Strategies Employed by Mexican Secondary School Students When Facing Unfamiliar Academic Vocabulary

Comments 1: Theoretical Framing of Reading Comprehension 

While the article describes well the relationship between vocabulary strategies and reading proficiency, the theoretical framing of reading comprehension could be further strengthened as this concept is central to the study but remains undefined. The authors might consider briefly outlining the components of reading comprehension, for example by referencing Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) (Simple View of Reading). Such a discussion could be incorporated where the connection between academic vocabulary and prior language skills is addressed [lines 111–112]. This addition would help to firmly situate the study within the broader field of reading research. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, the article does not clearly define the concept of reading comprehension. However, we believe that a mere mention would not do justice to the complexity of the topic. Therefore, we chose not to include this explanation in the section suggested by the reviewer, as it would shift the focus away from the relationship between academic language and reading comprehension.

Comments 2: Rephrasing of the Research Questions

While the research questions are relevant, there is a minor issue with the formulation of RQ 2 and 3 that may limit their analytical clarity. Both are currently phrased as binary yes/no questions, that oversimplify the nuanced findings the study aims to produce. They simply confirm the presence or absence of an effect or relationship, rather than providing insight into how strategies contribute to comprehension, or which strategies prove most effective. For instance, the results from RQ 2 clearly demonstrate nuances, such as the fact that certain strategies are more effective depending on the morphological complexity of the word or the student’s metalinguistic abilities. Similarly, RQ 3 would benefit from greater specificity regarding whether the relationship pertains to the type, frequency, or effectiveness of strategy use. Proposals for reformulating RQ 2 could include: To what extent do different vocabulary learning strategies enable students to access the meaning of unfamiliar academic vocabulary, and which strategies are most effective? Alternatively: How do the strategies that students use help them understand the meaning of unfamiliar academic vocabulary? Proposals for reformulating RQ 3 could include: What is the relationship between the strategies that high school students use to understand unfamiliar academic vocabulary and their reading comprehension levels? Alternatively: In what ways do the strategies employed by high school students relate to their reading comprehension levels?

Response 2: We appreciate your suggestions regarding the paper’s research questions. While we find the proposed formulations interesting, we prefer to use less open-ended questions, as the study is not entirely qualitative. To clarify our focus, we have reworded Research Questions Two and Three. These revisions can be found on page 5, lines 200-207. Additionally, the corresponding questions in the discussion section have been revised on lines 519-521 and 565-567.

Comments 3: Discussion Section: educational implications and study limitations

The discussion section effectively addresses the research questions and relates the findings to prior literature. However, it would benefit from a brief concluding paragraph that synthesizes the study’s main contributions and highlights its broader educational implications, particularly for vocabulary instruction and reading development. As I already mentioned above, the discussion would benefit from further addressing methodological limitations such as the small sample, the validity of pseudo-words etc. These words can be perceived as artificial and thus affect how students interpret them.

Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, added the following two concluding paragraphs at the end of our document (lines 644-664):

In conclusion, this study highlights the critical role that reading proficiency plays in the effective use of strategies for acquiring unfamiliar academic vocabulary. The findings demonstrate that students with higher reading levels are better equipped to employ a diverse and sophisticated range of strategies—such as contextual abstraction, morphological analysis, and active comprehension monitoring—which enables them to more successfully infer and understand new terms. These results underscore that vocabulary acquisition is not a passive process, but rather one that is deeply connected to cognitive, linguistic, and metalinguistic abilities.

From an educational standpoint, these insights call for a more deliberate and systematic approach to vocabulary instruction. Academic vocabulary must be explicitly taught, rather than presumed to develop incidentally through school exposure. It is essential to foster metalinguistic awareness in students and to empower them to recognize when they encounter an unfamiliar word, as well as to self-monitor and regulate their learning strategies. Vocabulary development should be prioritized at all educational levels and across curricula, supported by literacy-rich environments that provide continuous exposure to both oral and written language. Engaging with complex and varied texts from multiple discourse types and knowledge areas, along with repeated exposure to vocabulary in diverse contexts, can significantly enrich students’ linguistic experience. Ultimately, promoting the conscious, intentional, and sustained teaching of vocabulary—while equipping students with effective word-learning strategies—may enhance reading comprehension and broaden their access to academic knowledge as a whole.

Thank you very much for pointing out that we had not included the limitations of the study. We have added them at the end of the discussion section, and they can be read from line 600 to line 620:

This study presents several potential limitations that warrant careful consideration. The final sample size is relatively small, which restricts the generalizability of the findings. The decision to utilize this sample size was primarily influenced by the extensive effort required to conduct and analyze interviews with each participant, consequently limiting the volume of data collected. Furthermore, the Instrument for Measuring Access to Unfamiliar Academic Vocabulary is subject to certain biases. The pseudowords employed in the instrument were constructed by combining morphemes that could convey an expected meaning, thereby ensuring that none of the participants were familiar with the test items. However, the use of these pseudowords introduces two possible concerns: firstly, participants may have perceived them as artificially fabricated, potentially influencing their responses. Despite this, students appeared to regard the pseudowords as meaningful, likely due to their frequent exposure to new and unfamiliar academic terminology in their daily academic activities, which rendered the pseudowords plausible. Additionally, since all pseudowords were derived from morphemes with meanings in Spanish, there exists a potential bias in the cognitive strategies students employ to infer meaning. Specifically, morphological analysis yielded the most successful outcomes. Had the instrument utilized pseudowords based on alternative linguistic constructions, this strategy might have been less effective. Future research could address these limitations by employing infrequent academic vocabulary instead of pseudowords, using pseudowords not derived from Spanish morphemes, or developing instruments that facilitate alternative semantic inference strategies.

Comments 4: Placement of Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of the study is clearly formulated while, as noted above, the research questions could benefit from minor rephrasing. However, their separation into different sections of the article (lines 59–64 and 197–205, respectively) should also be addressed, as this creates a certain disconnect which influence the logical flow of the manuscript. To improve coherence, I would encourage the authors to place the research questions more closely to the purpose, ideally in direct succession.

Response 4: We did not implement this change because the purpose stated at the end of the introduction section (lines 59–64) is paraphrased in the 4. The Present Study section immediately before the research questions (see lines 189–198).

Comments 5: Clarification of L2 Reference

The manuscript briefly references second language research when discussing metacognitive and memorization strategies. It would be helpful to clarify that these strategies are included for their general relevance, rather than their association with L2 learners, as the study focuses on monolingual L1 students.

Response 5: Agree. We have, added this information in lines 161-162.

Comments 6: Description of Reading Comprehension Assessment

The description of the CompLEC reading comprehension test [line 221ff] outlines its structure and theoretical basis but omits details about question formats (e.g., multiple choice or open-ended) and the specific reading skills assessed. Including this information would improve transparency and clarify how comprehension is operationalized.

Response 6: Agree. We included the missing information (see highlighted sections in lines 235-240).

Comments 7: Ending of the Results Section

The results section concludes with Figure 6 but lacks a closing summary or transition to the discussion [line 468]. A brief paragraph synthesizing the key findings and linking them to the research questions would improve coherence and guide the reader more effectively.

Response 7: Agree. We added the following paragraph above the Discussion section (lines 477-491):

In general, our results highlight key differences in the strategies students use to interpret unfamiliar, morphologically complex words. As shown in Figure 1, the most commonly used strategies were contextual abstraction, retrieval of textual information, and partial retrieval of morphemes, with significant differences in usage patterns. Figure 2 indicates that students with high reading level used more effective strategies, such as full morphological analysis and rereading, more frequently than those with low reading level.

Further analyses showed that morphological analysis of the word was the most effective strategy, particularly when all morphemes were known (Figure 3), and that high-level readers were generally more successful in accessing word meaning, regardless of strategy (Figure 4). Morphological complexity also played a role, with simpler pseudowords being easier to interpret (Figures 5 and 6), and high-level readers outperforming low-level readers across all word types. These findings underscore the importance of reading proficiency and morphological awareness in word comprehension. In the following section, we discuss the implications of these results.

Comments 1: Research Question 3 (on the relationship between strategies and reading level) partially overlaps with Question 1 and could be merged or rephrased.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Based on the comments provided by the other reviewer, the research questions were revised and rephrased (see lines 200-207).

Comments 2: The study did not discuss the sustainability of strategy training (e.g., whether morphological analysis requires long-term intervention).

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. However, since our study did not aim to analyze the effectiveness of educational interventions involving specific strategies, we believe that discussing the sustainability of strategy training could divert readers’ attention from the analysis of the strategies that students access on their own—an issue that was the central focus of our work.

Comments 3: Some terminology (e.g., "morphological analysis") lacks consistent definition between the literature review and discussion sections.

Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, reviewed the document and made corrections regarding the terms 'morphological analysis', 'contextual abstraction', 'retrieving textual information', 'relating to prior knowledge', 'partial retrieval of morphemes', and 'rereading the text' to ensure consistency throughout the document (see highlighted terms).

Comments 4: Weak relevance in some cited literature: For instance, when referencing Hoff (2014), the study did not specify how "social factors" influence strategy selection in this research.

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. Nevertheless, we conducted a thorough review of the authors referenced in the article and consider that all are directly related to the topics discussed in each case. Therefore, we decided to retain them as they appeared in the original text.

Comments 5: When contrasting with Graves' (2006) emphasis on contextual abstraction, the explanation attributed differences solely to experimental design without considering other potential variables (e.g., student age, text type).

Response 5: Agree. We have, added this information in lines 528-531.

Comments 6: Interview excerpts were presented without a complete coding framework, and reliability measures (e.g., Kappa values) were missing.

Response 6: Agree. We included the following information (see lines 381-383):

To guarantee coding reliability, two independent coders evaluated each response using the predefined categories for each variable. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus until full agreement was reached.

Comments 7: Inconsistent figure labeling: For example, Figures 3–6 lacked uniform annotations (e.g., error bars were absent in Figure 5).

Response 7: We conducted a thorough review of the figures and their labeling but did not find the inconsistencies noted by the reviewer (e.g., Figure 5 does include error bars).

Comments 8: Implications for educational policy or curriculum design could be added to strengthen practical relevance.

Response 8: Agree. We have, accordingly, added the following two concluding paragraphs at the end of our document (lines 644-664):

In conclusion, this study highlights the critical role that reading proficiency plays in the effective use of strategies for acquiring unfamiliar academic vocabulary. The findings demonstrate that students with higher reading levels are better equipped to employ a diverse and sophisticated range of strategies—such as contextual abstraction, morphological analysis, and active comprehension monitoring—which enables them to more successfully infer and understand new terms. These results underscore that vocabulary acquisition is not a passive process, but rather one that is deeply connected to cognitive, linguistic, and metalinguistic abilities.

From an educational standpoint, these insights call for a more deliberate and systematic approach to vocabulary instruction. Academic vocabulary must be explicitly taught, rather than presumed to develop incidentally through school exposure. It is essential to foster metalinguistic awareness in students and to empower them to recognize when they encounter an unfamiliar word, as well as to self-monitor and regulate their learning strategies. Vocabulary development should be prioritized at all educational levels and across curricula, supported by literacy-rich environments that provide continuous exposure to both oral and written language. Engaging with complex and varied texts from multiple discourse types and knowledge areas, along with repeated exposure to vocabulary in diverse contexts, can significantly enrich students’ linguistic experience. Ultimately, promoting the conscious, intentional, and sustained teaching of vocabulary—while equipping students with effective word-learning strategies—may enhance reading comprehension and broaden their access to academic knowledge as a whole.