cognates from the academic word list. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1225169
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Direct and indirect roles of morphological awareness in the English reading comprehension of native English, Spanish, Filipino, and Vietnamese speakers. Language Learning, 62(4), 1170–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00722.x
Moughamian, A. C., Rivera, M. O., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Instructional models and strategies for teaching English language learners. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Nagy, W. E., McClure, E. F., & Mir, M. (1997). Linguistic transfer and the use of context by Spanish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(4), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010924
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross‑linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
Sparks, E., & Deacon, S. H. (2015). Morphological awareness and vocabulary acquisition: A longitudinal examination of their relationship in English‑speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000246
Wright, T. S., & Cervetti, G. N. (2016). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.163