• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 4 – February 2023
    • Volume 27
      • Volume 27, Number 1 – May 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 2 – August 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 3 – November 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 4 – February 2024
    • Volume 28
      • Volume 28, Number 1 – May 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 2 – August 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 3 – November 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 4 – February 2025
    • Volume 29
      • Volume 29, Number 1 – May 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 2 – August 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 3 – November 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 4 – February 2026
    • Volume 30
      • Volume 30, Number 1 – May 2026
      • Volume 30, Number 2 – August 2026
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Info
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • TESL-EJ Special issues
    • APA Style Guide
  • Editorial Board
  • Support

Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching

March 2005 — Volume 8, Number 4

Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching

Keith S. Folse (2004)
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
Pp. v + 185
ISBN 0-472-03029-9 (paper)
$20.95

I would imagine that many ESL teachers (and students) will find vindication in Keith Folse’s Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching (2004).ESL teachers have been told “by experts” to relegate vocabulary teaching to a minor component of their lesson plans. Research and teacher training courses have long criticized explicit vocabulary teaching as unnecessary, a poor utilization of class time, and even detrimental to acquisition due to frustration and boredom. Second language acquisition (SLA) research has been driven by areas such as “grammar, contrastive analysis, comprehensible input, learner strategies, and motivation” (p. 160) and “an overzealous comparisons of learning a first and second language” (p. vi). Thus vocabulary has received little treatment in research and in second language classrooms. Folse challenges the prevailing wisdom of giving primary attention to grammar, comprehensible input, and motivation while ignoring what many teachers and students know to be the heart of second language learning: vocabulary learning. Folse is careful to not dismiss or trivialize the advances in SLA research and their contributions to classroom teaching. However, he does challenge the notion that vocabulary “will come naturally” or will be acquired “incidentally.” While this does happen, he notes this is simply not sufficient nor efficient for vocabulary acquisition. This premise and his review of the research will appeal to teachers and students who maintain explicit vocabulary teaching must have a central role in ESL programs and programs.

Vocabulary myths begins with an excellent review of basic concepts about vocabulary in SLA including elements such as phrasal verbs and collocations. The introductory chapter also discusses what it means to know a word, which is a complex issue but Folse handles the complexity in a clear and comprehensible style. The next part of the book deals with eight prevailing myths about vocabulary. Each myth is introduced with a short vignette called “In the real world…” which are anecdotes taken from Folse’s teaching experiences. After this vignette, Folse discusses why each myth is wrong and what research says about the myth. Finally, practical classroom advice is offered in light of research. The book concludes with short chapter aimed at highlighting real applications for the research. [-1-]

Overall, the book is well written and engaging, though some of the reviews of the research do get somewhat tedious. However, the research review is extensive and offers ample support for each of Folse’s assertions. By far the strength of the text lies in its ability to connect with those classroom teachers who feel that vocabulary not only matters but is vital to SLA success. It also is a must read for those teachers who feel that vocabulary should not be taught explicitly. These teachers will have many of their assumptions challenged. Folse notes that some teachers and most researchers have ignored vocabulary due to the feeling that it is not that complicated or that teaching it is ineffective. Some of the myths Folse discusses run counter to what many in the ESL field have been taught for years. For example, few teachers encourage the use of word lists or the use of translation (myths 2 and 4), but Folse argues if used in moderation, these are effective ways to learn new vocabulary. He also argues that encouraging students to guess meanings from context (myth 5) or to exclusively use monolingual dictionaries (myth 7) may not be as easy for the students as we are often told. While guessing from context may be effective for L1 vocabulary development, L2 learners are unique in that they lack sufficient vocabulary to guess from context or as is often the case, learners assume an incorrect definition.

In addition to dispelling these myths, Vocabulary Myths reviews research that consistently reports that L2 students note their major obstacle is vocabulary. Students also rate vocabulary high on lists of areas they would like to study in the L2 classroom. Typically, it is second behind opportunities to speak in class. Unfortunately, Folse is not able to offer definitive solutions for the vocabulary teaching issue because they simply do not exist. He is quick to point out that any there is not one method to teach vocabulary nor are there methods that should be avoided in all circumstances. Rather, Folse offers a compelling case to include explicit vocabulary teaching in curriculum and classroom decisions as well as in published textbooks. How each teacher or each program goes about including vocabulary in their curriculum will vary, but the evidence is clear. In light of the research, student expectations, and teacher intuition, explicit vocabulary teaching should be included.

David Johnson
Kennesaw State University
<djohnsonkennesaw.edu>

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor’s Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of each page for purposes of citation.

[-2-]

© 1994–2026 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.