Attribute Charting
Attribute charting (closely related to and most often operationalized as Semantic Feature Analysis) is a vocabulary and concept-development strategy in which students compare a set of related words, objects, or concepts against a shared list of features or attributes using a matrix. Items are listed down the left column and attributes run across the top; students mark whether each item possesses each feature (commonly with +, -, or ?), then analyze the completed grid to surface similarities, differences, and patterns. By making semantic relationships visible, the chart helps learners differentiate among closely related concepts, organize knowledge by category, and deepen comprehension of content-area texts. The strategy draws on schema theory and on the idea that vocabulary knowledge is stored categorically in memory, so the chart activates and refines the networks of related knowledge learners already hold.
How it’s typically applied
- 1Choose a category and a set of related items relevant to the unit (for example, types of shelters, geometric shapes, states of matter, or characters in a story), and label the chart with the category name.
- 2List the items down the left-hand column of the matrix and write the attributes or features to be compared across the top row, starting with a small number of concrete, high-utility features.
- 3Model the process with the whole class by marking one or two items together, using +/-/? (or yes/no/sometimes) and thinking aloud about the evidence from the text, an image, or prior knowledge.
- 4Have students complete the remaining cells collaboratively in pairs or small groups, returning to the text and visuals to justify each mark rather than guessing.
- 5Add new items and new features as understanding grows so the chart expands and students notice finer distinctions among related concepts.
- 6Lead a structured discussion comparing rows: which items are most alike, which are most different, and what pattern the chart reveals, asking students to cite evidence for their reasoning. Make clear that some marks can be debated and that there is not always a single right answer, since background knowledge varies.
- 7Close with an application task in which students use the completed chart to write a comparison, make a prediction, sort a new item, or define a term in their own words.
Why it works for emergent bilingual students
Attribute charting supports emergent bilingual students because it lets them demonstrate conceptual understanding through a low-language-demand task while still building academic vocabulary. The matrix is a visual, non-linguistic scaffold that lets students show what they know with a single symbol before they can express it in full English sentences, which is consistent with the comprehensible-input and graphic-organizer practices central to the SIOP Model (Echevarria et al., 2017). Because the chart externalizes relationships among words, it makes abstract academic vocabulary concrete and category-based, building on the way semantic feature analysis capitalizes on how information is stored by category in memory (Anders & Bos, 1986; Pittelman et al., 1991). It is also strongly asset-based: emergent bilinguals can contribute features and label items in their home language, and a bilingual matrix (for example, mammal/mamífero, has fur/tiene pelo) treats the first language as a resource for transfer. This reflects Cummins's common underlying proficiency, in which concepts and academic skills developed in one language transfer to the other, so a chart completed partly in Spanish still strengthens English content learning (Cummins, 2000). The collaborative discussion step adds authentic, purposeful interaction in which students negotiate meaning and rehearse academic language with peers.
Adapting it across proficiency levels
Pre-Production
Provide a fully or partially completed chart with photos, realia, or icons in every cell so meaning is carried visually. Students participate by pointing to items, matching pictures to attributes, or marking +/- with a partner, and they may label items or features in their home language. Accept gestures, drawing, and one-word or yes/no responses; pre-teach the category and a few key features with concrete examples before charting.
Beginning
Offer the chart with item and attribute labels already supplied, plus a word bank, sentence frames, and visuals. Students fill in +/-/? symbols and use frames such as 'A ___ has ___' or 'A ___ and a ___ are different because ___.' Encourage cross-language support and partner talk; home-language labels are welcomed alongside the target English term.
Intermediate
Students help generate some of the attributes and add new items to the chart, then complete most cells independently and justify several marks orally or in short written phrases. Provide frames for comparison and contrast ('Both ___ and ___ ___, but only ___ ___') and ask them to explain one pattern the chart reveals using academic vocabulary from the unit.
High Intermediate / Advanced
High Intermediate and Advanced students design their own charts: they select the items and the distinguishing features, defend ambiguous marks with textual evidence, and use the completed grid as a planning tool for an extended comparison paragraph, argument, or summary. Push precise academic and disciplinary language, nuanced distinctions among near-synonyms, and analysis of why certain features matter more than others; they can lead the small-group discussion and teach the chart to peers.
In the classroom
In a fourth-grade science unit on animal classification, the teacher builds an attribute chart with animals down the left side (whale, bat, salmon, frog, snake) and features across the top (has fur, lays eggs, lives in water, breathes with lungs, is a mammal). Working in pairs, students return to their text and an image bank to mark each cell +, -, or ?. Emergent bilinguals add Spanish labels (ballena, murciélago) and a feature in their home language, then use the frame 'A whale and a bat are both ___ because they ___.' During discussion, students notice the surprising pattern that a whale and a bat share more features than a whale and a salmon, which leads them to articulate, with evidence, why a whale is a mammal and not a fish.
Research basis
Semantic feature analysis, the matrix-based form of attribute charting, is an interactive strategy that uses a grid to develop vocabulary and content-area reading comprehension by having students relate words to key features and analyze the resulting patterns.
Anders, P. L., & Bos, C. S. (1986). Semantic feature analysis: An interactive strategy for vocabulary development and text comprehension. Journal of Reading, 29(7), 610–616.
Semantic feature analysis is a semantic-based classification strategy that capitalizes on how information is stored by category in memory, with documented classroom applications across grade levels and content areas.
Pittelman, S. D., Heimlich, J. E., Berglund, R. L., & French, M. P. (1991). Semantic feature analysis: Classroom applications. International Reading Association.
Graphic organizers and visual scaffolds make grade-level academic content and vocabulary comprehensible for English learners, a core principle of the SIOP Model.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2017). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model (5th ed.). Pearson.
Concepts and academic skills, including vocabulary knowledge, developed in a student's first language transfer across languages through a common underlying proficiency, so the home language is a resource for learning content and academic English.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773 [link]
Semantic feature analysis can be adapted for English learners through concrete vocabulary, fewer features to reduce cognitive load, beginning with dissimilar items, pictures alongside words, and the recognition that more than one defensible answer can exist because background knowledge varies.
Reading Rockets. (n.d.). Semantic feature analysis. WETA Public Broadcasting. Retrieved June 15, 2026, from https://www.readingrockets.org/classroom/classroom-strategies/semantic-feature-analysis [link]
The revised Texas English Language Proficiency Standards, adopted by the State Board of Education in 19 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 120, Subchapter B, and implemented beginning in 2026-2027, define five proficiency levels (Pre-Production, Beginning, Intermediate, High Intermediate, and Advanced) across the listening, speaking, reading, and writing domains, supporting differentiated instruction for emergent bilingual students.
Texas Education Agency. (2024). English language proficiency standards (19 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 120, Subchapter B). https://tea.texas.gov/curriculum-and-instruction/english-language-proficiency-standards [link]
Sources reviewed by an independent second-language-acquisition specialist and an adversarial citation audit.
Ask Verónica about Attribute Charting
Verónica is our AI tutor, and she knows this strategy. Tell her about your classroom, your mix of proficiency levels, or a specific TEKS you are planning to teach, and she will help you put Attribute Charting to work.
These strategies are part of the free ELPS Online Helper. Learn the 2026 ELPS and earn 1 hour of CPE credit.
Explore the free course