After completing his undergraduate degree at Western, Stuart Webb did an MA in TESL/TEFL at the University of Birmingham, and a PhD in Applied Linguistics at Victoria University of Wellington. Prior to joining the Faculty of Education at Western University in 2015, he taught English as a foreign language in China and Japan for many years, and more recently taught Applied Linguistics and TESOL for graduate programs in Japan, Singapore, and New Zealand.Stuart conducts research on second language acquisition, particularly incidental vocabulary learning through reading, listening, and watching television, as well as how words can be taught effectively. His research has investigated the teaching and learning of both single-word items and collocations and has looked at questions such as: How many words do English as a foreign language students learn per year? How many words do we need to know to understand television programs and movies? How many times do we need to encounter words during reading in order to learn them? Which words have the greatest value to learners and deserve attention in the classroom? How can we measure vocabulary learning? His research has included corpus-driven studies of the vocabulary in different discourse types and quantitative studies of vocabulary learning. His work has appeared in journals such as Applied Linguistics, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Language Learning, and TESOL Quarterly. He is co-author (with Paul Nation) of Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary (Heinle, 2011) and serves on the editorial boards of a number of international Applied Linguistics and TESOL journals.
This study examined the effects of spaced practice on second language (L2) vocabulary learning un... more This study examined the effects of spaced practice on second language (L2) vocabulary learning under different learning conditions. One hundred fifty Korean learners of L2 English were divided into five groups: one control (no treatment) and four experimental groups based on learning condition (fill-in-the-blanks vs. flashcards) and spacing type (massed [no spacing interval] vs. spaced [1day interval]). The participants studied 48 low-frequency English words. Results showed that the effects of spaced practice were greater for fill-in-the-blanks than flashcards on an immediate posttest and that spaced practice was more effective than massed practice for both activities on a 2-week delayed posttest with no overall significant difference between the learning gains from the two activities. Feedback timing (immediate, delayed) did not affect vocabulary learning in either activity. K E Y W O R D S feedback timing, fill-in-the-blanks, flashcards, second language vocabulary learning, spaced practice Many different activities can be used to learn words. Webb and Nation (2017) described 23 approaches to developing vocabulary knowledge, while Morgan and Rinvolucri (2004) profiled 118 activities designed for word learning. For example, learners can memorize target words with their translations or synonyms using flashcards, match words to their meanings in matching activities, write target words in given sentences in fill-in-the-blanks exercises, and write original sentences using target words through sentence production tasks. With so many different approaches to learning vocabulary, it is essential to understand the extent to which different approaches are effective. It is important to consider the conditions within activities that contribute to learning to understand their effectiveness. The ways in which activities are performed provide for certain learning conditions (e.g., repetition, varied encounters and use, and retrieval) that can influence the amount and
L. Gurzynski-Weiss & Y. Kim (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods. (pp. 181-206). London: Routledge., 2022
Acquiring vocabulary knowledge is a vital part of L2 learning because vocabulary plays a signific... more Acquiring vocabulary knowledge is a vital part of L2 learning because vocabulary plays a significant role in every mode of communication (reading, listening, writing, and speaking). For learners to become independent users of a L2, they must know many thousands of words and learn how to use them well in communication. For example, learners of English must acquire up to 9,000 words (e.g., happy) and their morphologically-related forms (e.g., happiness, unhappy, happily) to comprehend spoken and written texts (e.g., conversation, television programs, films, novels, and newspapers) (Nation, 2006; Webb & Rodgers, 2009a, 2009b). Moreover, acquisition of L2 vocabulary entails learning different aspects of word knowledge such as word parts, collocations, and associations, not only learning form-meaning connections. Thus, the teaching, learning, and researching of L2 vocabulary can be highly complex. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a guide to researching instructed second language vocabulary acquisition. The chapter sets out to provide (1) an overview of key concepts in vocabulary research, (2) a brief overview of L2 vocabulary research focusing on intervention studies, (3) an overview of a frequently employed study design (pretest-posttest design), different measures for assessing L2 vocabulary knowledge as well as options and cautions for interpreting data, (4) advice for future vocabulary researchers, and (5) tips to overcome potential challenges.
Research has indicated that first language (L1) English speakers acquire derivational knowledge-t... more Research has indicated that first language (L1) English speakers acquire derivational knowledge-the ability to understand and produce derived forms of a word-through increased exposure to the language (e.g., Anglin, 1993). Second language (L2) research has shown that L2 English learners tend to have limited
This study explores the effects of receptive derivational affix knowledge, derivative frequency, ... more This study explores the effects of receptive derivational affix knowledge, derivative frequency, part of speech, and vocabulary breadth on production of derivatives. Twenty-one speakers of English as a first language and 107 learners of English as a second language were asked to produce derivatives for 90 prompt words on a decontextualized derivative form-recall test. Results indicated that (a) increased receptive derivational affix knowledge and derivative frequency were linked to greater accuracy in production of derivatives, (b) adverb derivatives were more frequently produced compared to other parts of speech, and (c) learners' vocabulary breadth was associated with greater accuracy in producing derivatives. Results also indicated a larger facilitative effect of derivative frequency for second language learners in comparison to first language speakers, but this effect diminished as vocabulary breadth increased. These findings suggest that learners may initially acquire derivatives on a case-by-case basis but, as their knowledge of derivational affixes and vocabulary breadth increases, they may acquire derivatives more systematically.
The scripts of 288 television episodes were analysed to determine the extent to which vocabulary ... more The scripts of 288 television episodes were analysed to determine the extent to which vocabulary reoccurs in television programs from the same subgenres and unrelated television programs from different genres. Episodes from two programs from each of the following three subgenres of the American drama genre: medical, spy/action, and criminal forensic investigation were compared with different sets of random episodes. The results showed that although there were an equivalent number of running words in each set of episodes, the episodes from programs within the same subgenre contained fewer word families than random programs. The findings also showed that low frequency word families (4000-14,000 levels) reoccur more often in programs within the same subgenre. Together the results indicate that watching programs within the same subgenre may be an effective approach to language learning with television because it reduces the lexical demands of viewing and increases the potential for vocabulary learning.
In my initial piece in this critical commentary, I briefly introduced the most frequently used le... more In my initial piece in this critical commentary, I briefly introduced the most frequently used lexical units and the different aspects of L2 research and pedagogy that are impacted by the choice of lexical unit. I argued that the selection of lexical units should vary according to research and pedagogical purpose, as well as learner variables (e.g., vocabulary size, morphological knowledge, and proficiency). In addition, I tried to highlight the lack of L2 studies on this topic, and a need for cautious interpretation of earlier findings. The other articles in this critical commentary provide different perspectives from which we might also consider lexical units, a lack of agreement on the topic, and suggestions for further research. In the following, I will briefly touch on key points from the other contributors. I will also look in detail at the research findings in support of using lemmas in pedagogy and research, because Brown et al.’s (2021) recommendations are contrasted strongly by Laufer (2021), as well as by other contributors (Kremmel, 2021; Nation, 2021). I will conclude with an agenda for further research.
Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy ... more Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy and research (e.g., Brown et al., 2020; Dang & Webb, 2016a; Kremmel, 2016; Laufer & Cobb, 2020; McLean, 2018; Nation, 2016; Nation & Webb, 2011; Vilkaitė-Lozdienė & Schmitt, 2020). The lexical unit (word types, lemmas, flemmas, word families) needs to be considered when developing wordlists, vocabulary tests, and vocabulary learning programs. It is also central to the lexical profiles of text and corpora, which indicate the vocabulary learning targets associated with understanding different types of discourse. Perhaps most importantly, the lexical unit of words found in vocabulary learning resources such as word lists and tests may affect their pedagogical value. The aim of this article is to highlight aspects of research and pedagogy that are affected by lexical units and describe issues that should be considered when operationalizing words in studies of vocabulary and learning resources.
Derivational knowledge, the ability to understand and produce derivatives of a word, is essential... more Derivational knowledge, the ability to understand and produce derivatives of a word, is essential for vocabulary learners to expand their lexical knowledge. Earlier research (e.g., Schmitt & Zimmerman, 2002) has shown that L2 learners may have limited ability to produce derivatives compared to L1 speakers. However, the degree to which productive derivational knowledge differs between L1 and L2 learners, and among learners at different levels of vocabulary knowledge has yet to be examined. The present study investigated the extent to which L1 English speakers (n = 23) and L2 English learners (n = 107) at varying vocabulary levels (1000-5000) could produce the derivatives of 90 headwords in a decontextualized derivative recall test. A generalized linear mixed model indicated that L1 and L2 productive derivational knowledge significantly differed, and L2 productive derivational knowledge differed among learners with different vocabulary levels. However, the results revealed that the L1 speakers and the learners who had mastered the higher vocabulary levels (3000-5000) produced a similar number of derivatives in the decontextualized recall test. The findings suggest that learners' vocabulary levels could be indicative of L2 productive derivational knowledge to some degree. Lastly, the results are discussed to provide pedagogical implications for teaching and assessing L2 productive derivational knowledge.
Research has indicated that first language (L1) English speakers acquire derivational knowledge-t... more Research has indicated that first language (L1) English speakers acquire derivational knowledge-the ability to understand and produce derived forms of a word-through increased exposure to the language (e.g., Anglin, 1993). Second language (L2) research has shown that L2 English learners tend to have limited
are effective at measuring the vocabulary knowledge necessary for the purpose of reading. Stoecke... more are effective at measuring the vocabulary knowledge necessary for the purpose of reading. Stoeckel et al. suggest that these tests are likely to overestimate receptive vocabulary knowledge and that there are three ways in which the tests could be improved. The first way to improve the tests is by moving from a recognition format to a recall format. The second way is to move from using word families as the lexical unit to using lemmas. Their third suggestion is to increase the number of target items in the tests. Stoeckel et al. conclude that existing size and levels tests lack the accuracy necessary for many specified testing purposes. Although it is useful to look at different ways to improve on measures of lexical knowledge, there is little research evidence supporting the claims made by Stoeckel et al., and there are several aspects of their article that should be considered further. First, the premise on which their article was written is that the intended purpose of the VLT and VST is to measure vocabulary knowledge for the purpose of reading. 1 However, the VLT was developed to reveal to teachers where they should focus vocabulary learning (Nation
This study investigated incidental learning of single-word items and collocations through listeni... more This study investigated incidental learning of single-word items and collocations through listening to teacher talk. Although there are several studies that have investigated incidental vocabulary learning through listening, no intervention studies have explicitly investigated the extent to which listening to teachers in a classroom context might contribute to vocabulary learning. The present study fills this gap. Additionally, the study explored the relationship between vocabulary learning gains and two factors: frequency of occurrence and first language (L1) translation. A meaning-recall test and a multiple-choice test were used to evaluate learning gains. The results indicated that (a) listening to teacher talk has potential to contribute to vocabulary learning of both single-word items and collocations, (b) using L1 translation to explain target word meanings contributed to larger gains on the immediate posttest, (c) frequency of occurrence was not a significant predictor of incidental vocabulary learning.
The study investigates derivational knowledge of second language (L2) learners as a function of f... more The study investigates derivational knowledge of second language (L2) learners as a function of four variables: learner proficiency, word family frequency, derived word frequency, and affix type as suggested by two affix difficulty hierarchies. Seventy-nine EFL learners at two proficiency levels received two tests, the VST − Vocabulary Size Test (Nation & Beglar, 2007) and a custom-made 'Derivatives Test', which included derived forms of VST base words. We performed the following within-participant comparisons: knowledge of base words and knowledge of their derived forms, knowledge of high-, medium-, and low-frequency derived forms, and knowledge of derivatives at different affix difficulty levels. Knowledge of basewords and their derivatives was statistically equivalent for advanced learners. However, a difference was found between the categories for less advanced learners. The findings also revealed learner proficiency and base word frequency effects, partial support for the two affix difficulty hierarchies, and no support for the effect of derivative frequency.
Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy ... more Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy and research (e.g., Brown et al., 2020; Dang & Webb, 2016a; Kremmel, 2016; Laufer & Cobb, 2020; McLean, 2018; Nation, 2016; Nation & Webb, 2011; Vilkaitė-Lozdienė & Schmitt, 2020). The lexical unit (word types, lemmas, flemmas, word families) needs to be considered when developing wordlists, vocabulary tests, and vocabulary learning programs. It is also central to the lexical profiles of text and corpora, which indicate the vocabulary learning targets associated with understanding different types of discourse. Perhaps most importantly, the lexical unit of words found in vocabulary learning resources such as word lists and tests may affect their pedagogical value. The aim of this article is to highlight aspects of research and pedagogy that are affected by lexical units and describe issues that should be considered when operationalizing words in studies of vocabulary and learning resources.
In my initial piece in this critical commentary, I briefly introduced the most frequently used le... more In my initial piece in this critical commentary, I briefly introduced the most frequently used lexical units and the different aspects of L2 research and pedagogy that are impacted by the choice of lexical unit. I argued that the selection of lexical units should vary according to research and pedagogical purpose, as well as learner variables (e.g., vocabulary size, morphological knowledge, and proficiency). In addition, I tried to highlight the lack of L2 studies on this topic, and a need for cautious interpretation of earlier findings. The other articles in this critical commentary provide different perspectives from which we might also consider lexical units, a lack of agreement on the topic, and suggestions for further research. In the following, I will briefly touch on key points from the other contributors. I will also look in detail at the research findings in support of using lemmas in pedagogy and research because Brown et al.’s (2021) recommendations are contrasted strongly by Laufer (2021), as well as by other contributors (Kremmel, 2021; Nation, 2021). I will conclude with an agenda for further research. Nation (2021) suggests that comparing lemmas and flemmas with word families is not particularly useful; they represent different levels of derivational knowledge that develop along with proficiency. Each of these levels of knowledge fall within Bauer and Nation’s (1993) classification of word families with lemmas categorized as Level 2 word families and word families categorized as Level 6. Bauer and Nation’s (1993) word family levels and Sasao andWebb’s (2017) word part levels provide two models that can be examined in relation to derivational knowledge. Laufer et al. (2021) found that each of these models was only partially accurate in predicting derivational knowledge. However, relatively few derivative forms were examined and further research is needed. Considering derivational knowledge to be moving along a continuum across levels is useful. The rate at which derivational knowledge is gained is likely affected by frequency of encounters, deliberate learning, and prior knowledge of the derivational system. Furthermore, in the early stages of lexical development the different levels of derivational knowledge will likely vary greatly across words (learners may gain knowledge of all members of a word family for
This study investigated the effects of reading bilingual books on vocabulary learning. Eighty-two... more This study investigated the effects of reading bilingual books on vocabulary learning. Eighty-two Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners read different versions of the same text: English-only text, English text with target words glossed, English text followed by the Chinese text, and Chinese text followed by the English text. A pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest were used to measure incidental vocabulary learning. The findings showed that (a) all four groups made significant gains in lexical knowledge, (b) those who read glossed text and bilingual text had significantly durable knowledge gain, (c) the participants who read glossed text or read the English version of the text before the Chinese version had significantly higher scores text in the immediate posttest than the participants who read the English-only text, and (d) the participants who read bilingual texts had significantly higher scores on the delayed posttest than those who read the English-on...
This study examined the effects of spaced practice on second language (L2) vocabulary learning un... more This study examined the effects of spaced practice on second language (L2) vocabulary learning under different learning conditions. One hundred fifty Korean learners of L2 English were divided into five groups: one control (no treatment) and four experimental groups based on learning condition (fill-in-the-blanks vs. flashcards) and spacing type (massed [no spacing interval] vs. spaced [1day interval]). The participants studied 48 low-frequency English words. Results showed that the effects of spaced practice were greater for fill-in-the-blanks than flashcards on an immediate posttest and that spaced practice was more effective than massed practice for both activities on a 2-week delayed posttest with no overall significant difference between the learning gains from the two activities. Feedback timing (immediate, delayed) did not affect vocabulary learning in either activity. K E Y W O R D S feedback timing, fill-in-the-blanks, flashcards, second language vocabulary learning, spaced practice Many different activities can be used to learn words. Webb and Nation (2017) described 23 approaches to developing vocabulary knowledge, while Morgan and Rinvolucri (2004) profiled 118 activities designed for word learning. For example, learners can memorize target words with their translations or synonyms using flashcards, match words to their meanings in matching activities, write target words in given sentences in fill-in-the-blanks exercises, and write original sentences using target words through sentence production tasks. With so many different approaches to learning vocabulary, it is essential to understand the extent to which different approaches are effective. It is important to consider the conditions within activities that contribute to learning to understand their effectiveness. The ways in which activities are performed provide for certain learning conditions (e.g., repetition, varied encounters and use, and retrieval) that can influence the amount and
L. Gurzynski-Weiss & Y. Kim (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods. (pp. 181-206). London: Routledge., 2022
Acquiring vocabulary knowledge is a vital part of L2 learning because vocabulary plays a signific... more Acquiring vocabulary knowledge is a vital part of L2 learning because vocabulary plays a significant role in every mode of communication (reading, listening, writing, and speaking). For learners to become independent users of a L2, they must know many thousands of words and learn how to use them well in communication. For example, learners of English must acquire up to 9,000 words (e.g., happy) and their morphologically-related forms (e.g., happiness, unhappy, happily) to comprehend spoken and written texts (e.g., conversation, television programs, films, novels, and newspapers) (Nation, 2006; Webb & Rodgers, 2009a, 2009b). Moreover, acquisition of L2 vocabulary entails learning different aspects of word knowledge such as word parts, collocations, and associations, not only learning form-meaning connections. Thus, the teaching, learning, and researching of L2 vocabulary can be highly complex. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a guide to researching instructed second language vocabulary acquisition. The chapter sets out to provide (1) an overview of key concepts in vocabulary research, (2) a brief overview of L2 vocabulary research focusing on intervention studies, (3) an overview of a frequently employed study design (pretest-posttest design), different measures for assessing L2 vocabulary knowledge as well as options and cautions for interpreting data, (4) advice for future vocabulary researchers, and (5) tips to overcome potential challenges.
Research has indicated that first language (L1) English speakers acquire derivational knowledge-t... more Research has indicated that first language (L1) English speakers acquire derivational knowledge-the ability to understand and produce derived forms of a word-through increased exposure to the language (e.g., Anglin, 1993). Second language (L2) research has shown that L2 English learners tend to have limited
This study explores the effects of receptive derivational affix knowledge, derivative frequency, ... more This study explores the effects of receptive derivational affix knowledge, derivative frequency, part of speech, and vocabulary breadth on production of derivatives. Twenty-one speakers of English as a first language and 107 learners of English as a second language were asked to produce derivatives for 90 prompt words on a decontextualized derivative form-recall test. Results indicated that (a) increased receptive derivational affix knowledge and derivative frequency were linked to greater accuracy in production of derivatives, (b) adverb derivatives were more frequently produced compared to other parts of speech, and (c) learners' vocabulary breadth was associated with greater accuracy in producing derivatives. Results also indicated a larger facilitative effect of derivative frequency for second language learners in comparison to first language speakers, but this effect diminished as vocabulary breadth increased. These findings suggest that learners may initially acquire derivatives on a case-by-case basis but, as their knowledge of derivational affixes and vocabulary breadth increases, they may acquire derivatives more systematically.
The scripts of 288 television episodes were analysed to determine the extent to which vocabulary ... more The scripts of 288 television episodes were analysed to determine the extent to which vocabulary reoccurs in television programs from the same subgenres and unrelated television programs from different genres. Episodes from two programs from each of the following three subgenres of the American drama genre: medical, spy/action, and criminal forensic investigation were compared with different sets of random episodes. The results showed that although there were an equivalent number of running words in each set of episodes, the episodes from programs within the same subgenre contained fewer word families than random programs. The findings also showed that low frequency word families (4000-14,000 levels) reoccur more often in programs within the same subgenre. Together the results indicate that watching programs within the same subgenre may be an effective approach to language learning with television because it reduces the lexical demands of viewing and increases the potential for vocabulary learning.
In my initial piece in this critical commentary, I briefly introduced the most frequently used le... more In my initial piece in this critical commentary, I briefly introduced the most frequently used lexical units and the different aspects of L2 research and pedagogy that are impacted by the choice of lexical unit. I argued that the selection of lexical units should vary according to research and pedagogical purpose, as well as learner variables (e.g., vocabulary size, morphological knowledge, and proficiency). In addition, I tried to highlight the lack of L2 studies on this topic, and a need for cautious interpretation of earlier findings. The other articles in this critical commentary provide different perspectives from which we might also consider lexical units, a lack of agreement on the topic, and suggestions for further research. In the following, I will briefly touch on key points from the other contributors. I will also look in detail at the research findings in support of using lemmas in pedagogy and research, because Brown et al.’s (2021) recommendations are contrasted strongly by Laufer (2021), as well as by other contributors (Kremmel, 2021; Nation, 2021). I will conclude with an agenda for further research.
Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy ... more Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy and research (e.g., Brown et al., 2020; Dang & Webb, 2016a; Kremmel, 2016; Laufer & Cobb, 2020; McLean, 2018; Nation, 2016; Nation & Webb, 2011; Vilkaitė-Lozdienė & Schmitt, 2020). The lexical unit (word types, lemmas, flemmas, word families) needs to be considered when developing wordlists, vocabulary tests, and vocabulary learning programs. It is also central to the lexical profiles of text and corpora, which indicate the vocabulary learning targets associated with understanding different types of discourse. Perhaps most importantly, the lexical unit of words found in vocabulary learning resources such as word lists and tests may affect their pedagogical value. The aim of this article is to highlight aspects of research and pedagogy that are affected by lexical units and describe issues that should be considered when operationalizing words in studies of vocabulary and learning resources.
Derivational knowledge, the ability to understand and produce derivatives of a word, is essential... more Derivational knowledge, the ability to understand and produce derivatives of a word, is essential for vocabulary learners to expand their lexical knowledge. Earlier research (e.g., Schmitt & Zimmerman, 2002) has shown that L2 learners may have limited ability to produce derivatives compared to L1 speakers. However, the degree to which productive derivational knowledge differs between L1 and L2 learners, and among learners at different levels of vocabulary knowledge has yet to be examined. The present study investigated the extent to which L1 English speakers (n = 23) and L2 English learners (n = 107) at varying vocabulary levels (1000-5000) could produce the derivatives of 90 headwords in a decontextualized derivative recall test. A generalized linear mixed model indicated that L1 and L2 productive derivational knowledge significantly differed, and L2 productive derivational knowledge differed among learners with different vocabulary levels. However, the results revealed that the L1 speakers and the learners who had mastered the higher vocabulary levels (3000-5000) produced a similar number of derivatives in the decontextualized recall test. The findings suggest that learners' vocabulary levels could be indicative of L2 productive derivational knowledge to some degree. Lastly, the results are discussed to provide pedagogical implications for teaching and assessing L2 productive derivational knowledge.
Research has indicated that first language (L1) English speakers acquire derivational knowledge-t... more Research has indicated that first language (L1) English speakers acquire derivational knowledge-the ability to understand and produce derived forms of a word-through increased exposure to the language (e.g., Anglin, 1993). Second language (L2) research has shown that L2 English learners tend to have limited
are effective at measuring the vocabulary knowledge necessary for the purpose of reading. Stoecke... more are effective at measuring the vocabulary knowledge necessary for the purpose of reading. Stoeckel et al. suggest that these tests are likely to overestimate receptive vocabulary knowledge and that there are three ways in which the tests could be improved. The first way to improve the tests is by moving from a recognition format to a recall format. The second way is to move from using word families as the lexical unit to using lemmas. Their third suggestion is to increase the number of target items in the tests. Stoeckel et al. conclude that existing size and levels tests lack the accuracy necessary for many specified testing purposes. Although it is useful to look at different ways to improve on measures of lexical knowledge, there is little research evidence supporting the claims made by Stoeckel et al., and there are several aspects of their article that should be considered further. First, the premise on which their article was written is that the intended purpose of the VLT and VST is to measure vocabulary knowledge for the purpose of reading. 1 However, the VLT was developed to reveal to teachers where they should focus vocabulary learning (Nation
This study investigated incidental learning of single-word items and collocations through listeni... more This study investigated incidental learning of single-word items and collocations through listening to teacher talk. Although there are several studies that have investigated incidental vocabulary learning through listening, no intervention studies have explicitly investigated the extent to which listening to teachers in a classroom context might contribute to vocabulary learning. The present study fills this gap. Additionally, the study explored the relationship between vocabulary learning gains and two factors: frequency of occurrence and first language (L1) translation. A meaning-recall test and a multiple-choice test were used to evaluate learning gains. The results indicated that (a) listening to teacher talk has potential to contribute to vocabulary learning of both single-word items and collocations, (b) using L1 translation to explain target word meanings contributed to larger gains on the immediate posttest, (c) frequency of occurrence was not a significant predictor of incidental vocabulary learning.
The study investigates derivational knowledge of second language (L2) learners as a function of f... more The study investigates derivational knowledge of second language (L2) learners as a function of four variables: learner proficiency, word family frequency, derived word frequency, and affix type as suggested by two affix difficulty hierarchies. Seventy-nine EFL learners at two proficiency levels received two tests, the VST − Vocabulary Size Test (Nation & Beglar, 2007) and a custom-made 'Derivatives Test', which included derived forms of VST base words. We performed the following within-participant comparisons: knowledge of base words and knowledge of their derived forms, knowledge of high-, medium-, and low-frequency derived forms, and knowledge of derivatives at different affix difficulty levels. Knowledge of basewords and their derivatives was statistically equivalent for advanced learners. However, a difference was found between the categories for less advanced learners. The findings also revealed learner proficiency and base word frequency effects, partial support for the two affix difficulty hierarchies, and no support for the effect of derivative frequency.
Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy ... more Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy and research (e.g., Brown et al., 2020; Dang & Webb, 2016a; Kremmel, 2016; Laufer & Cobb, 2020; McLean, 2018; Nation, 2016; Nation & Webb, 2011; Vilkaitė-Lozdienė & Schmitt, 2020). The lexical unit (word types, lemmas, flemmas, word families) needs to be considered when developing wordlists, vocabulary tests, and vocabulary learning programs. It is also central to the lexical profiles of text and corpora, which indicate the vocabulary learning targets associated with understanding different types of discourse. Perhaps most importantly, the lexical unit of words found in vocabulary learning resources such as word lists and tests may affect their pedagogical value. The aim of this article is to highlight aspects of research and pedagogy that are affected by lexical units and describe issues that should be considered when operationalizing words in studies of vocabulary and learning resources.
In my initial piece in this critical commentary, I briefly introduced the most frequently used le... more In my initial piece in this critical commentary, I briefly introduced the most frequently used lexical units and the different aspects of L2 research and pedagogy that are impacted by the choice of lexical unit. I argued that the selection of lexical units should vary according to research and pedagogical purpose, as well as learner variables (e.g., vocabulary size, morphological knowledge, and proficiency). In addition, I tried to highlight the lack of L2 studies on this topic, and a need for cautious interpretation of earlier findings. The other articles in this critical commentary provide different perspectives from which we might also consider lexical units, a lack of agreement on the topic, and suggestions for further research. In the following, I will briefly touch on key points from the other contributors. I will also look in detail at the research findings in support of using lemmas in pedagogy and research because Brown et al.’s (2021) recommendations are contrasted strongly by Laufer (2021), as well as by other contributors (Kremmel, 2021; Nation, 2021). I will conclude with an agenda for further research. Nation (2021) suggests that comparing lemmas and flemmas with word families is not particularly useful; they represent different levels of derivational knowledge that develop along with proficiency. Each of these levels of knowledge fall within Bauer and Nation’s (1993) classification of word families with lemmas categorized as Level 2 word families and word families categorized as Level 6. Bauer and Nation’s (1993) word family levels and Sasao andWebb’s (2017) word part levels provide two models that can be examined in relation to derivational knowledge. Laufer et al. (2021) found that each of these models was only partially accurate in predicting derivational knowledge. However, relatively few derivative forms were examined and further research is needed. Considering derivational knowledge to be moving along a continuum across levels is useful. The rate at which derivational knowledge is gained is likely affected by frequency of encounters, deliberate learning, and prior knowledge of the derivational system. Furthermore, in the early stages of lexical development the different levels of derivational knowledge will likely vary greatly across words (learners may gain knowledge of all members of a word family for
This study investigated the effects of reading bilingual books on vocabulary learning. Eighty-two... more This study investigated the effects of reading bilingual books on vocabulary learning. Eighty-two Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners read different versions of the same text: English-only text, English text with target words glossed, English text followed by the Chinese text, and Chinese text followed by the English text. A pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest were used to measure incidental vocabulary learning. The findings showed that (a) all four groups made significant gains in lexical knowledge, (b) those who read glossed text and bilingual text had significantly durable knowledge gain, (c) the participants who read glossed text or read the English version of the text before the Chinese version had significantly higher scores text in the immediate posttest than the participants who read the English-only text, and (d) the participants who read bilingual texts had significantly higher scores on the delayed posttest than those who read the English-on...
Uploads