This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
(林明佳) National Taiwan Normal University ABTRACT A rich repertoire of productive academic vocabulary is one of the crucial constructs for L2 academic writing quality, as this lexical ability enables the L2 learners to express their ideas specifically and then to clarify their writing effectively (Hyland, 2007; Lee & Muncie, 2006; Nation, 2001). To expand L2 productive vocabulary, corpus-based referencing tools, such as concordancers, have been considered fairly powerful in providing the direct access to authentic contextualized language usage (Johns, 1994). Little research, however, has investigated the extent to which the explicit lexical instruction with web-referencing tools can enhance productive vocabulary learning for academic writing. The study explores the efficacy of a self-designed online lexical syllabus on twenty-five EFL college learners’ academic vocabulary and writing abilities. With the Academic Word List (the AWL, Coxhead, 2000), a two-month lexical syllabus (http://formoosa.fl.nthu.edu.tw/moodle2/) was constructed on MOODLE with the hyperlinks of concordancers and the AWL Highlighter (to underscore the AWL items for an inserted text). Three major course features included: (a) AWL lessons (explicitly addressing the selected AWL in reading-to write tasks) (b) AWL quizzes, and (c) learners’ e-portfolios of weekly writing and lexical entries. For assessment, two standardized vocabulary tests (tapping the passive and productive academic vocabulary) and one timed-essay test were given in pretest and posttest. The essay test using one identical prompt throughout three tests was re-administered in a four-week-after delayed posttest. Learners’ attitudes toward the online syllabus were elicited by a questionnaire. To uncover the usefulness of the online syllabus, the vocabulary test scores will be compared statistically. Three batches of essay tests will be evaluated by the VocabProfile (http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/, to reveal the density of learners’ productive vocabulary), and an analytical writing rubric. Also correlations between the learners’ lexical and writing abilities will be computed. Results and implications will be reported in the conference. 100-Word ABTRACT The study explores the efficacy of a self-designed online lexical syllabus on twenty-five EFL college learners’ academic vocabulary and writing abilities. With the Academic Word List (the AWL, Coxhead, 2000), a two-month lexical syllabus (http://formoosa.fl.nthu.edu.tw/moodle2/) was constructed on MOODLE, with hyperlinks of concordancers and the AWL Highlighter. Three major course features included: (a) AWL lessons (b) AWL quizzes, and (c) learners’ e-portfolios. Two standardized vocabulary tests and one timed-essay test were given in pretest and posttest; the essay test was re-administered in a four-week-after delayed posttest. Learners’ attitudes toward the syllabus were elicited by a questionnaire. Findings will be reported. INTRODUCTION The explicit instruction on EFL vocabulary for writing Vocabulary research has attracted increasingly attention in the language teaching field since lexis is recognized as a vital factor for EFL literacy development (Coxhead, 2006; Horst et al., 2005; Lee & Munice, 2006; Nation, 2001). That is, L2 learners’ lexical knowledge may determine the quality of their reading comprehension and writing performance. To foster EFL learners’ lexical development, embedding vocabulary learning within reading tasks is a common practice, as the
2001). Finally. while the newly learned vocabulary appeared to decline drastically. Sixty-five ESL intermediate learners in Vancouver (ranging from grade 8 to 11) were administered a vocabulary test and three timed-essay tests (pretest. Lee. and the retention rate of the learned words. so that learners can review the reading texts in terms of the collocations and expressions relevant to the topic. word gains through incidental learning can be fragile. such as reading. No significant loss was found for the recognized vocabulary for the productive use of in a delayed writing task. explicit vocabulary instruction comes into play. Lee and Munice (2006) gave an explicit lexical lesson to their ESL students and 2 . 2001. 2006. 120). C. 2003). Conzett (2000) reported that when an integrated course of reading and writing is taught. Schmitt. Lee (2003) instructed thirty-six target words in the reading text to probe whether the recognized and newly learned vocabulary in a reading text can be converted into productive use. Huang. 2001). and then extends the vocabulary knowledge into their own writings. Namely. and to equip them with instrumental lexical learning strategies (Hulstijn. whereas incidental learning indicates that learners process and retain words implicitly when they involve in other language tasks. 2000). multimode lexical instruction (35 minutes) providing the input and output visually or aurally was delivered to address the aspects of form.powerful effects of learning words incidentally through graded readers have been widely documented (e. It is further suggested that the explicit lexical instruction may comprise both intentional learning and incidental learning. Nation. speaking or writing exercises (Laufer & Hulstijn. delayed posttest). thus. yet the direct lexical instruction that combines the reading-to-write practices can evidently facilitate their lexical transfer. Then... 2004. it is clarified that learners do not automatically transfer their recognition vocabulary into productive use through reading comprehension tasks. the explicit lexical instruction aims to direct learners’ focal attention to their vocabulary learning. 2004. so that learners will have opportunities of using the target words in the process of drafting and revising their written work. With the same interest in the ESL intermediate students’ vocabulary acquisition. and use of the target words. L. It is recommended that language teachers may “supply students with some background reading and focus on the academic vocabulary in context” (Coxhead. p. After a receptive vocabulary test. C. meaning. developed by Nation & Laufer. 1995) to reveal the ratio of the general and academic words used in the learners’ essays.g. The explicit lexical instruction is defined as treating EFL vocabulary to be a specific target in language instruction rather than a by-product of L2 reading or listening tasks (Folse. the rate of the usage of the instructed words was compared across the three time points. Yet. S. By the LFP. reading instruction that focused on reading comprehension was delivered. followed by the essay–writing pretest to gauge learners’ productive vocabulary before any lexical instruction. With the belief of the potentials of direct lexical instruction on writing. Yet. The former denotes that learners devote their attention to vocabulary learning through the overt lexical curriculum. the learners’ “productive vocabulary” in the three essay tests was analyzed by the Lexical Frequency Profile (the LFP. Thus. teachers can assign writing tasks based on readings. posttest. it remains unclear whether direct vocabulary instruction can lead to active use of words in writing.
2006. In accordance with explicit vocabulary instruction. L. 2001. Nation. 2000). the AWL consists of a smaller list of higher coverage of academic texts as the corpus.) and fostering learners’ independent lexical learning strategy have been well-supported (Coxhead. academic vocabulary is a crucial index for L2 learners to master in order to familiarize themselves with genres and styles of academic discourse (Coxhead. spelling. Y. 2000). and to advance their proficiency levels autonomously. etc. 2004). appears to be less addressed. Particular for intermediate or advanced learners. With 570 word families. Horst et al. Schmitt (2000) manifests the usefulness of explicit instruction with a number of principles: providing the repeated exposure to a word to foster the mastery command of the target word. Lee. the Academic Word List (the AWL) is recognized as the one of the most profitable word lists.e. Lee. the online dictionaries 3 . collocation. meaning. 41) can be motivating to learners. Lee & Munice. Schmitt. 2005. 2003. Nation. the CALL applications may fulfill the lexical learning principles of providing repeated lexical input and autonomous learning strategies with greater ease. 2006. Mudraya. Being an updated version of the University Word List (UWL) designed by Xue and Nation (1984). applying the versatile instructional techniques to assist learners to create multiple links to the word. the learners need to be capable of independently analyzing authentic language data and deciding how and what to internalize. and encouraging learners to be autonomous learners by introducing the various strategies for independent vocabulary learning. 2000. That is. 2004). 2003. Exploiting the findings of corpus linguistics to develop web concordances and dictionaries is one of the widespread practices for lexical learning. 2006. 2000). as the corpus-based referencing tools empowers each individual learner to have self-access to the rich and authentic lexical usage (Lee. the AWL has around 10% occurrences of the total words in written academic discourse (Coxhead. 2000). they need to be able to monitor their own lexical learning. Applications of the corpus-based referencing tool for lexical learning Meanwhile. In the pursuit of college or postgraduate education.assigned some reading-to-write tasks for productive use of the target words. 2001. 2006). In short. Schmitt. the learners can develop their academic literacy more efficiently (Coxhead. It was found that the instruction did expand the learners’ vocabulary in writing. Supplying the abundant corpus input. 2006.. C. L. Nation. however. Among the diverse versions of the academic vocabulary. 2001. Liou. usually targeting ESL students seeking to complete their tertiary studies in English” (p. It is suggested that by learning the high-frequency lexemes in the academic discourse. S. applicable to a wider range of subject areas (Coxhead. 2001. providing repeated exposure to the target words and equipping the L2 advanced learners with independent learning strategies seem to be two crucial concerns for the efficient lexical instruction. 2005. the legitimacy of addressing the various aspects of word knowledge (i. Kaur & Hegelheimer. 2000. the effects of explicit lexical instruction on academic writing for college learners.. As advocated by Folse (2004) “widely used word lists. Compared with previous investigation on adolescent learners (S.
It is supported that using concordancers can essentially enhance the accuracy and confidence of learners’ productive vocabulary. With the proper applications of web dictionaries and concordancers. and then it displays a list of sentence examples with discourse information. The study aims to investigate the efficacy of an Internet-mediated lexical syllabus in fostering EFL learners’ vocabulary and writing abilities. p. 2001). Some researchers have reported the efficiency and accuracy of e-referencing tools such as the web concordancers or dictionaries in teaching the productive use of vocabulary (Cobb. and equipping learners with independent learning strategies through the powerful Internet referencing resources. Lee. 2005. and foster their autonomy as an independent language learner. In Cobb’s studies (1999).present the informative linguistic data for word entries including the definitions. Y. and appeared to retain their definitional knowledge longer. however. 2001. L2 learners can benefit from the multiple exposures to living language data in the target language. 4 . To enhance the learners’ productive vocabulary for writing. Three research questions were raised as follows: 1. the experimental group (supplied with a concordancer) demonstrated better abilities of transferring their word knowledge to a gap-filling task in a novel text. 2000). C. 1999. The great differences between the two groups were also found in the essay writing task regarding the willingness of trying the newly learned words (unsuccessful trials with the learned words) and accuracy of lexical usage. Kaur & Hegelheimer. has explored the extent to which the explicit lexical lessons can assist the advanced learners to enlarge their productive academic vocabulary. Thus. two key principles for the lexical instructional practices are suggested by the current vocabulary studies: offering the explicit lexical instruction with the literacy practices (connecting the reading and writing tasks) that enables learners to stretch their lexical muscles productively. and the degree of transferring productive vocabulary into a take-home essay. providing access to discovery learning. Y. Do EFL learners expand the range and increase the accuracy rate of academic vocabulary in writing via the online lexical instruction? 2. Lee (2001) thus summarized three merits of using concordancers in language learning: supplying large amount of authentic language. contribute to greater lexical growth. Do EFL improve their writing quality after the online instruction? What are the 1 “[A] concordancer is a computer program which is able to retrieve from a corpus of texts all the occurrences of a particular lexical item and to present them in a way which may make patterns more recognizable” (C. Lee. Kaur and Hegelheimer (2004) further investigated two aspects of productive use of vocabulary knowledge: the accuracy rate of using academic words in vocabulary tasks (cloze and sentence-building). 4). it may cultivate their language intuitions to the L2 use in the discourse. In both tasks. and promoting learner autonomy. 1A concordancer enables learners to enter a key word or phrase in the search of the frequent collocates. collocates. Little research. This may efficiently facilitate the developments of learners’ lexical behaviors. Meanwhile. and example sentences (Schmitt. the experimental group (n=9) outperformed the control group (n=9) only with an online dictionary as the tool. Both Cobb (1999) and Kaur and Hegelheimer (2005) compared the usefulness of concordancers and dictionaries in expanding college learners’ receptive vocabulary into productive use.
(c) online practice for the lexical knowledge through various quizzes.nthu. with 100 minutes per week. TANGO (http://candle. 5 . was adopted. etc. Coxhead. The user first needs to enter the key word. What are learners’ attitudes towards the design and the effectiveness of the online instruction on their academic vocabulary learning and essay writing? METHOD Based on the Academic Word List (AWL.nthu. They enrolled in a required course. gap-filling. the AWL will be taught from the most frequently used words (from sublist 1 to sublist 8) to maximize the usefulness of these target words. The online instructional materials and referencing tools: On the basis of the academic word list. followed by article reading and essay writing. Reading and Writing II. (b) the explicit academic word lessons. ie.edu.fl. Figure 1 The overview of the online instructional materials Some dynamic online tools were adopted: the web concordancer.correlations btw vocabulary and writing quality? 3. the online instructional materials were constructed on a free course management system (MOODLE. http://formoosa. The online lexical syllabus is designed with five major features (See Figure 1): (a) preliminary advices on vocabulary learning.tw/moodle2/). the inquiry outcomes will be arranged by a set of the collocations traits according to the frequency of their occurrences. crossword. and choose a corpus. A corpus-based concordance. Given the frequency-based teaching principle. Also a textbook designed for the Academic Word List was employed as the main resources for reading texts (Huntley. That is. (d) downloadable resources for academic word learning and weekly lecture notes (e) student assignments section.tw/collocation). . 2000).edu. as it can deduce collocational patterns in a frequency-based order for the users (See Figure 2). an eight-week online academic vocabulary syllabus was developed for 25 third-year college students of English majors in a pubic university of northern Taiwan. and then more detailed discourse information for each collocation will be available. the class started with explicit lexical teaching. and the AWL highlighter. This may serve as a powerful framework for beginning users to interpret and utilize the concordancing results efficiently. During the 8-week instructional treatment. 2006).fl.
Lectures in each week addressed a sublist of the AWL. By means of raising learners’ awareness about the AWL learning and equipping them with the powerful e-referencing tools.and then select a collocation type (ie. VN-verb and noun. For the AWL Highlighter. and the use of online tools. the teacher-investigator taught for the first five weeks. it is hoped that learners will gradually become an independent and active AWL learners. and comprehension questions 6 . By gradually empowering the learners’ control over their own learning. the target words for each lesson were demonstrated to the learners explicitly. the aspects of word learning. so eight sublists were covered throughout the instruction. and a list of possible collocations will be shown. in the first class. and to “learner-centered” regarding the degree of teacher and student involvement in lexical instruction according to Brandle’s categorization for the language lesson designs of integrating Internet-based resources (2002. 89). 2006) was distributed with the targeted words highlighted in boldface. the AWL instruction shifted from the “teacher-centered” to “teacher as facilitator”. This may raise their awareness of the importance of the academic words in the discourse. Moreover. and (c) applying the target words to writing via pair work. the nature of the AWL. or AN-adjective and noun collocations). an orientation was given to introduce the overview of the course website. and then a reading text taken from the textbook (Huntley. A regular teaching flow included: (a) highlighting the weekly words through the reading input (b) targeting the collocational patterns by hands-on concordancing. p. Figure 2 Outcome of collocational traits at the TANGO concordancer Figure 3 The AWL Highlighter The teaching procedures During the 8-week instruction. particular for concordancing. the user can enter the texts. and choose the sublist that they wish to inquire (See Figure 3). First. while the learners co-taught for the other three weeks by collaborative work.
Data collection Two types of instruments including vocabulary tests.ca/vp/eng/) to reveal the density of learners’ productive vocabulary. 2001). an essay prompt. Harfiel.lextutor. and questionnaires were used to assess the instructional efficacy within three time periods: pretest. the evaluation questionnaire was distributed to probe learners’ perception about vocabulary learning. but only one item chosen from the final sublist (sublist 8) that was the less frequently used list in our lexical instruction. Finally. and four-week-after delayed posttest. learners were urged to exploit their academic words actively and to monitor their own lexical learning independently. It evaluated the learners’ perspectives about the effectiveness of the online lexical instruction. Zinkgraf. With a writing prompt.for reading were offered as the topic for peer discussions. Wormuth. comparisons of the pretest and the post-instructional performance on the vocabulary size and depth tests were made and shown in Table 1 and Table 2. which required the test-takers to select three words out of six to match the corresponding definitions. & Hughey. and to incorporate as many AWL items as possible. the uses of AWL items in essays were examined by the VocabProfile (http://www. Three batches of essay tests were then rated by the ESL Composition Profile (Jacobs. For the VKS measure. For the essay test. and delayed posttest (only the essay test delivered). Then. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Via one-tailed Paired T-test. Wesche & Paribakht. Finally. The VLT itself contained 30 test items with no contextual clues. posttest. an identical essay prompt was used throughout the pretest. 1996) created by Joe (1998) were administered together. posttest. fifteen words that would be addressed in the instruction were randomly selected from the AWL. As the 7 . two raters were recruited. the receptive version of Vocabulary Level Test (VLT) of academic word (Schmitt. For the vocabulary tests. the learners were required to describe one of their purchase decisions. 1981). and the scoring would focus on the correspondence of learners’ two types of output based on Joe’s (1998) criteria (See appendix B for a sample). Also. The test takers needed to demonstrate their self-reported and the actual performance (writing a meaning and example sentence for the target words) of the lexical knowledge on these 15 target words. and the adapted version of Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS. a pair writing task whose topic was related to the reading input was delivered with the requirements of using the previous 10 target words. They were two words from the target eight sublists respectively. Being assigned a weekly individual vocabulary log of 5 word entries and 3 points of learning reflection. and the learners needed to complete two tests within 60 minutes (See Appendix A for a sample). 10 target words selected from the reading input were given to learners to inquire the collocational patterns by pair work (5 words for the individual search). To ensure the accuracy of learners’ lexical productive output in the VKS.
a student wrote a sentence on the word of via in the pretest with a simple sentence “I flew to America via Japan. The baseline of our learners’ lexical abilities may provide some indirect evidence for Laufer and Goldstein’s (2004) claim that recognition of word meanings tend to be acquired earlier than the recall of the word forms (either providing an L1 equivalent translation or an L2 target word). two raters were involved to make a judgment. Kaur & Hegelheimer. In addition to the improved VKS scores. 1998). only the depth vocabulary test (the VKS) reaches a significant difference. For example. One was the research-investigator herself. To answer the first research question. the lexical instruction thus focused on the usage of the target words. In the posttest. the quality of written sentences in VKS was assessed qualitatively in order to provide another piece of evidence for the lexical development. It may be attributed to the high scores of lexical size in the pretest (mean= 57. 1999. whereas the changes of learners’ lexical size appeared to be less noticeable. and offered powerful corpus-based referencing tools that allow learners to explore the authentic word usage.9986 the pretest. the learners tended to employ more vivid sentences compared with the pretest. while their abilities of accurately using the academic words in sentences appeared to be less adequate (mean=69.44 out of 60). calculated by the Cronbach Alpha. For the results of the t-test. the learners were assisted to acquire the grammatical constraints and collocation patterns of target words. With the diagnostic indication of learners’ prior vocabulary knowledge. and . That is. This can be attributed to the benefits of using concordancers that encourages learners to be more willing to experiment with their newly acquired productive vocabulary (Cobb. The inter-rater consistency of their assessment on the VKS responses.9998 for the pretest. the lexical instruction appears to be partly instrumental in extending the depth but not the size of learners’ academic vocabulary. Thus.responses of the VKS require test-takers to make sentences using the target words.” The learners appear to show more willingness of incorporating the target words in more complex sentence structures and involving more vivid meanings.” And she expanded the expressions in the posttest “In the past people did not know that sun eclipse is just a natural phenomenon and took it as a curse from God. the learners made some progress and demonstrated less variation (smaller SD) on their lexical depth knowledge. as our final goal aims to expand learners’ “free active” use of vocabulary in academic writing (Laufer. and then they were required to apply their productive lexical knowledge in sentence-making or essay-writing tasks.48 out of 90). We delivered the explicit lexical lessons that provided the dictionary-based definitions and grammar features of the target words. before the instruction learners had already had the capabilities of recognizing the meanings of the sampled academic words. was fairly satisfactory for both tests: . while the learners’ lexical development in the size test (the VLT) is statistically insignificant. This implied that after the instruction. 8 . and the other one was a third-year graduate student. 2004).” Another student wrote a sentence for the word phenomenon in the pretest: “earthquakes and tornados are natural phenomena.” She later expanded her sentence in a more complex structure “He transfers his plane via Hong Kong before he arrives his destination.
05 83.99%. and they included more words in Version 2 (157. Pretest (full score=90) Mean 69. AWL.64 85. and the AWL showed the smallest decline (Version 3. whereas the ratios of the other three word lists decreased from Versions 1 to 2. 10529 for Version 2 (the posttest).20 0.032 4.3787 Posttest (full score=60) Mean 58.7561 t-test In response to the second question. the learners wrote the shortest essays in Version 1 (122. the range=2-35). so that the interrelations between the learners’ AWL use and their overall writing quality could be revealed. as the LFP showed an interdependent ratio of the word use in writing.4527 -1.05.71%.60 7.019 4.022 0.80 4.55 0. That is.96 SD 10. the range=1-34). From Versions 2 to 3.44 SD 4.000<0. and the offlist words) across the three writing tests were computed by the descriptive statistics.045 0. mean=4.024 0.08 SD 4.48 0. With the outcome of LFP. and the offlist all declined.74 0. the ratio of the 1000-word-level rose slightly.07 0.037 7.017 0. The three batches of the learners’ essay tests were carefully evaluated by the LFP and the ESL Composition Profile. However.60%. detailed analyses on the learners’ three essay tests are reported.7712 Posttest (full score=90) mean 81.2529 *-8. And the means of word families across the three test versions were found to be increasing (shown in Table 3). the ratios of the 2000 word-level. Among the variations of the LFP ratios. and 10084 for Version 3 (the delayed posttest). finally they used most words in Version 3 (158.Table 1 Results of t-test on the VLT test at two time points N=25 Lexical Size VLT P>0.024 4.3 SD 7. only the AWL ratio increased from the Versions 1 (mean==2.05. The total running words for three writing versions are: 7625 words for Version 1 (the writing pretest).025 0. 2000.44 4.36 158. Pretest (full score=60) mean 57.020 .71 9 0.154 t-test Table 2 Results of t-test on the VKS test at two time points N=25 Lexical Depth VKS *P=0.023 2.36).68 157. Table 3 The descriptive statistics of the four word lists of three writing tests Essay Version N Total Running Words Mean of Word Family K1 (%) SD K2 (%) SD AWL (%) SD Offlist (%) SD V1 V2 V3 25 25 25 7652 10529 10084 122.040 0.68). the range of academic word type=1-11) to 2 (mean=4. the AWL.99 6.37 84. the ratios of the four wordlists (1000.64).
675 0.005). but this progress decreased slightly in Version 3. Vocabulary.18 4. The sub-score of mechanics showed the lowest score in Version 3 and the highest score in Version 2. and the differences among the three versions were significant (p=0.571 5.444 1.248 0.000< 0.72 16.64 80. and Language Use.00) than in Version 1 (pretest M=68.24 4.84 16. The results reveal that all the 10 .32 15.945 1.88 80.88 23.048 1.14 21. the variation tendency was similar to that of total scores: the highest scores in Version 2. and their scores in Version 3 (delayed posttest M=80. For the four sub-scores (except for those of mechanics). the scores in Version 1 were significantly inferior to those in Versions 2 and 3. a correlation matrix was computed (See Table 4).251 0. The discrepancies between Versions 1 and 2 were higher than those between Version 2 and 3.718 5.04 SD 3.006 1.64/100.323 1. Organization.60 24. the learners showed the greatest progress on the constructs of Content.88).72 19. Table 4 Results on the rating of three writing tests Word Band Total scores Tests V1 V2 V3 Content V1 V2 V3 Organization V1 V2 V3 Vocabulary V1 V2 V3 Language Use V1 V2 V3 Mechanics V1 V2 V3 Mean 68.22 15.38 19.76 4. but those were still higher than Version 1.063 2.96 16.338 1.331 1.84 12. Generally.644 A correlation matrix was constructed in exploring the degree of correlations between the total scores and five sub-scores across the three versions (See Table 5). After the instruction.14) slightly declined from Version 2.889 1.219 1. For the total scores.To explore the interrelations between the learners’ vocabulary and writing ability. all of the learners received higher scores in Version 2 (posttest mean=80. the second in Version 3.90 13.561 0.843 0.
As clarity of the learners’ academic writing may be improved.81. the overall writing quality may be subsequently upgraded. and the sub-scores of Content had the highest correlation of . M=3. Table 5 Correlation matrix of total and sub-scores of three writing tests Total score /Sub-score T1 T2 T3 Content C1 C2 C3 0.32 0. 80%) perceived the overall online lessons as user-friendly (Item2. while the sub-scores of Language Use had .92* 0. The data imply that in Version 1.74* 0.74* Organization O1 O2 O3 0. the sub-score of Content predict the learners’ writing performance most efficiently.76* 0. students generally revealed fairly positive attitudes toward the effectiveness of the online academic vocabulary instruction based on analyses of the responses to the evaluation questionnaire.79* Vocabulary V1 V2 V3 0. and they ranked the Academic Word Lessons as the most 11 . mean= 3. For the features of online design. the content and organization of the learners’ three essays were controlled to some degree.sub-scores.91* 0.5 correlations. rather than composing a new article. Most questionnaire items were designed in a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (calculating as 5 points) to strongly disagree (1 point). the four sub-scores were found to have about . Meanwhile.54* 0.73).92* Language Use L1 L2 L3 0.95). In this way. In Version 2.69* 0.26 0. mean=3. mean=3. except those of Mechanics. as they may simply revise their previous essay version in Versions 2 and 3. Some open-ended descriptions and ranking choices were also included. In Version 1.76).87* Mechanics M1 M2 M3 0.92. the learners may gradually acquire the ability to use the academic words more appropriately and accurately in writing.75 correlations with the total scores. and the sub-scores of Vocabulary had the highest correlation of . In Version 3.81* 0. while the sub-scores of Language Use also had .73* 0. the four sub-scores (Mechanics excluded) were discovered to have about . the strongest predictors become the sub-scores of Vocabulary and Language Use. With an identical writing prompt throughout three versions.87. whereas in Versions 2 and 3. and the sub-scores of Vocabulary had the highest correlation of . and future learning motivation (22nd to 25th items. a majority of the learners (the sum of strongly agree and agree. The shift of the strongest predictors of the learners’ writing quality may be attributed to our research design.55 correlations with the total scores.75 correlations.47* To answer the third research question. the four sub-scores were discovered to have about . The questionnaire consisted of 25 items to elicit learners’ attitudes about the web-based academic vocabulary instruction under three categories (See Table 3): the design of online materials (1st to 11th items. were all shown to be highly correlated to the total scores with higher than 0.92.91 correlation. features fostering vocabulary learning and writing performance (12th to 21st items. the explicit lexical instruction was delivered to draw the learners’ attention to the productive uses of the target academic words.78 out of 5).
more promising teaching practices for how to help the EFL learners enlarge their productive vocabulary can be empirically established.” And “the best and the worst thing of online resources is that there are so much information that I can choose from. which instructional practice is the most useful one for the EFL productive lexical teaching remains unknown. (2002). Language Learning and Technology. Future inquires may focus on the effect of each teaching task.12(4) .: Houghton Mifflin 12 . A. followed by downloadable resources and student assignment sections as the secondly. (2000). A new academic word list. Essentials of Teaching Academic Vocabulary. Teaching Collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. plc. the learners indicated some directions for future modifications of the online lesson design: “I like the links that provide us information about concordances.). 87-107. the learners seem to expand their productive AWL uses to some extent. London: Commercial Colour Press. (2006).S. The results indicate that the lexical syllabus is relatively effective in enhancing the depth of learners’ academic vocabulary. Boston. K. With a series of literacy practices and e-referencing tools. while the Writing Center (providing online links for academic writing) as the least useful (See Table 4). Coxhead.. the learners also expressed positive attitudes towards the design and functions of the online lexical instruction. A. 213-238. Integrating collocation into a reading and writing course. downloaded on 10/08/2006. TESOL Quarterly. 345-360. REFERENCES Brandle. while the growth of vocabulary size is less significant. Coxhead. However. The productive uses of AWL items in the learners’ essays also expand to some extent.” CONCLUSION The present study examined the usefulness of an Internet-based lexical syllabus in enlarging college learners’ academic vocabulary store for their writing abilities. the overall design of this website is not clear enough. (1999). 70-87). too much information also means that we have to spend more time on selecting useful knowledge. However. Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher to student-centered approaches.msu. Besides the quantitative testing results. Thus. Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing.useful. according to the rating of the ESL Composition Profile. In addition. U. However. 34.edu/vol6num3/brandle/. T. Cobb. Available online http://llt. Conzett (2000). In M. 6(3). Computer Assisted Language Learning. This appears to contribute to the learners’ overall writing quality. Lewis (Eds.
B. Corpus analysis for innovative online English learning. Laufer. L. J. 1-26.shtml. Cambridge. Resource of the Academic Word List. V. (2006). English for Specific Purposes. Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University Library. L. From respective to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in a postreading composition task. Fostering learner autonomy in a technology-enhanced. 71-86. (1998). & Hulstijn. Available online [http://llt. TESOL Quarterly. Ann Arbor. 235-256. Applied Linguistics. Coxhead’s website: http://language. Joe.S. & Munice. 287-310. P. strength. and computer adaptiveness. Lee. H. Nation. Language Linguistics Monograph Series Number W-7:Festschrift in honor of professor Chin-Chuan Cheng on his 70th birthday(pp. rehearsal and automaticity.Company. (2001). 54(3). B.: The University of Michigan Press. from the World Wide Web of Averil. H.K.msu. (Eds. (2001). from the World Wide Web of CANDLE-national 13 . 40 (2). L. (2005). C. Academic Sinica. ESL students’ use of concordance in the transfer of academic word knowledge: an exploratory study. Y. Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. 357-377. 537-561.: Cambridge University Press. 295-320. (2005). (2004). (2006). Learning vocabulary in another language. Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive online database. ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of vocabulary instruction. Language Learning. (2001). System. (2006). Robinson (Ed). 39(1). Horst. J. Vocabulary Myths. & Nicolae. Luke. Z. Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: a reappraisal of elaboration. (2001). Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.edu/vol9num2/horst/default. 2006. Laufer.html] downloaded on May 20. 89-112). Mudraya. S. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistics. 22(1). 29. Language Learning & Technology. 19(3) . U. 2006.massey. K. Laufer. 19(2) . 9. A. T. (2006). C.18(4) . Essential academic vocabulary: mastering the complete academic word list.. (2004). & Hegelheimer.nz/staff/awl/awlinfo. Retrieved August. J. Liou. Kaur. inquiry-based foreign language classroom. U. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 29. Foreign Language Annals. C. 2006. (1998). 90-110.ac. Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 25. S. 31. In P.). B. Huntley. Hulstijn. S. (2003). Retrieved August. Lee. M. Resource of TANGO. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. H. (Unpublished MA thesis). 399-436. & Cobb. 255-271.Chung et al. I. Lee. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. (2006). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics. In R. What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics. O. J. A study of using web concordancing for English vocabulary learning in a Taiwanese high school context. Folse. Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size. & Goldestein. 258-286).
but I don’t know what it means.nthu. M. & Clapham. (synonym or translation) I can use this word in a sentence :_______________. area _____ written agreement 2. Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary level test.e-learning project: http://candle. Xue. 29. and I think it means_____________ . Aggregate: Item I. III. (2000).uk/~alzsh3/acvocab. II. (1984). Language Testing.) 14 .K. 18(1). C. It means_____________. but I think it means_____________. & Paribakht. The Canadian Modern Journal Review. 55-88.tw/collocation. method _____ reason for believing something is or not true6. U. N.: Cambridge University Press.nottingham. contract 3. role 11. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: depth verse breadth. Schmitt..edu. VI. Cambridge. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. definition _____ way of doing something 4. T. I have seen this word before. 13-39. I have seen this word before. Wesche. evidence 5. & Nation. N.fl.. 53(1). (2001). from the World Wide Web of Sandra Haywood’s website: http://www. APPENDICES Appendix A: Sample items for 2 vocabulary tests 1. Language Learning Communication. please also do section V. IV. D.(synonym or translation) I know this word. G. Retrieved August. P.. Schmitt.(If you do this section. Schmitt. 215-229. Resource of the AWL highlighter. V. I haven’t seen this word before. Category I don’t remember having seen this word before. 3 . A university word list. 2006.ac.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.