AN EVALUATION OF VOCABULARY TEACHING

IN AN INTENSIVE STUDY PROGRAMME

by

Phillip Bennett

A dissertation submitted to the

School of Humanities
of the University of Birmingham
in part fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of

Master of Arts
in
Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language (TEFL/TESL)

This dissertation consists of 12,916 words

(excluding figures and long quotations)
Supervisor: Nicholas Groom

Centre for English Language Studies

Department of English
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom

September, 2006
 ABSTRACT

Vocabulary acquisition is one of the most challenging obstacles language learners must
overcome. This is especially true for students wishing to study in overseas universities,
where comprehension of academic texts is required. This dissertation evaluates the
vocabulary teaching component of an intensive English teaching programme for students
intending to enter universities in the U.S. It first describes the course and the issues
which prompted the study. It then examines previous research in vocabulary learning and
applies some of the key findings to the development of a research project. This project
had three elements: vocabulary learning strategy surveys intended to reveal changes in
study behaviour over a three-month period; tests to measure passive vocabulary growth
over the same period; and examining free productive vocabularies to determine whether
there is a shift towards less-frequent forms. Data analysis shows some evidence of
changing attitudes to vocabulary learning strategies, although not entirely in accord with
the aims of the programme. Passive vocabulary is shown to increase significantly, but
while some developments in productive vocabulary are suggested, concerns remain about
the chosen method of analysis. The author concludes that while the programme largely
fulfils its goals, the research has highlighted some areas for improvement.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people to whom I owe a great deal of thanks for their assistance with this
paper. Firstly, my wife Yumiko for her help with the translation work for the learning
strategy survey, for patiently teaching me how to make the best use of computers, and for
her understanding throughout the past two and a half years. Secondly, my tutor in
Birmingham, Nick, for his encouragement and for giving me valuable feedback on how
to improve this paper. I would also like to thank the Academic Director of my school,
Kieran, for allowing me to carry out my research, and my fellow teachers: Adrian, Ben,
Jenelle, Joshua, and Kevin for their support with my research and for sharing their
opinions on teaching. Finally, I have to thank all of the students who willingly
participated in the research for this paper and who provided me with the data I needed. I
hope that the insights this paper has yielded will be of benefit for future students in the
programme.
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..………………………………………………….1

CHAPTER TWO: CONTEXT FOR THE CASE STUDY…………………………...…2

2.1 The school system…………………………………………………………………2
2.2 Vocabulary in the curriculum………………………………………………..……..2
2.3 Needs analysis……………………………………………………………………..4
2.4 Focus of the case study…………………………………………………………….5

CHAPTER THREE: PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON VOCABULARY LEARNING…...6

3.1 How should vocabulary be learned?……………………………………….………6
3.2 What makes a good vocabulary learner?…………………………………………..8
3.3 How many words do learners need to know?…………………………………….11
3.4 What information is necessary to ‘know’ a word?……………………………….14
3.5 What points should teachers be aware of?………………………………………..15
3.5.1 The learner………………………………………………………….………..…16
3.5.2 The learning process………………………………………………………......17
3.6 What kinds of vocabulary learning strategies are available?…………………....19
3.6.1 Determination strategies………………………………………………………..20
3.6.2 Social strategies………………………………………………………………...22
3.6.3 Memory strategies…………………………………………………………...…23
3.6.4 Cognitive strategies…………………………………………………………….24
3.6.5 Metacognitive strategies………………………………………………………..25
3.7 How can vocabulary knowledge be assessed?………………………………...…26

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………..29

4.1 Planning the case study…………………………………………………….……..29
4.1.1 Initial case study question………………………………………………………29
4.1.2 Study propositions……………………………………………………………….29
4.1.3 Testing criteria and data sources………………………………………………..30
4.2 Research design and implementation…………………………………………….32

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS………………………………………..34

5.1 Student surveys………………………………………………………………...…34
5.1.1 Determination strategies………………………………………………..………34
5.1.2 Social strategies……………………………………………………………...…36
5.1.3 Memory strategies………………………………………………………...……37
5.1.4 Cognitive strategies…………………………………………………….………39
5.1.5 Metacognitive strategies……………………………………………………..…40
5.2 Vocabulary Levels Tests……………………………………………………….…41
5.3 Lexical Frequency Profiles……………………………………………………….43
5.3.1 Analysis of class levels…………………………………………………………44
5.3.2 Analysis of individuals’ journals……………………………………………….45
5.3.3 Potential shortcomings of Lexical Frequency Profiling………………………..48
5.4 Teaching staff surveys……………………………………………………………49
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………….52

APPENDIX I: VOCABULARY LEVELS TEST……………………………………...59

APPENDIX II: SAMPLE VOCABULARY PROFILE ANALYSIS…………………..65
APPENDIX III: VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGY SURVEY……………...66
APPENDIX IV: TEACHING STAFF SURVEY……………………………………….68
APPENDIX V: VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGY SURVEY RESULTS…...69
APPENDIX VI: VOCABULARY LEVELS TEST RESULTS…………………..……71
APPENDIX VII: ESTIMATES OF VOCABULARY SIZE……………………….…72

References……………………………………………………………………………...73
Internet References……………………………………………………………………..75
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Structured and unstructured learner habits………………………………………….9

2. Vocabulary size and text coverage in the Brown corpus…………………………..12
3. Text coverage in written academic text……………………………………………13
4. Nation’s Vocabulary Levels test………………………………………………...…27
5. The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale…………………………………………………28
6. Determination strategy survey results……………………………………………..35
7. Social strategy survey results……………………………………………………...36
8. Sample of memory strategy survey results………………………………………...38
9. Cognitive strategy survey results…………………………………………………..39
10. Metacognitive strategy survey results……………………………………………..41
11. Results of Vocabulary Levels tests………………………………………………...42
12. Lexical Frequency Profile results for each class level……………………………..44
13. Lexical Frequency Profile results for individuals………………………………….46
14. Significance of average individual Lexical Frequency Profile development……...47
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SSP Structured Speaking Practice. This is one of the main lessons in the
intensive programme. The main focus of the lesson is to improve students’
productive usage of grammatical functions, although there is also an
element of vocabulary learning involved.
K1 The most frequent 1,000 words in English. This is a category used in the
Vocabprofile program.
K2 The second most frequent 1,000 words in English.
AWL The Academic Word List. A list of words that are common in academic
text, but less frequent in everyday language.
OWL Off-list words. A term used by the VocabProfile program for all lexical
items not included in the K1, K2, or AWL lists.
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the vocabulary teaching component of an intensive English

study programme. The aims of the study were to: (a) obtain data on the students’

usage of vocabulary learning strategies, and any changes in usage that occurred as the

course progressed, and (b) to analyse the development of passive and active

vocabularies over a three-month period, in order to assess whether students finishing the

programme had acquired sufficient knowledge of lexical items to comprehend academic

texts.

Previous research on several aspects of vocabulary learning was reviewed: the

varying approaches to vocabulary learning; the characteristics of good learners; the

number of items that should be learned; strategies for aiding learning; assessment of

lexical knowledge; and appropriate teaching methodology. In the light of this research,

study proposals were adopted and research was carried out over a three-month period

from April to June, 2006. The results of this research were analysed and the

implications for vocabulary teaching were considered. Finally, the key results were

summarised and the successes and failures of the study, as well as the avenues for

further action were considered.

1
 CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT FOR THE CASE STUDY
2.1 The school system

The context for this study was the intensive English programme of a language

school in Sapporo, Japan. The aim of the programme is to raise students’ English to

the level that is required for them to enter colleges or universities in the United States.

Most of the students in the programme are recent high school graduates, although there

are also a number who are college graduates.

The intensive programme consists of six or seven lessons a day, five days a week.

The lessons cover structured speaking practice (SSP), reading, writing, conversation,

and other optional classes. The academic year is divided into ‘sessions’ of 120 lessons,

each lasting 50 minutes. There are testing periods in the middle and at the end of each

session, and those students whose English meets the required level progress into higher

level classes. There are nine class levels in the entire programme. The lowest levels,

101-103, are considered to be beginners’ classes, 104-106 are intermediate classes and

107-109 are for advanced learners.

2.2 Vocabulary in the curriculum

In most levels, a vocabulary lesson is held once a week, which provides explicit

instruction and communicative practice of lexical items, as well as vocabulary building

skills, including learning common affixes and word roots. The main emphasis of the

lesson is to provide students with an opportunity to build on their productive

vocabularies, without the pressure of being judged on their grammatical correctness.

2
 Skills for guessing the meanings of unknown words are introduced in the reading

classes in the very first level, and then reviewed and repeated in all subsequent levels.

Learners are encouraged to overcome their natural desire to check the meaning of every

unknown word, and instead concentrate on understanding the text as a whole. If

knowing the meaning of a particular word is important, then examining the context for

clues, using knowledge of grammatical form, and identifying known word parts are all

stressed as useful skills.

The main focus of the SSP class is to develop the learners’ communicative use of

English grammatical forms. There is also, however, a significant amount of

vocabulary to be learned at each level. New words are often introduced in the

textbooks by gap-fill or definition-matching exercises, and retention is then encouraged

by the teachers through the use of roleplays or other communicative activities.

As part of their homework, students are required to keep individual vocabulary

notebooks and journals. Each student should add three new words to the notebook

every day, and then share those words with their classmates at the beginning of reading

and writing classes. For each word, the students are expected to write a definition and

an example sentence using their own words. The journals are intended to provide an

opportunity for productive use of new language, as well as further reinforcement of the

conventions of writing in English. Every week, the students complete three short

writing pieces based on topics usually selected by their teacher. Errors and sentences

which are grammatically correct yet contain unnatural English usage are highlighted by

the teacher for correction by the students themselves.

3
2.3 Needs analysis

At the end of every academic year, a debriefing session is held to discuss the

successes and areas for further development of the intensive programme. At the

meeting conducted in early 2006, a number of issues related to vocabulary learning

were discussed.

It was felt that while the intensive course was clearly beneficial for all students,

there were clear points at which individuals began to struggle. In the beginners’ levels,

there were comparatively few students who experienced difficulties with vocabulary,

but the number became larger at each level of the course. By the time the students

reached the advanced levels, many regarded vocabulary as their main obstacle. This

was not considered to be an unexpected outcome, but it was felt that more effort could

be made to increase the students’ use of learning strategies and consequently, improve

the efficiency with which they deal with their learning burden.

It was agreed that learners who achieved a greater degree of independence were

more successful than those who were more reliant on the teaching staff. Habits that

seemed to set successful learners apart included: wider use of resources, greater

attention to weaknesses, more reviewing of previous work, and intrinsic motivation.

Good vocabulary learners also made better entries in their vocabulary notebooks, chose

to include words that were useful for them and attempted to use those words in oral or

written exercises. Although these study habits were all introduced as part of the course,

it was clear that some learners were applying them more often than others. If the

teachers could help to raise the less successful students’ metacognitive awareness, then

4
perhaps some of their language learning difficulties could be lessened.

2.4 Focus of the case study

This case study was planned as a thorough investigation of the issues mentioned in

section 2.3. It was agreed that while the intensive course was both successful and

popular with students, there would be benefits in identifying areas for improvement.

The majority of the students go on to enter universities in the U.S., and for many

of them, this is their first experience of life overseas. Consequently, fostering

independence both as a learner and as an individual has to be one of the key goals of the

academic programme. Sanaoui’s (1995) study draws a connection between

structured approaches to learning shown by independent learners and success in

achieving learning goals. Clearly, some individuals begin the course as structured

learners, while others acquire these habits in varying degrees as they progress. It was

felt that having a measure of the change in student attitudes towards vocabulary learning

as the course continued would be informative.

Improving awareness of the process of learning is certainly useful, but in an

institution with a clearly defined goal for its learners, focussing on learning outcomes is

also necessary. With each level of the course, the texts that students are required to

read become more and more challenging until finally, in the advanced levels, authentic

texts are used. If students are to continue to comprehend texts as they advance through

the course, it is imperative that they continue to improve their sight vocabularies. It

was therefore decided to find a suitable method of estimating receptive vocabulary size.

5
 CHAPTER 3: PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON VOCABULARY LEARNING

For many years, vocabulary learning occupied an uncertain position in the

literature. Syntax, with its comparatively finite range of expression, was felt to be the

main obstacle to language proficiency. Carter (2000:184) describes vocabulary as “for

many years…the poor relation of language teaching”. Since the 1970s though, there

has been a growing appreciation of the importance of lexical knowledge for learners.

This, coupled with the gradual shift away from prescribed methods of teaching, has led

to a greater emphasis on developing the use of learning strategies. Until recently,

however, there have been few attempts to accurately describe the strategies that learners

can bring to bear on the task of acquiring an L2 vocabulary (Schmitt, 1997:199).

Several key questions stand out regarding current thinking on vocabulary learning, some

of which attract a remarkable consistency of opinion, while others provoke more debate.

3.1 How should vocabulary be learned?

The communicative approach to learning which became popular in the 1970s

emphasized a naturalistic, incidental approach to vocabulary learning. Krashen argued

that unconscious acquisition, through natural communication, was the only possible way

to acquire a language (Sökmen 1997:237) (Griffiths and Parr 2001:249). Word

meanings could be understood from context and repeated encounters would help to

improve the depth of understanding of each word, as well as aiding retention.

There is much to be said for naturalistic learning which provides a rich diet of

comprehensible input. Firstly, this approach closely matches our L1 learning

experience, and appeals to our sense of a ‘normal’ way of learning – there is no

6
memorization of word lists or other rote learning. Furthermore, the sheer number of

words to be learned, as well as those with multiple meanings, also suggests a primary

role for incidental learning (Nagy 1997:71-72). Paribakht and Wesche (1997:175) note

research suggesting that explicit vocabulary instruction cannot hope to cover the same

number of forms as incidental learning. The risk with explicit instruction, it is argued,

is that it is difficult to provide a sufficient number of encounters with a word for

learning to take place. Nagy (1997:74) states that there is a likelihood of between one

in twenty and one in seven that a word will be learned after just one exposure.

The drawbacks of incidental learning lie in the difficulties of guessing from

context. Sökmen (1997:238) lists several points which suggest a place for other, more

intentional, methods of vocabulary instruction. The first point is that while learning

from context may provide a huge amount of exposure, it is likely that acquisition rates

will be slow. Other concerns include the error-prone nature of context-guessing, the

fact that emphasizing only one method neglects individual learning preferences, and

most significantly, that guessing a word successfully does not mean that the word has

been acquired. Schmitt (2000:121) refers to the ‘depth of processing hypothesis’,

which states that “the more one manipulates, thinks about, and uses mental information,

the more likely it is that one will retain that information”. Hulstijn’s later work asserts

that it “is the quality and frequency of the information processing activities … that

determine retention of information” (Hulstijn, 2001, in Read, 2004:147).

Current thinking seems to point toward a combination of incidental and intentional

learning. Time constraints ensure that guessing from context remains among the most

7
valuable skills a learner can possess (Nation, 2001:232), and the ‘book flood’ studies by

Elley (in Nagy, 1997:76, and Schmitt, 2000:122) show the benefits of extensive reading,

but other studies investigating combinational methods have shown positive results.

Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) study showed greater gains for students who completed

vocabulary exercises after reading activities than for those who were only given reading

work.

Rather than imagining the situation as dichotomous, it may be more helpful to

view it as a cline, with different aspects of vocabulary knowledge reacting to varying

degrees of incidental or intentional instruction. Schmitt (2000:122) notes that

collocational know-how can only come from extensive reading, yet other aspects, such

as spelling and phonological rules are responsive to intentional teaching.

Many researchers today (e.g. Nation, Sökmen, Ellis) seem to advocate intentional

learning for highly frequent words and the teaching of learning strategies to cope with

less frequent ones. Other worthwhile activities include: building a large sight

vocabulary, making use of ‘schema’ to access encyclopedic knowledge to integrate with

new information, using deep-processing techniques, encouraging learner independence,

and making use of learning strategies (Sökmen, 1997:239, Fan, 2003:223).

3.2 What makes a good vocabulary learner?

Each individual that begins to learn another language brings with them a unique

collection of personal experiences and beliefs that will influence them as learners. By

identifying the influences and traits that successful learners have, it is hoped that they

8
can then be taught to those who are less successful.

Sanaoui (1995) studied the vocabulary learning habits of 50 learners over a

six-week period and found that they could be divided into those that structured their

own learning and those who were either unstructured or reliant on the course to guide

them. The key traits that distinguish structured and unstructured learners are shown in

figure 1.

Structured Approach Unstructured Approach

Opportunities for learning vocabulary
Self-created; Reliance on course;
independent study minimal independent study
Range of self-initiated activities
Extensive Restricted
Records of lexical items
Extensive Minimal
(tend to be systematic) (tend to be ad hoc)
Review of lexical items
Extensive Little or no review
Practice of lexical items
Self-created opportunities;
Reliance on course
in and outside classroom

Fig. 1 Structured and unstructured learner habits (Sanaoui 1995:24)

It is clear that remarkable variation exists in the vocabulary study habits of

learners. In order to examine the consequences of this, Sanaoui correlated the results

of French vocabulary tests administered to 74 adult learners with three criteria: the

learners’ proficiency levels, the style of tuition, and the degree to which learners

structured their learning. Of the three criteria, a structured learning approach was the

9
only one shown to correlate positively with vocabulary retention. These results seem

to indicate that the most efficient way to improve learners’ vocabulary skills is to

develop their ability to work in a structured, autonomous manner.

Some learners are capable of autonomous study at the beginning of a course, while

others require inculcation on the part of the teacher. In order to successfully transfer

this behaviour into unstructured learners, the factors which affect it should be

understood. An important recent attempt to provide a framework for such an

understanding has been provided by Nation (2001:394), who identifies three key

elements of autonomous learners: attitude, awareness and capability.

Attitude is described by Nation as the most crucial element, yet also the hardest to

acquire. It represents the desire to take control of one’s own learning (2001:394).

The learners who fall at the structured end of Sanaoui’s scale are clearly assuming

responsibility for their own learning. In Wenden’s (1998:522) article on the influence

of metacognitive knowledge on learning, there is a description of how a learner’s

attitude to a task will influence the goals adopted for the task. If the learners perceive

the task to be beneficial to their learning and consider themselves to be capable of

completing the task, then they will set themselves goals for the activity that will enable

them to improve. If, however, they view the task as unsuitable for their development

or themselves as incapable of completing the task, they will adopt coping strategies to

deal with the task as efficiently as possible.

Learners need to be conscious of their own capabilities, as well as having an

10
awareness of learning processes and the opportunities for personal development that

they present. Learners who are self-aware will be better able to direct their attention to

aspects of learning that will be most beneficial to them. Being aware of strategies that

have been taught beforehand, and then applying them to present situations is an element

of metacognitive knowledge identified by Wenden (1998: 526) as transfer of learning.

Nation regards capability as “the need for the learner to possess the skills and

knowledge to be autonomous in a particular area of study” (2001:395). Regarding

vocabulary acquisition, learners need to be capable of utilizing various learning

strategies, understanding the semantic relationships between new and previously learned

words, and ensuring that they regularly review new forms (Schmitt 2000:133).

3.3 How many words do learners need to know?

Two possible answers to this question are offered. The first is that learners

should attempt, as far as is possible, to match the vocabularies of native speakers. The

second answer is to learn vocabulary in increments, based on the frequency, and

therefore likely usefulness, of each group of words.

When estimating the vocabulary size of native speakers, the number of word

families known appears to be a commonly accepted measure. A word family is

defined as a headword, plus its inflected and derived forms. Recent conservative

estimates of the vocabulary size of an educated native speaker have been around 20,000

word families. The growth rate of a native speaker’s vocabulary is estimated at

approximately 1,000 word families a year during early life (Nation and Waring, 1997:7).

11
This is a challenging, yet not insurmountable goal for a learner, but it is clearly a

long-term goal and as such is of little use to the lower level learner.

A more practical solution for learners would be to make use of frequency

information provided by corpora, and in particular to concentrate initially on the most

frequent words and then to move on to less frequent items. Figure 2 shows the

percentage of text covered by vocabularies of increasing sizes.

Vocabulary size Text coverage

1,000 72.0%
2,000 79.7%
3,000 84.0%
4,000 86.8%
5,000 88.7%
6,000 89.9%
15,851 97.8%

Fig.2 Vocabulary size and text coverage in the Brown corpus

(taken from Francis and Kucera, 1982, in Nation and Waring, 1997:9)

As can be seen in the table, each increase in vocabulary size is accompanied by

greater text coverage, but at each level, the increase in coverage becomes smaller and

smaller. Therefore, it is likely that learners will reach a point in their studies when

learning the next 1,000 words would be inefficient; they would benefit more by

focussing on vocabulary appropriate to their own likely English needs. The question is

of course, how are we to know when that point has been reached?

12
 In a 1990 study of written academic text, Nation produced the following table of

text coverage.
Level Number of words Text Coverage
High-frequency words 2,000 87%
Academic vocabulary 800 8%
Technical vocabulary 2,000 3%
Low-frequency words 123,200 2%
Total 128,000 100%

Fig.3 Text coverage in written academic text

(Nation, 1990, in Nation and Newton, 1997:239)

Using this data, Nation and Newton suggest that after the 2,000 most frequent

words have been learned, students intending to learn English in an academic

environment would benefit from mastering the 800-word Academic Word List, rather

than the next most frequent 1,000 words in general use (1997:239).

Laufer (1997:23) has conducted studies suggesting that the turning point for

vocabulary size – when an increase in vocabulary begins to offer less of a benefit for

reading comprehension, is around 3,000 word families. This number, which represents

around 4,800 lexical items, is termed the ‘threshold vocabulary’. Once this level has

been reached, it is proposed that learners will be fully capable of applying

context-guessing and other learning strategies, and as such might be considered to have

reached the point at which intentional learning has ceased to be an efficient use of class

time.

13
3.4 What information is necessary to ‘know’ a word?

It is important for learners to recognize that there is more to ‘knowing’ a word

than checking its definition in a dictionary. Teachers need to emphasize that

vocabulary learning is an incremental, ongoing process, and that learners will be able to

improve their understanding of words by encountering them repeatedly.

Word knowledge can be thought of as encompassing three elements: the word’s

form, meaning and use. Knowledge of form might include phonological and

orthographical form as well as any recognizable word parts. Beyond the word’s

definition as given in a dictionary, meaning also encompasses connotation and

synonyms. Using the word requires an understanding of appropriate grammatical

function, common collocations, appropriacy in different contexts and frequency of use.

All of this knowledge can be acquired from incidental exposure to language, as Ellis

(1997:127) notes:

as learners’ L2 vocabulary extends, as they practise hearing and producing L2 words,

so they automatically and implicitly acquire knowledge of the statistical frequencies

and sequential probabilities of the phonotactics of the L2. Their input and output

modules for L2 processing begin to abstract knowledge of L2 regularities, thus to

become more proficient at short-term repetition of novel L2 words. And so L2

vocabulary learning lifts itself up by its bootstraps.

A distinction that is commonly made regarding word knowledge is over the

receptive and productive uses of lexical items. As Carter (2000:191) notes,

“Comprehending a word is not the same as producing a word”. It is one skill to be

14
able to understand a word when it is heard or read, but quite another to be able to use it

in spoken or written form.

In Laufer’s (1998) study of vocabulary development in Israeli high school students,

productive knowledge was further subdivided into two parts. Controlled productive

knowledge can be accessed when prompted by a task, but free productive knowledge is

used spontaneously, without prompting. This is an important point, since learners who

are being prompted to use a particular word are being provided with a context, and are

therefore not exhibiting complete control of a lexical item unaided. It is only when

items are used appropriately without any prompting that a teacher can be sure that an

item has been fully acquired.

3.5 What points should teachers be aware of?

As with other aspects of language learning, there is some conjecture as to the most

appropriate method of teaching and learning vocabulary. Nevertheless, for a

programme aimed at blending a large amount of incidental learning with a smaller

amount of intentional learning, certain practices stand out in the literature. In addition

to establishing an optimal learning environment, teachers also have to consider the

learners themselves. Rather than merely disseminating information, a successful

programme will train participants how to become better learners. The following

section will summarize the key elements of a vocabulary learning programme from the

perspective of both the learners and the learning process itself.

15
3.5.1 The learner

Nation has stated that teachers can “play a critical role in directly and indirectly

shaping approaches to learning” (2001:229). This role carries heavy responsibility, so

rather than imposing a potentially unsuitable learning style, teachers ought instead to

present learning strategies as a toolbox – allowing learners to select their own remedial

action. This implies that, in Wenden’s words, “teachers should also aim to help

language learners develop a more reflective and self-directed approach to learning their

new language” (1998:531). In order to bring about this improved self-awareness,

learners will need to be given opportunities and encouragement to plan, monitor and

evaluate their own learning. Learners will also need to be aware of the range and

appropriacy of vocabulary learning strategies.

It is important to remember that each class is a collection of individuals who each

have their own learning styles and preferences. While the course content should not be

dictated by those styles, it is valuable for teachers to understand learners’ beliefs about

language learning (Wenden, 1998:530). This informational will yield insights as to the

varying degrees of metacognitive awareness within the class, and may also help to

explain learners’ responses to different classroom activities.

Research has produced mixed results on the effectiveness of explicit strategy

training. Among the reasons given for the unsuccessful tests were: learner acceptance,

proficiency, and culture, and also whether the strategy could be used immediately

(Schmitt, 2000:136). Nunan (1999:56) argues that the overiding factor regarding

strategy preference is personality. If this is true, then knowledge gleaned from the

16
learners themselves in this regard can be further utilised in future course planning.

Schmitt (2000:136) suggests that “VLS have a great deal of potential, but that we must

be very sensitive to our learners and their needs when we incorporate strategy

instruction into our curriculum”.

3.5.2 The learning process

For incidental learning to be applied successfully, learners must become proficient

at guessing meaning from context. However, context guessing requires that learners

already understand a sufficient number of the words in a text for them to be able to

make judgements about unknown words. Nation proposes that if more than 1 in 20

words are unknown, guessing will probably be unsuccessful, and optimally, learners

should know 98% of the words in a text (1 in 50 unknown) (2001:233). Laufer’s

threshold vocabulary (see section 3.3) also implies that guessing from context with an

unsimplified text requires an understanding of the most frequent 3,000 words.

While guessing from context successfully is dependent on having a vocabulary

sufficiently large enough to enable correct guessing to take place, there will also come a

point at the other extreme when it becomes unnecessary, simply because the learners

already know the words. Indeed, proficient readers have been shown to use context

guessing less than less-skilled learners for just this reason, and those who do make use

of this strategy have been shown to guess meanings correctly only in 50% of cases

(Walter, 2003).

For lower-level learners then, acquiring a large sight vocabulary must be regarded

17
as imperative. Rote-learning and regular rehearsal of words may be unfashionable,

says Read (2004:148), but they will offer greater gains for these learners than incidental

learning. Nation and Waring (1997:11-12) also support the use of vocabulary cards to

provide an initial stage for learning a large number of words in a short period of time.

A further way to help expand vocabulary, which, unlike the previous methods, could be

continued into higher levels of proficiency, is to raise awareness of word families.

Even from a beginner’s level, learners could be taught inflected or derived forms of the

target word to improve knowledge of the inter-relatedness of vocabulary.

Discouraging learners from viewing unknown words as isolated semantic

problems is best begun while they are still at a relatively low level, says McCarthy

(1984:16). Lexical sets and collocations are examples of activities which promote

paradigmatic and syntagmatic knowledge, thus deepening learners’ understanding of

lexical items. Sökmen advises using these, and other ‘deep’ methods, such as

verbalising thoughts on the definitions and nuances of words, to provide “richer

encoding”, which will help students to learn better than if they had simply memorized a

definition (1997:242). Ellis (1997:138) cites a summary of almost one hundred studies

which demonstrated that exposing learners to words in multiple contexts greatly

enhanced their comprehension in later reading activities.

As was mentioned in section 3.4, ‘knowing’ lexical items requires understanding

on many levels. It is only by repeatedly encountering a word that a full appreciation of

its uses can develop. It has been estimated that 5-16 encounters with a word are

necessary for acquisition to take place (Nation, 1990, in Sökmen, 1997:241-242).

18
Teachers then, must allow for vocabulary recycling to occur in class (Schmitt,

2000:136), whether this is through expanded vocabulary activities or regular review of

vocabulary notebooks. Reviewing words soon after they have been studied, and then

at increasing intervals has been shown to aid retention (Schmitt, 2000:130). This

method, known as ‘expanded rehersal’, could easily be introduced by teachers and then

encouraged as an independent leaning strategy.

Finally, once learners have reached an appropriate level, the bulk of vocabulary

learning should take place in context, i.e. incidentally. The only true test of vocabulary

learning is whether or not a lexical item is understood when the learner’s attention is on

the meaning of the whole text, rather than on that particular item. Although Nation

concedes that experiments in learning from context have only shown small gains in

vocabulary (2001:238), extensive reading will clearly increase those gains. Put simply,

“people who read more know more vocabulary” (Ellis, 1997:134).

3.6 What kinds of vocabulary learning strategies are available?

Since it became apparent that individual effort had a greater influence on

vocabulary acquisition than aptitude, researchers have identified a large number of

vocabulary learning strategies used by learners (Schmitt, 1997:199). Nation’s

(2001:217) definition of a strategy contains four criteria: that it is one of several options

a learner may select, that it involves multiple steps, that it can be improved by training

and that it will be of benefit when learning or using vocabulary.

One of the key features of successful learners that has been highlighted by

19
research (Schmitt, 2000:133) is that they make use of a variety of learning strategies.

If strategies are indeed trainable, then they can be taught to less successful learners. It

is also likely that learners will be more proficient in certain aspects of vocabulary

learning than in others, and so by encouraging the use of different classes of strategy,

teachers may be able to target individual weaknesses to improve. Therefore, having a

taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies would enable teachers to select appropriate

strategies for learners and instruct them in their use. Schmitt (1997:207-208) offers a

taxonomy that classifies strategies into five groups: determination, social, memory,

cognitive, and metacognitive. Each of these will now be examined in turn.

3.6.1 Determination strategies

One group of determination strategies involves analysing the unknown word, its

constituent elements, or the surrounding context (see section 3.5.2) to determine the

meaning. Identifying the part of speech will offer some information; the learner might

be able to identify the word as an entity, state, action or quality. Inflectional or

derivational word parts could also be examined. Due to the limited number of

inflections available in English, learners should encounter and understand them quite

rapidly. Derivational affixes are far more numerous, yet they offer tremendous insights

into word class and definition. Nation (2001:264) refers to a study which found that

60% of words containing the prefixes un-, re-, in-, and dis- could be understood if the

base word was known.

If the learners’ L1 is related to the L2, then cognates may exist which facilitate

guessing. Japanese, although unrelated to English, has a rapidly increasing number of

20
kana loanwords that are mostly derived from English. Daulton (1998) presents data

showing that 38% of the 2,000 most frequent words and approximately 26% of the

University Word List correlate with Japanese loanwords. There is a risk involved in

using loanwords as cognates since not all of them are used in the same manner as in

English, yet there remains a large number that could assist Japanese learners of English.

Dictionaries, while lacking the depth of processing that comes with guessing

strategies, are commonly used by many learners of foreign languages. Although

monolingual dictionaries may offer better quality information and also improve learners’

ability to paraphrase, Schmitt’s (1997:209-210) survey of attitudes to learning strategies

showed a clear preference for bilingual dictionaries. This might be due to the sense of

security they provide – Grabe and Stoller (1997:112) noted a learner’s unwillingness to

give up his “accuracy anchor”.

To achieve the maximum benefit, dictionary skills have to be taught in the same

manner as other skills. It is important that learners are taught when not to use

dictionaries because they may be overused, resulting in the neglect of other strategies

and increasing the length of time taken to complete tasks. Nation (2001:283-284)

presents a summary of studies carried out on dictionary use, which show a positive

effect on vocabulary comprehension for all but high-level learners, but also an increase

in completion time. Nation (2001:239) suggests that inferencing skills should be

prioritised, but that following up with dictionaries has a significant impact on retention.

21
3.6.2 Social strategies

Some social strategies can be used to determine word definitions. Teachers are a

valuable source of information for learners, and they can provide information about L2

vocabulary in several ways. If the teacher understands the learners’ L1, then a direct

translation is possible. Although this may be the fastest and most appealing method

for learners, there are notes of caution to be added. Learners receiving a translation of

an L2 word may assume that it carries all of the functional and stylistic properties of its

nearest L1 equivalent, and so use it in the same manner as they would in their L1.

There is also the attendant risk that learners used to hearing L1 translations will become

reliant on them, which is likely to have a negative impact on their ability to hold L2

conversations.

Teachers can also offer L2 paraphrases, synonyms, or example sentences using the

unknown word. If the goal of learners is to use the L2 productively, then these

methods will be more beneficial than translation. The teacher must, however, consider

the knowledge necessary to use each word (see section 3.4), while also making an

efficient use of class time.

Although this information could also be provided by classmates instead of

teachers, some learners might feel that information from a teacher is more reliable.

However, if classmates all work together at providing information, the whole class will

benefit from improved paraphrasing skills and by becoming less dependent on the

teacher.

22
 Social strategies can also be used to consolidate information. Sanaoui’s (1995)

study highlighted the need for learners to create their own opportunities for language

use outside the classroom. Students may make an effort to use the L2 together outside

class, or seek opportunities to speak to native speakers, or even their teacher outside

class. There are clear benefits to practising L2 vocabulary in a less academic setting.

Firstly, the more opportunities to speak a learner has, the more he or she will be able to

experiment with new language. The experience of using the language for genuine

communication is also likely to increase learner motivation, as well as active processing

(Schmitt 1997:211).

3.6.3 Memory strategies

Researchers have identified a large number of strategies that learners use to aid

recall of vocabulary. Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy, for example, lists no less than 27

separate memory strategies. One group of strategies involves using images when

learning to form a stronger association with the word and its meaning. These images

can be sketched in notebooks, formed in the mind, or even drawn from personal

experience. This is a good example of how a deeper level of processing can be

achieved without it becoming excessively arduous and thus potentially demotivating.

There is another large group of strategies that link or group words together to

assist retrieval. There is evidence that the brain stores vocabulary in a ‘lexical matrix’,

with individual words entering into a variety of semantic relationships, including:

synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy (Miller and Fellbaum, 1991:199-204).

Using words in sentences can also be considered a memory strategy because the added

23
context may make retrieval easier. Grouping L1 words spatially has also been shown

to improve recollection (Bellezza, 1983, in Schmitt, 1997:213). L1 words arranged

into patterns can be recalled easier than when the words are in a list. Schmitt

postulates that the same approach is likely to work for L2 vocabulary (1997:213).

A final group of memory strategies uses aspects of word knowledge to consolidate

meaning. This includes paying special attention to the word’s orthographical or

phonological form, memorizing affixes and roots, and learning the word class.

Matching some words to their corresponding physical action, as is taught in the Total

Physical Response Method (Richards and Rogers, 2001:73-74), will also aid recall

(Schmitt, 1997:215).

3.6.4 Cognitive strategies

Cognitive strategies focus on the mechanical aspects of learning vocabulary.

These methods may be required parts of the course, set as homework by the teacher, or

the habits of individual learners.

Vocabulary notebooks are a valuable way of increasing learner independence.

By giving learners the responsibility of choosing the words that they will include, the

notebooks help to develop greater self-awareness, and at the same time, remove the

teacher from some of the learning process. Schmitt and Schmitt (1995:139) emphasize

the necessity of giving learners the responsibility of selecting vocabulary to increase

their sense of discovery. Fowle’s introduction of vocabulary notebooks to a school in

Thailand also brought about increased metacognitive knowledge in the form of

24
appropriacy of strategy selection, a better understanding of the demands of vocabulary

learning, and a greater tolerance of ambiguity (2002:385).

One cognitive strategy that was commonly employed by learners in Schmitt’s

(1997) survey of learning strategies was repetition. In order to improve vocabulary,

learners repeat the words either orally or in written form. This method lacks the depth

of processing recommended by researchers, and seems to review only a limited amount

of the knowledge that is necessary for communicative use. However, both Nation

(2001:383) and Read (2004:148) have noted that learners in the past have used rote

methods to reach high levels of proficiency.

Other examples of cognitive strategies include taking notes and highlighting

words, using the vocabulary sections in textbooks, and labelling physical objects.

These strategies could all be said to assist noticing, an important first element in

bringing an item into conscious attention (Schmidt, 1990). Once an item has been

noticed, learners are more likely to focus attention on it, and so the process of acquiring

the item has begun.

3.6.5 Metacognitive strategies

It is imperative that learners develop an awareness of their own learning and how

they are able to improve most efficiently. Many of the habits used by successful

learners noted by Sanaoui (1995) could be categorised as metacognitive strategies, since

they reflect learners’ ability to find opportunities to learn and then record and review

those experiences.

25
 The first requirement for a learner has to be finding sufficient opportunities to

learn. English learners are fortunate in that there are a vast number of commercially

produced pedagogic materials available, and the internet and other electronic resources

are also easily accessed, thus providing EFL learners with an even wider range of

potentially useful material. Once vocabulary has been encountered, it is vital that it is

recorded and reviewed in an organised fashion. Without such a system in place,

learning is likely to be haphazard and sporadic, as a number of the studies reviewed

earlier in this chapter have shown. Finally, learners should also consider which words

most deserve their attention. Since learners usually have a limited amount of time

available for study, learning to skip infrequent or obviously technical vocabulary when

it is not crucial to overall comprehension will greatly improve efficiency.

3.7 How can vocabulary knowledge be assessed?

The purposes of vocabulary testing are multifarious, but a simple distinction can

be made between breadth of knowledge testing, which seeks an estimate of how many

words learners know, and depth of knowledge testing, which is concerned with how

well those words are known.

The most immediate problem when trying to establish vocabulary size is to decide

on the size of the sample to be taken. Clearly, the more words that are tested, the more

accurate the final estimate will be, but this has to be balanced against the practicalities

of carrying out the test (Read, 1997:312). Nation’s Vocabulary Levels Test avoids this

problem by testing learners’ knowledge of vocabulary at several frequency levels,

thereby greatly reducing the sample size necessary. In this test, learners are presented

26
with groups of six words, three of which must be matched to their definitions (see figure

4).

1. admire
2. complain
____ make wider or longer
3. fix
____ bring in for the first time
4. hire
____ have a high opinion of someone
5. introduce
6. stretch
Fig. 4 Nation’s Vocabulary Levels test
(Nation, 2001:417)

The original purpose of this test was to give an indication of whether

high-frequency words had been learned, and also to measure the learning of

low-frequency words (Nation, 2001:21). Despite the absence of context on the test, it

has been shown to accurately gauge learner knowledge (Laufer, 1998:261), and is now

also used for placement purposes (Read, 2004:155).

As was mentioned in section 3.4, there are several aspects to word knowledge.

In a 1942 paper, Cronbach identified five aspects of word knowledge for testing:

generalization (giving a definition), application (appropriate usage), breadth of meaning

(understanding different meanings), precision of meaning (correct application in all

situations), and availability (productive usage) (Read, 1997:315). Ideally, a depth of

knowledge test would be able to cover all of these aspects, but such a test would likely

be inordinately time consuming in practice, and thus impracticable within the pragmatic

constraints of most language teaching contexts.

27
 One test that investigates depth of knowledge is Paribakht and Wesche’s

Vocabulary Knowledge Scale. In this test, learners are given words to evaluate on a

five-point scale (see figure 5).

1. I don’t remember having seen this word before.

2. I have seen this word before, but I don’t know what it means.
3. I have seen this word before, and I think it means ______. (synonym or
translation)
4. I know this word. It means ______. (synonym or translation)
5. I can use this word in a sentence: _______________________________.

Fig. 5 The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale

(Paribakht and Wesche, 1993, in Schmitt, 2000:175)

Another test, one that avoids testing declarative knowledge, is Laufer and Nation’s

Vocabulary Frequency Profile (Nation, 2001:362). Here, the emphasis is on the

learners’ use of language when attention is being paid to the message, rather than on the

individual words. In this test, samples of learners’ composition work are entered into a

computer program, VocabProfile, which sorts the words used into four frequency

categories: the first 1,000 most frequent words (K1), the second 1,000 (K2), the

Academic Word List (AWL), and words that do not appear on the other lists (OWL).

Before the compositions are entered, spellings must be corrected, proper nouns are

deleted, and incorrectly used words are omitted (Laufer, 1998:261). The output

provided by the computer can be used to measure the increase in language proficiency

over time. Unlike the Vocabulary Knowledge scale, Lexical Frequency Profiles do not

necessarily require using class time, since they can be applied to students’ free writing –

a consideration which was taken into account during the planning for this case study.

28
 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Planning the case study

This case study was planned following the outline given in Burns (2000:464).

The initial case study question was narrowed down to a more specific set of

propositions which would answer that question. Then, criteria by which the

propositions could be tested were established and sources of data were considered.

4.1.1 Initial case study question

Since vocabulary had been highlighted as a common source of difficulty for the

students, it was felt that a study of the effectiveness of the vocabulary teaching

component of the programme would offer insights for further investigation.

The first aim of the intensive English programme is to improve students’ language

skills to the point where they are able to enter colleges in the United States. The

second is to prepare them for life in a Western academic environment by teaching them

how to become more independent as learners. Therefore, the initial study question was

taken to be: “To what extent does the vocabulary component of the intensive English

programme achieve these goals?”

4.1.2 Study propositions

In order to enter academic institutions in the United States, students need to have

acquired sizeable vocabularies. It was suggested in section 3.3 that after learning the

2,000 most frequent words, learners intending to use English for academic purposes

ought to begin work on the Academic Word List. The ‘threshold level’, where learners

29
are capable of applying context guessing successfully and are more capable of

independent study, was put at 3,000 word families. Therefore, upon completing the

intensive programme, learners ought to have acquired vocabularies significantly larger

than 2,000 word families, with 3,000 word families being an optimal target. It was

decided to find a method of measuring vocabulary growth as the students progressed

through the course.

Although comprehending academic text would be crucial for success at university,

other skills would also be required. The students are likely to have to participate in

tutorials or give oral presentations, as well as functioning in everyday life. For this

reason, in addition to measuring receptive knowledge, gaining an understanding of

productive use of vocabulary would be necessary. The second goal of the study was

therefore to measure the students’ productive use of vocabulary to establish whether

there was a shift towards less frequent forms.

Vocabulary breadth and depth represent the results of learning, but a crucial factor

in determining the success or otherwise of the programme is: do students who have

finished their studies possess the means to support their own vocabulary development?

That is, can evidence be found to show that metacognitive knowledge and

independent vocabulary learning strategies have been acquired? This was taken to be

the third study proposition.

4.1.3 Testing criteria and data sources

The first criteria to be tested was the students’ receptive knowledge of word forms.

30
For adequate comprehension of academic text, a vocabulary of around 3,000 word

families, including around 83% of the Academic Word List (Nation, 2001:196) would

be required. As was mentioned in section 3.7, Nation’s Levels Test is designed to

estimate learners’ receptive knowledge of vocabulary at increasing frequency levels.

By using this test at intervals during the course, it would be possible to obtain

information on the rate of vocabulary development for each student. A sample of the

test which was administered is shown in Appendix I.

In order to obtain a picture of the students’ productive use of vocabulary, it was

decided that Laufer and Nation’s Lexical Frequency Profile would also be used. The

students’ weekly journals would be an ideal source of freely-composed writing. If

samples were taken from these journals and entered into the VocabProfile program, then

the students’ vocabulary usage at different stages of the course could be compared. A

sample analysis produced by the VocabProfile program is given in Appendix II.

Adoption of vocabulary learning strategies was taken as an indication of the

students becoming more independent, and therefore more structured and successful

learners. It was expected that a simple survey, carried out at the beginning of the

course, and again at the end of the research period, would highlight any changes in

strategy usage.

The survey was based largely on previous work by Fan (2003) and Schmitt (1997).

Fan presented learners with a list of 60 vocabulary learning strategies and asked them to

answer two questions, as follows:

31
 1) How frequently do you use the strategy stated?

2) To what extent do you think the strategy is or may be useful to you?

The learners then gave their responses on five-point Likert scales, with the

available answers being: never, seldom, sometimes, often and very often; and not useful,

not sure it is useful, quite useful, very useful, and extremely useful. This system, which

seemed to offer a reasonable variety of responses and was simple for the learners to

answer, was adopted for this study. Schmitt’s taxonomy of vocabulary learning

strategies was both clear and extensive, and so this became the source of the strategies

to be surveyed, of which 39 were selected. The questions on the survey were written

in both English and Japanese, so as to ensure accurate responses. The Language

Learning Strategy Survey is shown in Appendix III.

Towards the end of the research period, the teaching staff were surveyed on their

opinions on positive and negative aspects of the vocabulary teaching component of the

programme. It was felt that the perceptions of others involved in the programme

would provide a valuable contrast with the large amounts of quantitive data generated

by the other elements of the research phase. The exact format of the survey was left

unplanned until the middle of the research period to allow for any unforseen

developments. The teaching staff survey in shown in Appendix IV.

4.2 Research design and implementation

In order to maximise the length of the research period, the learning strategy

surveys and Nation’s Vocabulary Levels Test were administered within two weeks of the

32
course beginning. At this point, the majority of the students were new to the school,

although there were some who had been members of other programmes. For this

reason, the students were considered to have wide-ranging degrees of experience in

vocabulary learning, from those who were quite familiar with deep-level processing

strategies to others who were more reliant on rote-learning. After three months, the

students were asked to complete an identical survey to the one they had previously done

and another version of the Vocabulary Levels Test. The results of these tasks were

then compared with the previous research.

The samples of students’ written work were taken from their journals on a weekly

basis. The first journal entry of each week was copied and then entered into the

VocabProfile program. This was done partly in order to have a consistent sampling

procedure, and partly because the first journal entries are sometimes of a higher

standard than those completed just before the due date; by sampling the first entries, it

was hoped to obtain a clearer picture of each student’s capabilities. After entering the

journal, the percentage of words falling into each of the first and second 1,000 most

frequent words (K1 and K2), the Academic Word List (AWL), and off word list (OWL)

groups were noted, as well as the type/token ratio, the lexical density, and the

percentage of words that were Anglo-Saxon in origin or Greco/Latin/French derived

forms.

33
 CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

5.1 Student surveys

When the surveys were collected, the results were tallied and each response was

given a numerical score from one to five, with very often and extremely useful receiving

five points. The mean and standard deviation for each learning strategy were then

calculated. In the following discussion, both results will be given; for example,

3.67/0.49 refers to a mean of 3.67 and a standard deviation of 0.49. The results for

both surveys were analysed for statistical significance using the t-test. The full results

for both surveys are given in Appendix V.

For the first survey, the overall mean score of the 39 strategies for frequency of

use was 3.21 (3 = sometimes, 4 = often), while for usefulness it was 3.5 (3 = quite useful,

4 = very useful). After the second survey, these figures had dropped slightly – to 3.11

and 3.46 respectively.

5.1.1 Determination strategies

With a mean score of 3.80/0.42 in the first survey and 3.98/0.56 in the second,

determination strategies were far more frequently used than any other category. For

perceived usefulness, a mean score of 3.50/0.35 in the first survey was lower than those

of social, cognitive and metacognitive skills, but after the second survey, determination

strategies were perceived as being the most useful (3.74/0.48). These results appear to

reflect the increasing use the students are required to make of determination strategies

as they progress into more challenging levels.

34
 Frequency of use Perceived usefulness
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2
A1 Check the new word's form 4.00/1.18 4.07/0.96 3.52/1.17 4.07/1.28
A2 Look for any word parts that I know 3.64/1.05 3.80/0.94 3.32/1.29 3.47/0.92
A3 Check if the word is also a Japanese word 2.95/1.46 2.80/1.26 2.83/1.11 2.80/1.21
A4 Use any pictures or gestures to help me guess 4.23/0.61 4.40/0.74 3.71/0.90 3.93/1.16
A5 Guess from context 4.05/0.90 4.4/0.74 3.86/0.83 4.00/0.85
A6 Use a Japanese-English dictionary 3.96/0.98 4.27/0.80 3.48/1.08 3.67/1.23
A7 Use an English-English dictionary 3.77/0.97 4.13/0.74 3.77/1.07 4.21/0.70

Fig. 6 Determination strategy survey results

The students appeared to have mixed attitudes to strategies that make use of word

knowledge to determine meanings. While checking word form (strategy A1) was often

used and was perceived as much more useful at the time of the second survey, checking

if the word was also a loan word in Japanese (A3) was much less popular, and had

become less so by the time of the second survey. Using knowledge of affixes to

determine meaning (A2) was also relatively popular, and improved its scores later in the

year.

Using pictures and gestures (A4), or context (A5) to guess word meanings, two

strategies that are reinforced in almost every class, also became more popular over the

course of the research period. In particular, the use of guessing from context became

far more frequent; with a significant increase at the .20 level when measured by the

t-test.

The final determination strategies were using bilingual (A6) or monolingual (A7)

dictionaries. Interestingly, while bilingual dictionaries were used more frequently,

35
monolingual dictionaries were seen as more useful. This contrasts with Schmitt’s

(1997) survey of Japanese learners, in which monolingual dictionaries lead both

categories. The increase in usefulness of monolingual dictionaries was significant at

the .20 level on the t-test.

5.1.2 Social strategies

Social strategies were sometimes used at the time of the first survey, with a

frequency of use score of 3.17/0.53. This result, however, dropped to 2.88/0.58 in the

second survey. Likewise, usefulness fell from 3.58/0.43 to 3.31/0.63. These were

the largest falls suffered by any of the groups.

Frequency of use Perceived usefulness

Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2
B1 Ask the teacher for a definition or sentence 3.27/1.12 2.8/0.94 3.77/0.92 3.87/0.83
B2 Ask your classmates for the meaning 3.95/0.95 3.53/0.74 3.72/0.94 3.47/0.92
B3 Study new words with your classmates 2.59/0.80 2.07/0.88 3.00/0.98 2.27/0.70
B4 Ask the teacher to check your definition 2.77/0.87 2.67/0.90 3.29/0.90 3.2/1.08
B5 Talk with native speakers 3.27/1.16 3.33/0.98 4.09/1.11 3.73/1.03

Fig. 7 Social strategy survey results

In order to emphasise learner independence, students are encouraged to follow a

set routine when they encounter an unknown word which is preventing comprehension.

First, they are to attempt to guess the meaning by themselves. If this is impossible,

they should ask a classmate or use a monolingual dictionary. Only if these methods

have proved unsuccessful should asking a teacher become necessary. It seems likely

that the students becoming used to this system may explain the survey results for

36
strategies B1 and B2. The t-test showed that both strategies’ frequency of use scores

dropped significantly at the .20 level. Although students are encouraged to check their

own definitions with teachers, the results for strategy B4 may have declined for similar

reasons.

The results for studying new words with classmates (B3) and talking with native

speakers (B5) were surprising. Groupwork is certainly a central part of most lessons,

and students are constantly told that using new vocabulary is crucial for successful

acquisition. The frequency of use score for B3 fell significantly at the .10 level on the

t-test, while the drop in perceived usefulness was significant at the .20 level. Although

strategy B5 was seen as slightly less useful in the second survey, it remained the second

most useful social strategy after asking a teacher for a definition.

5.1.3 Memory strategies

Overall, the students’ opinion of memory strategies remained reasonably

consistent over the research period. Mean scores of 2.94/0.58 and 2.85/0.56 meant that

they were used slightly less than sometimes. Although the students clearly regarded

them as quite useful, with means of 3.27/0.47 and 3.16/0.49, memory strategies obtained

the lowest usefulness ratings of any group.

37
 Frequency of use Perceived usefulness
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2
C2 Make a mental image of the word's meaning 3.64/0.95 3.47/0.74 4.00/1.07 3.27/1.16
C3 Connect the word to a personal experience 3.00/1.11 3.07/1.10 2.95/1.05 3.60/0.91
C7 Group words together to study them 2.18/0.73 1.80/0.68 2.86/0.94 2.47/0.99
C8 Use new words in sentences 3.09/0.75 3.27/0.70 3.82/0.96 3.40/0.91
C11 Study the sound of a word 4.05/0.79 3.71/0.83 4.09/1.02 4.07/1.27
C12 Say the new words aloud when you first meet them 4.09/0.87 3.79/1.05 4.14/0.94 3.71/0.99

Fig. 8 Sample of memory strategy survey results

The strategy of making a mental image of the word’s meaning (C2) was not

explicity taught to students during the course. Nonetheless, it appears to have been

used quite often, although the large drop in perceived usefulness was significant at

the .10 level on the t-test. The drop could be explained by the equally significant gain

made in strategy C3, which is much more commonly used by teachers in class, who

attempt to link the often quite specialized vocabulary in the textbooks to the students’

lives. Vocabulary notebooks and journals also provide regular opportunities to link

new vocabulary to personal experience.

Two quite disappointing results were the significant falls in the frequency of use of

grouping words together to study them (C7) (level .20), and using new words in

sentences (C8) (level .20). Strategy C7 has been considered by the teaching staff as a

worthwhile addition to the course, but as yet has only been implemented on an ad hoc

basis. Strategy C8 however, is already part of the students’ daily routine, in which they

must use new words in original sentences for their vocabulary notebooks everyday.

Vocabulary notebooks will be discussed further in section 6.

38
 Of all the memory strategies included in the survey, studying the sound of a word

(C11) and saying the word aloud when it is first encountered (C12) were most

frequently used and most useful. Although neither strategy is explicitly taught as a

strategy in itself, the intensive course places a high value on correct pronunciation, and

it is likely that students receive feedback on this skill several times a day. In Schmitt’s

(1997) survey, these skills were also regarded as highly useful, so it is possible that

these strategies have been encountered earlier in the students’ educational lives.

5.1.4 Cognitive strategies

The results for cognitive strategies remained reasonably consistent over the two

surveys. Frequency of use dropped marginally from 3.34/0.91 to 3.28/0.97, while

perceived usefulness was virtually unchanged with scores of 3.59/0.41 and 3.57/0.48.

In both categories, these were the highest results for consolidation strategies. This

mirrors the work of Schmitt (1997), in which cognitive strategies were both frequently

used and regarded as the most useful.

Frequency of use Perceived usefulness

Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2
D1 Repeat the words aloud many times 3.45/1.10 3.29/1.44 3.68/1.04 3.79/1.25
D2 Write the words many times 2.95/1.05 2.79/1.05 3.73/1.08 3.29/1.27
D3 Make lists of new words 3.55/1.26 3.29/1.07 3.73/0.98 3.57/1.09
D4 Use flash cards to record new words 3.32/1.04 4.00/1.18 3.27/0.98 3.93/1.07
D5 Take notes or highlight new words 4.45/0.67 4.36/0.63 3.95/1.13 4.07/1.00
D6 Put English labels on physical objects 1.59/1.05 1.43/0.51 2.82/0.85 2.71/0.73
D7 Keep a vocabulary notebook 4.05/0.95 3.79/0.70 3.95/0.84 4.00/0.68

Fig. 9 Cognitive strategy survey results

39
 In an interesting contrast with Schmitt’s (1997) results, the strategies of repeating

words either orally (D1) or in writing (D2) were not amongst the most popular.

Schmitt (1997:215) makes the point that popular strategies can easily become

entrenched, and that teachers can face resistance when trying to introduce alternative

methods. In this case, although verbal repetition increased in usefulness, written

repetition suffered a large drop in the same category, and both became less frequently

used.

Using flash cards to record new vocabulary (D4) was the only strategy to improve

significantly in both frequency of use and perceived usefulness. In comparison with

making lists of new words (D3), flash cards can be used to study words in groups, as

well as providing a flexible method of reviewing receptive or productive vocabulary.

Other strategies which received high scores were D5 ‘Take notes or highlight new

words’, which allows new vocabulary to become more noticeable, and D7 ‘Keep a

vocabulary notebook’, which is already an important element of the programme.

5.1.5 Metacognitive strategies

Metacognitive strategies were the least frequently used group in both surveys,

with mean scores of 2.80/0.46 and 2.58/0.34. In contrast, scores of 3.58/0.36 and

3.53/0.47 show that they were perceived as being amongst the most useful.

40
 Frequency of use Perceived usefulness
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2
E1 Use English language media 3.05/1.33 2.87/1.06 3.23/1.11 3.2/0.86
E2 Test yourself with word tests 2.27/0.94 2.20/1.21 3.55/1.01 3.33/1.11
E3 Study new words many times 3.09/1.05 2.67/0.90 3.95/1.05 4.07/1.03

Fig. 10 Metacognitive strategy survey results

The results for using English language media (E1) indicate that while the students

sometimes make use of authentic language sources, they regard them as being only quite

useful. This contrasts with the results of Fan’s (2003) survey, in which students rated

this strategy as very useful. The intensive nature of the programme may mean that

students are less willing to spend their free time reading in English. However, this result

mirrors a concern raised in the most recent debriefing session – that only the most

successful learners made full use of the wide variety of resources available in the

school’s language laboratory.

The other metacognitive strategies, ‘Test yourself with word tests’ (E2) and ‘Study

new words many times’ (E3) also became less frequently used. E3 in particular,

suffered a significant drop at the .10 level as measured by the t-test. The perceived

usefulness scores show that these techniques are considered valuable by the students,

and therefore for teachers the challenge lies in increasing the amount of review work the

students can do without detracting from their other coursework.

5.2 Vocabulary Levels Tests

Soon after the programme had begun, the first Vocabulary Levels Test was carried

out. On this occasion, the students completed questions on vocabulary at the 1,000,

41
2,000 and 3,000 levels. The 1,000 level questions were in a different format to the

other levels, and although they predictably received the highest mean score, some

students were clearly confused by the questions. For this reason, when the second test

was carried out later in the year, the 1,000 level questions were not included.

Questions based on the Academic Word List were added for the second test in order to

provide data that would allow comparison of the students’ vocabularies with the targets

given in sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. The results of the two tests can be seen in figure 11.

Full results are given in Appendix VI.

Test 1 Test 2
t-value Significance
Mean Mean
1,000 13.76 – – –
2,000 11.00 13.59 2.612 Significant at .02 level
3,000 5.59 10.12 5.17 Significant at .001 level
AWL – 7.24 – –

Fig. 11 Results of Vocabulary Levels tests

(Scores all out of 18)

Laufer’s (1998) study of vocabulary growth in Israeli high school students yielded

similar data which were used to produce approximations of vocabulary size. By

totalling the students’ scores in each of the five 1,000-word frequency levels as well as

the AWL, Laufer estimated the proportion of the 5,000 most frequent word families that

were known, as so used this as a measure of vocabulary growth. In this approximation,

the fourth level score was taken as the average of the third and fifth level results.

In this study, the students were not tested on vocabulary from the 5,000 word level,

42
and AWL vocabulary was not included in the first test, but by assuming a similar ratio

of scores between levels as in Laufer’s study, rough estimates for vocabulary size could

be obtained. For the first test, the mean vocabulary size was 1,718 word families, with

a low score of 1,130 families, and a high of 2,273 families. The results of the second

test gave a mean approximation of 2,690 word families, with a low of 1,839 families

and a high of 3,600 families. These increases are similar to the estimated yearly

vocabulary growth of young native speakers (see section 3.3). The complete list of

estimates of vocabulary size are given in Appendix VII.

The results of the Levels Tests indicate significant gains in vocabulary at both the

2,000 and 3,000 levels, and an overall increase of approximately 57% in vocabulary size.

The mean score for the Academic Word List vocabulary was 7.24, or 40%. The

vocabulary growth occurred over a period of three sessions of the daily intensive

programme, or roughly three months. Given that the students had at least another three

sessions of studies following the second test, it seems likely that the mean vocabulary

size would have approached or even exceeded the target of 3,000 word families by the

end of the programme.

5.3 Lexical Frequency Profiles

In total, 319 samples of the students journal entries from levels 101 to 107 were

collected over a 15 week period. The original intention had been to collect 450

samples, however, the process of photocopying journals then typing them into the

computer program was found to be restrictively time consuming.

43
5.3.1 Analysis of class levels

When all of the data were collated, the mean results from each class level were

calculated to provide an overall picture of the work produced during the research period.

These results are shown in figure 12.

Class level (number of samples)

101(19) 102 (28) 103 (69) 104 (91) 105 (72) 106 (29) 107 (11)
% K1 words 88.73 89.34 88.16 89.33 87.59 88.54 87.24
% K2 words 5.09 5.32 5.8 5.26 6.08 6.16 3.97
% AWL words 0.9 1.2 1.26 1.62 1.68 1.34 3.29
% OWL words 5.29 4.13 4.79 3.79 4.65 3.84 5.5
% AWL & OWL 6.19 5.33 6.05 5.41 6.33 5.18 8.79
Tokens 90.21 92.07 103.62 115.88 123.86 135.97 137.45
Types 52.11 56.68 62.65 68.74 73.1 79.07 80.91
Type/Token Ratio 0.578 0.619 0.611 0.601 0.599 0.591 0.595
Lexical Density 0.489 0.483 0.47 0.459 0.462 0.464 0.443
Anglo-Sax Index 84.93 84.23 82.75 82.14 81.99 81.53 78.61
Greco-Lat/Fr Cognate Index 15.07 15.77 17.25 17.86 18.01 18.47 21.39

Fig. 12 Lexical Frequency Profile results for each class level

The results for the different frequency levels are very mixed. Although the K1

words percentage is at its lowest in the 107 class, it has fluctuated in each of the

previous levels and cannot be considered to have dropped substantially. The same is

true of the off-word-list items, which also oscillate before finishing at their highest level

in 107. The K2 and AWL words appear to climb gradually over the course of the

research period, with occasional deviations from this trend, including the sudden drop in

K2 level words at the 107 level.

44
 Laufer (1998) compared students’ combined K1 and K2 level, or basic, word

usage with that of less frequent items in order to see whether a change was evident.

Using the same system, 6.19% of the items used in the 101 level were beyond basic

vocabulary, compared with 8.79% in level 107. However, as with other data, the

percentages in the intervening levels fluctuate, and the result for the 106 level is actually

lower than that of the 101 level.

The results show a gradual increase in the number of tokens used in each journal,

and also a corresponding increase in word types. The ratio of tokens and types

remains reasonably constant. This suggests that students gradually become more

comfortable writing in English as the course progresses, although they do not use a

significantly greater variety of lexical items. The results for the lexical density of

journals support this conjecture; steadily declining between the 101 and 104 levels, they

rise slightly in 105 and 106, only to sink to their lowest level in 107.

The mean results from the class levels showed a gradual trend away from words of

Anglo-Saxon origin toward the use of items derived from Greek, Latin or French in the

students’ writing. Since items with these roots tend to be more formal than those with

a basis in Anglo-Saxon, it is possible that the students were beginning to develop an

awareness of vocabulary that is more suitable in a written context.

5.3.2 Analysis of individuals’ journals

Of the 33 students whose journals were sampled during the research period, 24

were present for and provided samples of writing from three or more sessions. It was

45
felt that analysing work from students who had only completed two sessions was

unlikely to yield significant results. However, these students’ journal entries were still

included in the analysis of class levels. Having observed how the results for the

Frequency Profiles fluctuated between levels, it was decided to compare only the

journal data from the first and most recent sessions. First, the results for the first and

last sessions for each of the 24 students were compared. Then, the percentages of

those students whose results increased or decreased for each category were calculated.

This is shown in figure 13.

% Students
Increase Decrease
% K1 words 17 83
% K2 words 75 25
% AWL words 67 33
% OWL words 67 33
% AWL & OWL 71 29
Tokens 75 25
Types 67 33
Type/Token Ratio 50 50
Lexical Density 54 46
Anglo-Sax Index 37 63
Greco-Lat/Fr Cognate Index 63 37

Fig. 13 Lexical Frequency Profile

results for individuals

These results suggest that most of the students were using less frequent vocabulary

at the end of the research period than they had done previously. Most students also

wrote longer journal entries, with a corresponding increase in the number of word types.

The ratio of types used to the total number of items, however, did not increase, and the

46
lexical density result indicates that students were only using a slightly greater proportion

of information-carrying items in their writing.

In order to establish whether any significant changes had taken place in the

Lexical Frequency Profiles of an average individual student, a t-test was carried out on

the data from the same students first and last sessions. This is summarised in figure

14.

First Final
Session Session t-value Significance
Mean Mean
% K1 words 89.29 87.49 2.392 Significant at .05 level
% K2 words 4.94 5.9 2.195 Significant at .05 level
% AWL words 1.36 1.74 1.195 Not significant
% OWL words 4.42 4.87 0.757 Not significant
Tokens 112.8 124.1 1.594 Significant at .20 level
Types 66.51 72.94 1.837 Significant at .10 level
Type/Token Ratio 0.5964 0.5962 0.013 Not significant
Lexical Density 0.4626 0.4698 0.83 Not significant
Anglo-Sax Index 82.49 81.42 0.931 Not significant
Greco-Lat/Fr Cognate Index 17.51 18.58 0.929 Not significant

Fig. 14 Significance of average individual Lexical

Frequency Profile development

The t-test results show that an average individual will use significantly less K1

level vocabulary, and significantly more K2 level items after three sessions of the

intensive course, but that usage of higher-level vocabulary will remain essentially

unchanged. The only other significant changes are in the number of tokens and types

47
used, which appear to confirm the observation in section 5.3.1 that students write at

greater length as they progress through the course.

5.3.3 Potential shortcomings of Lexical Frequency Profiling

During the period in which the students’ journals were being entered onto the

computer, certain limitations in the program and the system of analysis became evident.

Firstly, the use of less frequent vocabulary often seemed to depend on the topic of

the journal; students writing about current affairs typically used a greater amount of

off-word-list items than those writing about their personal lives. Therefore, when

using Lexical Frequency Profiles to assess vocabulary development, either having a

large number of students write on the same topic, or collecting several samples of

writing from each student is necessary to avoid skewing the data.

The second shortcoming involved the impact of improvements in the students’

grammatical knowledge on the data. At the beginning of the trial, many students’

command of grammatical structures, particularly determiners and prepositions, was

weak. These items were both omited and overused, so the impact of these errors on

the Lexical Profiles is impossible to assess. Another development that occurred in

written work was the increased usage of pronouns as the students reached higher levels.

It is possible that both of these developments in the students’ metalanguage skewed the

data in lower-level classes by increasing the number of items from beyond the basic

2,000 words, while at the same time reducing the number of K1 and K2 level words

used.

48
 The final drawback lies with the VocabProfile program itself, which is unable to

differentiate between homonyms, and has no capability to detect idiomatic language or

compound lexical items. The usage of phrasal verbs in particular, is likely to give

misleading data, since many of these items consist of highly frequent verbs, such as DO,

GET and MAKE, coupled with prepositions.

5.4 Teaching staff surveys

The final element of the research phase was a survey completed by other members

of the teaching staff. The survey asked the teachers to comment on three main points:

how successful they believed the efforts made to improve student vocabularies were,

what the characteristics of learners with good or poor vocabularies are, and the positive

and/or negative points of vocabulary notebooks, student journals, and materials used in

classes.

The responses to the first question were broadly similar: the teaching staff

believed that while the programme is very good at raising awareness of techniques for

learning vocabulary, and offers ample opportunities for them to be applied, there is only

limited success at instilling independent learning habits in students. It was felt that

more could be done in the areas of goal-setting and attempting to raise self-motivation,

especially regarding the use of English language media outside class. Another point

raised was the need to better integrate target vocabulary throughout the syllabus.

Several key characteristics of successful vocabulary learners were identified by

the teaching staff. The first was an enquiring personality and an introspective attitude

49
toward learning. The ability to find opportunities for vocabulary enhancement was

also considered important, especially reading for pleasure and speaking in English with

friends. Successful learners were also thought to be organized and methodical about

learning vocabulary; they make comprehensive notes about new items and review them

regularly. Other positive attributes were selecting only vocabulary that is useful and

finding enjoyment in studying English.

Vocabulary notebooks were viewed very positively by all members of staff,

although it was felt that some improvements could be made. The fact that vocabulary

books are added to every day places a requirement on learners to constantly seek out

new terms. They can also be personalized according to individual learning preferences

and are a tangible resource – one that gives a clear indication of words that have been

acquired. The main challenge for teachers is to instill this belief in all learners; for

some of the students, vocabulary notebooks are clearly a chore, the definitions are too

brief and the example sentences are sometimes too simple or misuse the word. There

was also concern about the lack of organization in the notebooks; words are listed only

according to the order they are encountered, and there is no attempt to sub-divide the

entries grammatically or topically.

As with vocabulary notebooks, journals were seen as being of enormous benefit

for students, if used properly. Having regular opportunities to make productive use of

new language is essential if that language is to be fully acquired by learners. The fact

that journals are seen as opportunities to experiment, rather than to produce perfect, but

basic, language is another positive aspect, as is the feedback students can receive from

50
teachers. The key point of journal writing is that the more students push themselves to

write at a higher level, the more they are likely to benefit. Learners who neglect to

analyse their errors, or make little attempt to incorporate new language into their writing,

will improve less. There is even the danger of errors becoming fossilised unless

attention is given to corrections.

The vocabulary contained in class textbooks was seen as useful if it could easily

be related to classroom activities, and relevant for end of session tests. In the higher

levels however, there are a lot of highly specialized terms or uncommon idiomatic

language with little relevance to the students’ lives. Using graded readers for

homework and in-class activities was seen in a far more positive light. Having lexical

items graded for each level means that students are exposed to new language at a

manageable rate, and the high degree of contextualization helps to aid guessing and

recall. Having a weekly class devoted to the reader also allows students to discuss the

text more confidently, having been given several days to prepare.

51
 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS

At the outset of this investigation, three main goals were established. The first

and second goals were to examine receptive and productive vocabularies, firstly in order

to judge whether students finishing the course have attained ‘threshold’ vocabularies,

and secondly to develop a form of diagnostic analysis that would allow better insight

into students’ vocabularies. Student vocabularies were measured using Levels Tests

and Lexical Frequency Profiles. The third goal was to find evidence of learning

strategy use, or lack thereof, in the students enrolled in the daily intensive programme,

and to assess any change in attitude to learning strategies that takes place over a period

of three sessions. These changes were measured with the use of surveys of learning

strategy usage and preference conducted at the beginning of the course and again three

months later. Finally, a survey was carried out to record the opinions of the teaching

staff on the vocabulary teaching element of the course.

In general, the results of the Vocabulary Levels Tests were extremely encouraging.

The average student’s vocabulary increased by approximately 57%, and with a mean

vocabulary size of 2,690 word families, the target threshold vocabulary is clearly

achievable for many of the students within the remainder of the programme. One

element of passive vocabulary which may require further attention though, is academic

vocabulary, which would clearly benefit the majority of students, who will enter

universities in the U.S. in the coming months.

Although it is likely that most students would achieve vocabulary sizes of around

3,000 word families by the end of the course, there are also a number who would

52
probably fall short of that target. For these students, comprehending native level texts

would likely be beyond their abilities after another three sessions. In reality, these

students have already begun to encounter difficulties with the level of improvement

demanded by the programme and have had to repeat levels. The test results appear to

be a good predictor of those students who struggle in reading classes.

The Vocabulary Levels Test proved to be a convenient method of assessing the

development of passive vocabulary. The test was simple to administer, provided clear

results, and allowed useful insights into the development of vocabulary over time. It

also suggested that although the majority of students are likely to acquire vocabularies

sufficient for acceptable levels of text comprehension, more work could be done to

assist those who fail to reach this standard. By including questions on fifth level items,

and carrying out the test at three points during the academic year, it may be possible to

obtain data that could be used to advise students on how to make optimal use of their

study time.

The results from the Lexical Frequency Profiles of the students’ active

vocabularies were the least conclusive data obtained during the research. It is clear

that sampling students’ free writing every session does not allow sufficient time for

improvements to be noticeable. The choice of topic also seemed to greatly influence

results, although this might be compensated for somewhat by collecting a large number

of samples. There also remain concerns over the lack of treatment of idiomatic

language and other multi-word items.

53
 In spite of these issues, the Lexical Frequency Profiles appeared to show some

changes in vocabulary use. They were also capable of highlighting the comparative

lack of academic items in the students’ writing. Perhaps a more controlled experiment

using Lexical Frequency Profiles would yield better results, for example, by asking all

students to write a journal-length piece on the same topic, and then repeating this

exercise at intervals throughout the year. If these intervals were sufficiently large

enough to allow for improvement, and the topics chosen allowed students to

demonstrate their vocabularies fully, more conclusive data might be obtained.

The learning strategy survey yielded numerous insights into learning habits and

preferences, and there was also some evidence of changes in behaviour over the three

month period. Perhaps the clearest of these was the increase in perceived usefulness of

determination strategies, an unsurprising result since these strategies are clearly of more

benefit when dealing with higher-level texts. Within the category of determination

strategies, guessing from context, noting word forms, and using a monolingual

dictionary, all of which are encouraged heavily in the course, showed gains in both

frequency of use and usefulness.

While some of the significant changes in study habits occurred in concert with the

intentions of the teaching staff, others were more surprising. The fall in the perceived

usefulness of using new words in sentences contradicts expectations since this is a skill

that is practised every day in the students’ vocabulary books. Likewise, the decline in

the use and usefulness of studying new words with classmates suggests that learning

vocabulary is increasingly being seen as an independent activity.

54
 Some of the social strategies, including asking teachers or classmates for

definitions, were clearly affected by the emphasis on applying other strategies to

determine word meaning. The general decline of social strategies as a whole, however,

is of some concern. Given that the students consistently regarded teachers and other

native speakers as more useful than classmates, there appears to have been limited

acceptance of the value of social strategies. Working in groups to share knowledge

and ideas is a central element of this teaching programme, and so there may be a case

for establishing activities that will demonstrate more clearly and convincingly to the

students the benefits of learning socially.

The relatively infrequent usage of metacognitive strategies, despite the fact that

their value is clearly recognised, highlights a key dilemma of intensive study

programmes: how to allow learners time to review their work and engage in wider

reading without interfering with their regular coursework. In their own survey, many

of the teachers mentioned seeking opportunities for learning and reviewing work as key

characteristics of successful students, so there would appear to be value in creating

activities that focus on these skills.

When carrying out surveys of learning styles, there is a potential risk of

respondents giving answers they feel they are expected to make rather than true

responses, but the fact that bilingual dictionaries were revealed as being more frequently

used, despite being perceived as less useful and being banned from classroom use,

suggests that the responses obtained were reliable. There is also the possibility that the

students’ own views on the survey categories might have changed during the course.

55
At the time of the first survey, most of the students were relatively unused to intensive

study, and therefore by the time of the second survey, their definitions of often or quite

useful might well have changed. This could only be confirmed by obtaining more data

from the continued use of the survey in future programmes.

Overall, the survey helped to confirm that the programme was often successful in

inculcating independent study habits in the students, particularly strategies for

determination of meanings. What was also apparent however, was that the use of

strategies in vocabulary learning is a complicated issue, one which is not – and probably

never will be – entirely under the teachers’ control. Learners may well react to

classroom instruction in unpredictable ways, and the value of surveys is that they can

offer insights into these changes in habits, allowing teachers to oversee the process more

clearly, and if necessary, plan remedial action.

When compared with Nation’s three elements of autonomous learning (see section

3.2), the survey results suggest that progress has been made, but that room for

improvement still remains. Many of the students appear to be more aware of the

learning process, and have showed themselves capable of applying their knowledge to

further their own learning needs. A number of the strategies which are promoted by

the teaching staff have become more frequently used and are seen as being very useful

by the students. There remain, however, strategies which have not yet been fully

accepted by many students which could be highly beneficial. Such strategies provide a

focus for future development planning within the school.

56
 Some of the teachers’ concerns that vocabulary notebooks required more

organisation were echoed in the limited usage of grouping strategies by the students.

By developing a system whereby students can organize their notebooks topically or

grammatically, it may be possible to encourage learners to return to their entries and add

information as it is acquired, thus promoting the use of deeper processing strategies that

will allow for richer encoding.

Secondly, the low frequency of use scores for metacognitive strategies imply that

learners are not taking control of their own learning – the attitude element of

autonomous study. Here there may be an opportunity to stress the value of groupwork,

since reviewing and informal testing is an activity which could easily be accomplished

without the presence of a teacher.

Finally, goal-setting, if properly carried out, would help to improve learners’

self-awareness. Again, this is an activity amenable to pair- or small groupwork which

would highlight each individual’s desire, or lack thereof, to assume responsibility for

their own linguistic development.

In conclusion, this study can claim to have achieved its first goal of measuring

improvements in students’ passive vocabularies and matching them to suitable targets.

The second goal – determining whether there has been a shift towards usage of less

frequent forms – is hinted at, but cannot be confirmed by Lexical Frequency profiling.

The final goal was to look for evidence of improvements in metacognitive knowledge

and independent vocabulary learning. Here there was a limited degree of success, but

57
the research clearly helped to define key areas for further action.

This paper has examined the treatment of vocabulary within a relatively specialized

teaching and learning environment, and as such, its conclusions cannot be applied to

more general situations. However, it is hoped that the data obtained will be of

practical use in planning future developments in this school, and that the insights gained

into the strengths and weaknesses of this teaching programme will help to reinforce the

value of conducting such action research projects in any context.

58
 APPENDIX I: VOCABULARY LEVELS TEST

Vocabulary Levels Test: 1000 Level Test A

This is a vocabulary test. You must decide whether the sentences are true or not. If you
think the sentence is true, circle the T, if you think it is not true, circle the N. If you do
not understand the question, circle the X.
Here is an example question:
Example: We cut time into minutes, hours, and days.
N X T
This sentence is true, so the letter T is circled.

1. This one is little.

T N X
2. You can find these everywhere.

T N X

3. Some children call their mother Mama.

T N X
4. Show me the way to do it means 'show me how to do it.'
T N X
5. This country is part of the world.
T N X

59
6. This can keep people away from your house.

T N X
7. When something falls, it goes up.
T N X
8. Most children go to school at night.
T N X
9. It is easy for children to remain still.
T N X
10. One person can carry this.

T N X

11. A scene is part of a play.

T N X
12. People often think of their home, when they are away from it.
T N X
13. There is a mountain in every city.
T N X
14. Every month has the same number of days.
T N X
15. A chief is the youngest person in a group.
T N X
16. Black is a colour.
T N X
17. You can use a pen to make marks on paper.
T N X
18. A family always has at least two people.
T N X

60
 Vocabulary Levels Test: 2,000 and 3,000 Levels Test A

This is a vocabulary test. You must choose the right word to go with each
meaning. Write the number of that word next to its meaning. Here is an
example.

1 business
2 clock
______ part of a house
3 horse
______ animal with four legs
4 pencil
______ something used for writing
5 shoe
6 wall

You answer it in the following way.

1 business
2 clock
__6___ part of a house
3 horse
__3___ animal with four legs
4 pencil
__4___ something used for writing
5 shoe
6 wall

Some words are in the test to make it more difficult. You do not have to find a
meaning for these words. In the example above, these words are business, clock, and
shoe.
If you have no idea about the meaning of a word, do not guess. But if you think you
might know the meaning, then you should try to find the answer.

The 2,000-word level

1 birth
2 dust
3 operation
______ game
4 row
______ winning
5 sport
______ being born
6 victory

61
1 choice
2 crop ______ heat
3 flesh ______ meat
4 salary ______ money paid regularly for doing a job
5 secret
6 temperature

1 cap
2 education
______ teaching and learning
3 journey
______ numbers to measure with
4 parent
______ going to a far place
5 scale
6 trick

1 attack
2 charm ______ gold and silver
3 lack ______ pleasing quality
4 pen ______ not having something
5 shadow
6 treasure

1 cream
2 factory ______ part of milk
3 nail ______ a lot of money
4 pupil ______ person who is studying
5 sacrifice
6 wealth

1 adopt
2 climb ______ go up
3 examine ______ look at closely
4 pour ______ be on every side
5 satisfy
6 surround

62
The 3,000-word level

1 belt
2 climate ______ idea
3 executive ______ inner surface of your hand
4 notion ______ strip of leather worn around the waist
5 palm
6 victim

1 acid
2 bishop ______ cold feeling
3 chill ______ animal
4 ox ______ organization or framework
5 ridge
6 structure

1 bench
2 charity ______ long seat
3 jar ______ help to the poor
4 mate ______ part of a country
5 mirror
6 province

1 boot
2 device ______ army officer
3 ridge ______ a kind of stone
4 marble ______ tube through which blood flows
5 phrase
6 vein

1 apartment
2 candle ______ a place to live
3 draft ______ chance of something happening
4 horror ______ first rough form of something written
5 prospect
6 timber

63
1 betray
2 dispose ______ frighten
3 embrace ______ say publicly
4 injure ______ hurt seriously
5 proclaim
6 scare

64
 APPENDIX II: SAMPLE VOCABULARY PROFILE ANALYSIS

Original Journal
What is your pet peeve?
I often get irritated when I find a person who is talking loudly in the public place or
transportation. I can often see these people and they made me crazy. First of all, they
are very rude and it is annoying for the almost all people. If such a terrible person goes
to quiet places, for example, a library, a museum, a concert hall, and so on, I’ll think that
I want them to disappear from there right now. In addition, when I’d like to sleep in
the bus, I hope that there are no noisy people. I want to say “shut up!”, but I can never.
Therefore, it makes me stressed. Finally, I with everyone can become polite. I know that
it is impossible, but it is one of the duty as human, so I don’t want to be that kind of
person.

Analysis

● K1 Words (1 to 1000): 88.44%

● K2 Words (1001 to 2000): 6.80%
● AWL Words (academic): 2.04%
● Off-list Words: 2.72%
Words in text (tokens): 147
Different words (types): 92
Type-token ratio: 0.63
Lexical density (content words/total): 0.44
Anglo-Sax index: 83.92%
Greco-Lat/Fr-cognate index: 16.08%

Integral text: i often get irritated when i find a person who is talking loudly in the public
place or transportation i can often see these people and they made me crazy first of all
they are very rude and it is annoying for the almost all people if such a terrible person
goes to quiet places for example a library a museum a concert hall and so on i will think
that i want them to disappear from there right now in addition when i would like to
sleep in the bus i hope that there are no noisy people i want to say shut up but i can
never therefore it makes me stressed finally i with everyone can become polite i know
that it is impossible but it is one of the duty as human so i do not want to be that kind of
person

65
APPENDIX III: VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGY SURVEY

I do this… I think this is…

not sure it quite very extremely
never seldom sometimes often very often not useful
When I find a new English word that I don't know, I... is useful useful useful useful
役に立つ
めったに とても　　 役に立た かどうか かなり　　 とても　　 非常に　　
全くしない 時々する よくする
新出単語を見つけたとき、私は… しない よくする ない わからな 役にたつ 役に立つ 役に立つ
い
Check the new word's form (verb, noun etc.)
A1
新出単語の品詞を調べる（動詞・名詞、等…）
Look for any word parts that I know (impossible, colorful)
A2
単語の中で知っている部分を探す
Check if the word is also a Japanese word (spoon/スプーン)
A3
カタカナ英語として日本語でも使われているか調べる
Use any pictures or gestures to help me guess
A4
絵・写真や（先生の）ジェスチャーから推測する
Guess from context
A5
文脈から推測する
Use a Japanese-English dictionary
A6
英和辞書を使う
Use an English-English dictionary
A7
英英辞書を使う
Ask the teacher to give you the definition or a sentence
B1
先生に定義や例文をたずねる
Ask your classmates for the meaning
B2
クラスメイトに意味を聞く

I do this… I think this is…

When I want to remember new wordsand build my vocabulary, I… not sure it quite very extremely
never seldom sometimes often very often not useful
is useful useful useful useful
役に立つ
めったに とても　　 役に立た かどうか かなり　　 とても　　 非常に　　
全くしない 時々する よくする
新出単語を覚え、語彙を増やしたい時、私は・
・・ しない よくする ない わからな 役にたつ 役に立つ 役に立つ
い
Study the word with your classmates
B3
その単語をクラスメイトと共に勉強する
Ask the teacher to check your definition
B4
先生に、定義を確認する
Talk with native speakers
B5
ネイティブスピーカーと話す
Draw a picture of the word to help remember it
C1
絵を描いて覚える手助けにする
Make a mental image of the word's meaning
C2
その単語の意味をイメージする
Connect the word to a personal experience
C3
自分の経験と単語を結びつける
Remember the words that follow or precede the new word
C4
前後に使われる単語を覚える
Connect the word to other words with similar or opposite meanings
C5
類義語や反義語と結びつける
Remember words in 'scales' (always-often-sometimes-never)
C6
連続して覚える（いつも・しばしば・時々・決して・・・等）
Group words together to study them
C7
単語をグループ化する
Use new words in sentences
C8
文の中で新出単語を使用する
Write paragraphs using several new words
C9
新出単語をたくさん使用した文章を書く
Study the spelling of a word
C10
スペルを覚える
Study the sound of a word
C11
発音を覚える
Say the new words aloud when you first meet them
C12
声に出して言う
Make a mental image of the word's form
C13
単語の形をイメージする
Remember the word using its parts (im-, un-, -able, -ful, -ment, ex-)
C14
単語の一部分から覚える
Remember the word using its word form (verb, noun, adjective)
C15
品詞から覚える（動詞・名詞・形容詞等）
Make your own definition for the word
C16
独自の定義を作る
Use physical action when learning a word
C17
体を使って覚える

66
 I do this… I think this is…
When I want to remember new wordsand build my vocabulary, I… not sure it quite very extremely
never seldom sometimes often very often not useful
is useful useful useful useful
役に立つ
めったに とても　　 役に立た かどうか かなり　　 とても　　 非常に　　
全くしない 時々する よくする
新出単語を覚え、語彙を増やしたい時、私は・・
・ しない よくする ない わからな 役にたつ 役に立つ 役に立つ
い
Repeat the words aloud many times
D1
声に出して繰り返す
Write the words many times
D2
何度も書く
Make lists of new words
D3
新出単語のリストを作る
Use flash cards to record new words
D4
単語帳を使う
Take notes or highlight new words in class
D5
メモをとる、又はマーカーを引く
Put English labels on physical objects
D6
物にラベルを貼る（例：refrigeratorと書いたラベルを冷蔵庫に貼る）
Keep a vocabulary notebook
D7
単語ノートをつける
Use English-language media (songs, movies, the internet)
E1
メディアを利用する（歌、映画、インターネット等）
Test yourself with word tests
E2
単語テストでテストする
Study new words many times
E3
何度も復習する

67
 APPENDIX IV: TEACHING STAFF SURVEY

Vocabulary teaching survey

In general, how successful do you think we are in helping students to improve their
vocabularies?

What characteristics or habits do you think separate students in the daily program
who have good vocabularies from those with poor ones?

There are several elements of the course that require students to focus on vocabulary.
Please comment on the positive and/or negative points of the following items.

1) Vocabulary notebooks

2) Journals

3) Vocabulary/Idioms options classes

4) Vocabulary in SSP textbooks

5) Vocabulary in R/W textbooks and graded readers

Can you think of any areas where our teaching of vocabulary could be improved?

68
 APPENDIX V: VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGY SURVEY RESULTS

Frequency of use scores: 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often

Perceived usefulness scores: 1 = not useful, 2 = not sure it is useful, 3 = quite useful, 4 = very useful, 5 = extremely useful
Significance measured using the t -test

Frequency of use Perceived usefulness

Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance
A1 Check the new word's form (verb, noun etc.) 4.00/1.18 4.07/0.96 Not significant 3.52/1.17 4.07/1.28 Not significant
A2 Look for any known word parts (impossible, colourful) 3.64/1.05 3.80/0.94 Not significant 3.32/1.29 3.47/0.92 Not significant
A3 Check if the word is also a Japanese word 2.95/1.46 2.80/1.26 Not significant 2.83/1.11 2.80/1.21 Not significant
A4 Use any pictures or gestures to help me guess 4.23/0.61 4.40/0.74 Not significant 3.71/0.90 3.93/1.16 Not significant
A5 Guess from context 4.05/0.90 4.40/0.74 Significant at .20 level 3.86/0.83 4.00/0.85 Not significant
A6 Use a Japanese-English dictionary 3.96/0.98 4.27/0.80 Not significant 3.48/1.08 3.67/1.23 Not significant
A7 Use an English-English dictionary 3.77/0.97 4.13/0.74 Not significant 3.77/0.97 4.21/0.70 Significant at .20 level

Frequency of use Perceived usefulness

Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance
B1 Ask the teacher to give you the definition or a sentence 3.27/1.12 2.80/0.94 Significant at .20 level 3.77/0.92 3.87/0.83 Not significant
B2 Ask your classmates for the meaning 3.95/0.95 3.53/0.74 Significant at .20 level 3.73/0.94 3.47/0.92 Not significant
B3 Study new words with your classmates 2.59/0.80 2.07/0.88 Significant at .10 level 3.00/0.98 2.27/0.70 Significant at .20 level
B4 Ask the teacher to check your definition 2.77/0.87 2.67/0.90 Not significant 3.29/0.90 3.20/1.08 Not significant
B5 Talk with native speakers 3.27/1.16 3.33/0.98 Not significant 4.09/1.11 3.73/1.03 Not significant

Frequency of use Perceived usefulness

Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance
C1 Draw a picture of the word to help remember it 2.24/1.22 2.00/1.18 Not significant 2.91/0.87 2.50/1.02 Not significant
C2 Make a mental image of the word's meaning 3.64/0.95 3.47/0.74 Not significant 4.00/1.07 3.27/1.16 Significant at .10 level
C3 Connect the word to a personal experience 3.00/1.11 3.07/1.10 Not significant 2.95/1.05 3.60/0.91 Significant at .10 level
C4 Remember the words that follow or precede the new word 3.10/0.83 2.86/0.95 Not significant 3.24/1.00 3.43/1.16 Not significant
C5 Connect the word to synonyms or antonyms 3.24/0.70 3.00/0.85 Not significant 3.68/0.95 3.53/0.83 Not significant
C6 Remember words in 'scales' 2.45/0.80 2.40/0.74 Not significant 2.95/0.95 2.93/1.03 Not significant
C7 Group words together to study them 2.18/0.73 1.80/0.68 Significant at .20 level 2.86/0.94 2.47/0.99 Not significant
C8 Use new words in sentences 3.09/0.75 3.27/0.70 Not significant 3.82/0.96 3.40/0.91 Significant at .20 level
C9 Write paragraphs using several new words 2.41/0.80 2.60/0.74 Not significant 3.23/1.07 3.00/0.85 Not significant
C10 Study the spelling of a word 3.23/1.15 3.21/1.19 Not significant 3.59/1.30 3.64/1.22 Not significant
C11 Study the sound of a word 4.05/0.79 3.71/0.83 Not significant 4.09/1.02 4.07/1.27 Not significant
C12 Say the new words aloud when you first meet them 4.09/0.87 3.79/1.05 Not significant 4.14/0.94 3.71/0.99 Not significant
C13 Make a mental image of the word's written form 3.00/1.20 2.93/0.73 Not significant 2.95/0.95 2.79/0.89 Not significant
C14 Remember the word using its parts 2.59/1.10 2.57/0.85 Not significant 2.95/1.13 2.86/1.03 Not significant
C15 Remember the word using its word form 2.68/1.13 3.00/1.11 Not significant 3.00/1.02 3.07/1.14 Not significant
C16 Make your own definition for the word 2.64/0.85 2.43/0.85 Not significant 2.68/1.21 2.71/0.99 Not significant
C17 Use physical action when learning a word 2.41/0.73 2.29/1.07 Not significant 2.86/0.77 2.43/0.94 Significant at .20 level

69
 Frequency of use Perceived usefulness
Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance
D1 Repeat the words aloud many times 3.45/1.10 3.29/1.44 Not significant 3.68/1.04 3.79/1.25 Not significant
D2 Write the words many times 2.95/1.05 2.79/1.05 Not significant 3.73/1.08 3.29/1.27 Not significant
D3 Make lists of new words 3.55/1.26 3.29/1.07 Not significant 3.73/0.98 3.57/1.09 Not significant
D4 Use flash cards to record new words 3.32/1.04 4.00/1.18 Significant at .10 level 3.27/0.98 3.93/1.07 Significant at .10 level
D5 Take notes or highlight new words 4.45/0.67 4.36/0.63 Not significant 3.95/1.13 4.07/1.00 Not significant
D6 Put English labels on physical objects 1.59/1.05 1.43/0.51 Not significant 2.82/0.85 2.71/0.73 Not significant
D7 Keep a vocabulary notebook 4.05/0.95 3.79/0.70 Not significant 3.95/0.84 4.00/0.68 Not significant

Frequency of use Perceived usefulness

Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance Survey 1 Survey 2 Significance
E1 Use English language media 3.05/1.33 2.87/1.06 Not significant 3.23/1.11 3.2/0.86 Not significant
E2 Test yourself with word tests 2.27/0.94 2.20/1.21 Not significant 3.55/1.01 3.33/1.11 Not significant
E3 Study new words many times 3.09/1.05 2.67/0.90 Significant at .10 level 3.95/1.05 4.07/1.03 Not significant

70
 APPENDIX VI: VOCABULARY LEVELS TEST RESULTS

1,000 level test 2,000 level test 3,000 level test AWL test
Student Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2
A 10 - 9 13 3 8 - 8
B 12 - 8 16 2 9 - 1
C 15 - 13 14 4 7 - 10
D 17 - 15 17 8 13 - 11
E 14 - 7 12 2 8 - 5
F 12 - 8 11 2 8 - 6
G 16 - 12 14 5 8 - 5
H 16 - 12 14 8 11 - 11
I 12 - 14 11 6 11 - 5
J 14 - 8 10 4 9 - 3
K 15 - 15 16 8 14 - 10
L 13 - 11 14 5 11 - 8
M 13 - 8 9 8 8 - 3
N 15 - 10 14 4 11 - 6
O 14 - 12 16 10 14 - 13
P 13 - 14 17 10 14 - 11
Q 13 - 11 13 6 8 - 7
Average 13.76 - 11 13.59 5.59 10.12 - 7.24

71
 APPENDIX VII: ESTIMATES OF VOCABULARY SIZE

Test 1 Test 2 %
Student 1000 level 2000 level 3000 level 4000 level AWL level 5000 level Size 1000 level 2000 level 3000 level 4000 level AWL level 5000 level Size Increase
A 10 9 3 1.92 0.87 0.84 1186.6 13 13 8 6.24 8 4.48 2440.7 105.7
B 12 8 2 1.28 0.58 0.56 1130.6 16 16 9 7.02 1 5.04 2502.8 121.38
C 15 13 4 2.56 1.16 1.12 1705.6 14 14 7 5.46 10 3.92 2517.6 47.611
D 17 15 8 5.12 2.32 2.24 2300 17 17 13 10.14 11 7.28 3491.7 51.812
E 14 7 2 1.28 0.58 0.56 1176.9 12 12 8 6.24 5 4.48 2209.3 87.727
F 12 8 2 1.28 0.58 0.56 1130.6 11 11 8 6.24 6 4.48 2163 91.318
G 16 12 5 3.2 1.45 1.4 1807.9 14 14 8 6.24 5 4.48 2394.4 32.445
H 16 12 8 5.12 2.32 2.24 2114.8 14 14 11 8.58 11 6.16 2997.2 41.725
I 12 14 6 3.84 1.74 1.68 1817.6 11 11 11 8.58 5 6.16 2441.7 34.336
J 14 8 4 2.56 1.16 1.12 1427.8 10 10 9 7.02 3 5.04 2039.8 42.866
K 15 15 8 5.12 2.32 2.24 2207.4 16 16 14 10.92 10 7.84 3461.1 56.795
L 13 11 5 3.2 1.45 1.4 1622.7 14 14 11 8.58 8 6.16 2858.3 76.148
M 13 8 8 5.12 2.32 2.24 1790.7 9 9 8 6.24 3 4.48 1838.9 2.6888
N 15 10 4 2.56 1.16 1.12 1566.7 14 14 11 8.58 6 6.16 2765.7 76.536
O 14 12 10 6.4 2.9 2.8 2226.9 16 16 14 10.92 13 7.84 3600 61.663
P 13 14 10 6.4 2.9 2.8 2273.2 17 17 14 10.92 11 7.84 3600 58.371
Q 13 11 6 3.84 1.74 1.68 1725 13 13 8 6.24 7 4.48 2394.4 38.808
Average 13.76 11 5.59 3.58 1.62 1.56 1718.1 13.59 13.59 10.12 7.89 7.24 5.67 2689.8 56.561

Measured results given in black

Estimated results given in blue
In test 1, AWL score = 3,000 level score x 0.29
In test 1, 5,000 level score = 3,000 level score x 0.28
In test 2, 1,000 level score = 2,000 level score
In test 2, 5,000 level score = 3,000 level score x 0.56
In both tests, 4,000 level score = average of 3,000 and 5,000 level scores

References

72
Burns, R.B. (2000) Introduction to Research Methods. (4th edition) London: Longman

Carter, R. (2000) Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. (2nd edition) London:

Collins

Ellis, N.C. (1997) ‘Vocabulary Acquisition: Word Structure, Collocation, Word-class,

and Meaning’, in Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds) Vocabulary:

Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge University Press

Fan, M.Y. (2003) ‘Frequency of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Actual Usefulness of

Second Language Vocabulary Strategies: A Study of Hong Kong Learners’.

The Modern Language Journal 87/2: 222-241

Fowle, C. (2002) ‘Vocabulary Notebooks: Implementation and Outcomes’. ELT Journal

56/4: 380-388

Grabe, W. and Stoller, F.L. (1997) ‘Reading and Vocabulary Development in a Second

Language: A Case Study’, in Coady, J. and Huckin, T. (eds) Second

Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge University Press

Griffiths, C. and Parr, J.M. (2001) ‘Language-learning Strategies: Theory and

Perception’. ELT Journal 55/3: 247-254

Laufer, B. (1997) ‘The Lexical Plight in Second Language Reading: Words You Don’t

Know, Words You Think You Know, and Words You Can’t Guess’, in Coady,

J. and Huckin, T. (eds) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge

University Press

Laufer, B. (1998) ‘The Development of Passive and Active Vocabulary in a Second

Language: Same or Different?’ Applied Linguistics 19/2: 255-271

McCarthy, M. (1984) ‘A New Look at Vocabulary in EFL’ Applied Linguistics 5/1:

73
 12-22

Miller, G.A. and Fellbaum, C. (1991) ‘Semantic Networks of English’ Cognition 41:

197-229

Nagy, W. (1997) ‘On the Role of Context in First- and Second-language Vocabulary

Learning’, in Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds) Vocabulary: Description,

Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge University Press

Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University

Press

Nation, P. and Newton, J. (1997) ‘Teaching Vocabulary’, in Coady, J. and Huckin, T.

(eds) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge University Press

Nation, P. and Waring, W. (1997) ‘Vocabulary Size, Text Coverage and Word Lists’, in

Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition

and Pedagogy. Cambridge University Press

Nunan, D. (1999) Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Paribakht, T.S. and Wesche, M. (1997) ‘Vocabulary Enhancement Activities and

Reading for Meaning in Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition’, in

Coady, J. and Huckin, T. (eds) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition.

Cambridge University Press

Read, J. (1997) ‘Vocabulary and Testing’, in Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds)

Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge University

Press

Read, J. (2004) ‘Research in Teaching Vocabulary’ Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 24:146-161

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.

74
 Cambridge University Press

Sanaoui, R. (1995) ‘Adult Learners’ Approaches to Learning Vocabulary in Second

Languages’ The Modern Language Journal 79/1: 15-28

Schmidt, R.W. (1990) ‘The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning’

Applied Linguistics 11/2: 129-158

Schmitt, N. (1997) ‘Vocabulary Learning Strategies’, in Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M.

(eds) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge

University Press

Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press

Schmitt, N. and Schmitt, D. (1995) ‘Vocabulary Notebooks: Theoretical Underpinnings

and Practical Suggestions’ ELT Journal 49/2: 133-143

Sökmen, A.J. (1997) ‘Current Trends in Teaching Second Language Vocabulary’, in

Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition

and Pedagogy. Cambridge University Press

Wenden, A.L. (1998) ‘Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning’ Applied

Linguistics 19/4: 515-537

Internet References
Daulton, F.E. (1998) ‘Japanese Loanword Cognates and the Acquisition of English

Vocabulary’ The Language Teacher

[Link]

VocabProfile [Link]

Walter, H.C. (2003) ‘Reading in a Second Language’ Guide to Good Practice

[Link]

75