Working with Words
- A case study of the relations between vocabulary
research, policy and practice in English foreign language
teaching in a Danish gymnasium context.
Thesis
Dennis Grynnerup
Department of Culture and Global Studies
Aalborg University
January 2014
Content
Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 5
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Definition of key terms .................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 What’s in a word?..................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Vocabulary and grammar ......................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Word knowledge and lexical competence ................................................................................ 13
2.4 Chapter conclusion ................................................................................................................... 16
3. The research dimension: A literature review of vocabulary research ............................................ 17
3.1 Curriculum: The role of vocabulary in language teaching ....................................................... 17
3.2 Content: Vocabulary goals and selection criteria ..................................................................... 17
3.3 Learning principles: Repetition, variation and depth of processing ......................................... 21
3.4 Approaches and strands ............................................................................................................ 24
3.5 Applicability: Applying SLA research to teaching practice .................................................... 30
3.6 Chapter conclusion ................................................................................................................... 31
4. Method ........................................................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Case study................................................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Observations ............................................................................................................................. 36
4.3 Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 38
4.4 Reliability and validity ............................................................................................................. 39
5. The policy dimension: Danish gymnasium policy on vocabulary in English language teaching.. 41
5.1 The place of vocabulary in the curriculum ............................................................................... 42
5.2 Content ..................................................................................................................................... 43
5.3 Learning principles and teaching approaches .......................................................................... 44
5.5 Chapter conclusion ................................................................................................................... 47
1
6. The practice dimension: Analysis of vocabulary teaching practices ............................................. 48
6.1 Curriculum and lessons: Planned and unplanned vocabulary teaching ................................... 50
6.1.1 Planned vocabulary teaching ............................................................................................. 51
6.1.2 Unplanned vocabulary teaching ........................................................................................ 59
6.2 Content ..................................................................................................................................... 63
6.3 Learning principles ................................................................................................................... 69
6.4 Approaches ............................................................................................................................... 76
6.5 Chapter conclusion: The relationship between research, policy and practice .......................... 79
7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 82
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................... 88
Tables and figures .............................................................................................................................. 94
List of tables ................................................................................................................................... 94
List of figures ................................................................................................................................. 94
2
Summary
This thesis is a qualitative case study, which explores three teachers’ vocabulary teaching practices
in English as a foreign language in a Danish gymnasium context. In addition, I conduct a relational
analysis between three dimensions: 1) the teaching practices used, 2) policy goals and guidelines
and 3) research recommendations for ‘best practice’. In doing so, the study addresses two gaps. The
first, a claimed gap between research recommendations and teaching practice. Vocabulary
researchers have argued that vocabulary has been neglected or marginalised in English language
classrooms and have criticised practitioners for not applying recommendations for optimum
learning conditions. The second, a methodological gap in vocabulary research. A review of existing
research reveals that there is a lack of qualitative, classroom-based studies that focus on vocabulary
teaching practices and seek to explore the interface between research into second language learning
on the one hand and second language pedagogy on the other.
The relational analysis includes three main chapters that each focuses predominantly on one
of the dimensions. Firstly, I conduct a review of the pedagogical recommendations made by
vocabulary researchers in relation to four core questions: 1) Which place should vocabulary have in
the curriculum? 2) Which criteria should be used in the selection of content? 3) Which learning
principles should guide practice? 4) Which approaches should be used? Secondly, I look closely
and critically at policy and investigate to which extent researchers’ recommendations are reflected
in the ministerial documents Læreplan and Vejledning / Råd og vink. Thirdly, through an analysis of
data from classroom observations, teacher interviews and lesson materials, I document how
vocabulary is actually taught by the three case study participants as well as the rationales behind the
practices. In addition, I explore how the vocabulary teaching practices relate to policy and research
and investigate which factors influence to which degree the three dimensions correspond to each
other.
The main findings are that vocabulary plays a role among many elements in a complex,
multifaceted curriculum in the teaching context investigated. I found that vocabulary teaching
occurred in different planned as well as unplanned forms in all the lessons observed, but also that
there was significant variation in teaching practices in terms of systematicity and application of
research recommendations. The study confirms that, while some of the practices reflect the advice
put forward by researchers to a certain extent, a gap does exist between research on the one hand
and practice as well as the policy that guides it on the other. In relation to content, the analysis
shows that neither policy nor teachers applied research recommendations concerning vocabulary
3
goals or selection criteria. Furthermore, compared to the descriptions of lexical competence in
vocabulary literature, the treatment of vocabulary in both the policy documents and the classroom
appeared to lack complexity and depth. In relation to learning principles, the findings suggest that,
while they are almost completely absent from the policy documents, the teachers are familiar with
these to varying extents. Whether they were consciously applied or not, the principles that
researchers have identified for effective vocabulary learning were present in some of the activities
used. However, the analysis also suggests that some key principles are not applied in the treatment
of a large number of words. Regarding approaches, the findings are that, in one area, policy creates
barriers for teachers in the implementation of research recommendations and, in another area, the
guidelines even misinform teachers about what is considered the most effective practice by
researchers. The teaching practices used reflect researchers’ suggestions to a certain degree, but due
to the materials used, some practices are unlikely to provide effective learning conditions for a
significant number of learners.
In the thesis, I conclude that primarily six reasons exist for why research recommendations
are not necessarily applied in practice. These are: 1) curriculum complexity in the subject of English
in the Danish gymnasium; 2) teachers’ lack of knowledge of findings in vocabulary research and/or
lack of training in vocabulary learning as well as teaching; 3) a lack of correspondence between
research and policy or vagueness in policy goals and guidelines; 4) washback from the exam; 5) a
lack of application of research recommendations in textbooks produced for this context; and 6) a
lack of applicability of research recommendations in the reality facing teachers. In order to create
the basis for a better correspondence between research, policy and practice, I end the thesis by
making recommendations for changes in the three dimensions.
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor at Aalborg University, Kim Ebensgaard Jensen, for his
constructive feedback and positive comments. I would also like to thank the three case study
participants for allowing me to enter their classrooms and make their lives a little more stressful for
a couple of weeks. Without you, this thesis would not have been possible.
5
1. Introduction
English language teaching in the Danish gymnasium is a complex, multifaceted affair involving a
range of core areas and competences that students have to learn. This thesis focuses on one of these,
namely vocabulary, and it takes as its point of departure what appears to be a paradox between
research recommendations and teaching practices, which calls for further exploration. Research
conducted on vocabulary has led to an understanding of its crucial importance in language learning.
This is illustrated by the following statements:
‘Vocabulary is the core component of all language skills.’ (Long & Richards 2007: xii)
‘The lexicon may be the most important language component for learners.’ (Gass & Selinker
2008: 449)
‘Vocabulary is the key aspect of learning a language.’ (Schmitt & McCarthy 1997: 106)
The clear message from research is that, in order to become effective language users, learners
need to accumulate a substantial mass of words. However, many researchers have argued that
vocabulary has been neglected or marginalised in the classroom (McCarthy 1990; Lewis 1993;
Carter 1998; Folse 2004; Carter & McCarthy 1988; Singleton 1999; Crystal 2006; Aitchison 1994;
Schmitt & McCarthy 1997). Lewis, for instance, states the following: ‘Lexis is the core or heart of
language but in language teaching has always been the Cinderella’ (1993: 89). Through this
metaphor, Lewis suggests that, like the fairy-tale character, vocabulary has lived a life hidden away
in the dark, but it actually plays the central role. Laufer and Nation agree and argue: ‘vocabulary
teaching has been largely neglected and has been subordinated to other units of analysis in
curriculum design’ (2012: 163). The same issue has been raised in a Danish context. Christensen et
al. (2000) claim that, based on their experience with the Danish school system, vocabulary is
insufficiently incorporated into language teaching. Their hypothesis is that in Danish gymnasiums
there is often a strong emphasis on grammar and analytical textual work, while work on vocabulary
appears to be unplanned and unsystematic (2000: 4-5). Based on two studies of English language
learning conducted in the Danish education system, Stæhr (2009a: 172) addresses the same neglect
and makes a case for a strengthened focus on vocabulary in the classroom.
In my thesis, I aim to investigate this claimed gap in teaching, but a gap also appears to exist
in vocabulary research. While many quantitative studies have measured learning outcomes and
tested vocabulary knowledge (e.g. File & Adams 2010, Folse 2006, Hulstijn & Laufer 2001,
Keating 2008), there is a lack of qualitative, classroom-based research that focuses on teaching
6
practices. In his review of research on vocabulary teaching, Read states: ‘There is comparatively
little research to report on methods of presenting and practicing vocabulary in the classroom’ (2004:
153), and in a more general discussion of research in language learning, Nunan addresses a similar
deficit in research grounded in the classroom. He argues:
Much of the research which purports to provide teachers with guidance on pedagogic
practice is not derived from genuine language classrooms, and the research agenda
needs to be extended to incorporate a greater range and number of classroom-based as
opposed to classroom-oriented research. (1992: 109)
Research as well as classroom experience shows that there is no one-to-one relationship between
teaching and learning, but the former can have a great impact on the latter (Nunan 1992: 190).
Therefore, I agree with Nunan in his argument that ‘[i]n addition to information on what learners
can or cannot do in the target language, it is important to obtain data about learning and teaching
processes themselves’ (1992: 189).
In the discussion above, I have identified a need for a qualitative, classroom-based study that
focuses on teaching practices and at the same time seeks to understand the relations to research
recommendations. However, in the context of the Danish gymnasium, it is necessary to incorporate
a consideration of policy into the equation as teaching in this context is directed by ministerial goals
and guidelines. This leads me to my primary research question:
Based on a case study of three Danish gymnasium teachers teaching English as a foreign language,
how is vocabulary taught, why is it taught in the way it is, and what relations to research-based
recommendations and policy for vocabulary teaching can be identified?
As the research question shows, I aim to conduct a relational analysis between research,
policy and practice. The purpose of the thesis is to document teaching practices and explore the
extent to which the recommendations by researchers are applied by policymakers and the teachers
in this context. In addition, I aim to look at the reasons for the nature of the relationship between the
three dimensions. In doing so, I address the research sub-questions shown in table 1, which also
illustrates the structure of my thesis.
7
Dimension
Theory/
research
Main research question
According to research,
how should vocabulary
teaching be conducted?
Research sub-questions
Curriculum: Which place should vocabulary
have in the curriculum?
Content: Which and how many words should
be taught?
Learning principles: What are the principles
behind vocabulary learning that should guide
practice?
Approaches: Which approaches should be used
in vocabulary teaching?
Policy
What are the goals and
Curriculum: Which place should vocabulary
guidelines concerning
have in the curriculum?
vocabulary in English
Content: Which and how many words should
language teaching in the
be taught?
Danish gymnasium and
Learning principles: What are the principles
how should vocabulary
behind vocabulary learning that should guide
be integrated into
practice?
teaching in this context?
Approaches: Which approaches should be used
in vocabulary teaching?
Practice
How is vocabulary
Curriculum and lessons: Which place does
actually taught and why?
vocabulary have in the teaching practices used?
Content: Which and how many words are
taught?
Learning principles: What are the principles
behind the practices used when the teachers
teach vocabulary?
Approaches: Which approaches are used by the
teachers to teach vocabulary?
Table 1: Research sub-questions and thesis structure
The organisation of my thesis is as follows. In chapter 2, I define and operationalise the key
terminology of the thesis and address the key terms ‘word’ and ‘lexical competence’. Chapter 3
provides a literature review of existing vocabulary research and outlines the recommendations that
researchers have put forward concerning best practice in vocabulary teaching. In chapter 4, I discuss
the research method used in the project and describe how my case study was carried out. Chapter 5
provides an analysis of the policy documents Læreplan (2013) (Learning Plan) and Vejledning /
Råd og vink (2010) (Guide / Advice and and hints), which define the goals and give guidelines for
teaching at the gymnasium level. Here I look at policy instructions concerning how vocabulary
should be taught and analyse to which extent these reflect research recommendations. Chapter 6 is
8
the analysis of my empirical data and vocabulary teaching practices. Here I analyse the vocabulary
practices used by the three teachers and relate the findings to research and policy. As shown in table
1 above, the literature review in chapter 3 and the analyses in chapters 5 and 6 are structured around
the same four core areas, i.e. curriculum, content, learning principles and teaching approaches. In
chapter 7, I conclude on my findings and discuss how they are relevant to researchers, policymakers
and practitioners.
9
2. Definition of key terms
Vocabulary is a highly complex term, and before looking at research, policy and practice, it is
necessary to define how it will be conceptualised and operationalised in my thesis. This is the
purpose of this chapter.
2.1 What’s in a word?
Vocabulary refers to the words in a language or the words known or used by a learner. However, a
‘word’ resists straightforward definition and operationalisation, which is an issue addressed by
many researchers (e.g. McCarthy et al. 2010; Singleton 1999; Aitchison 1994). For instance, Read
states that ‘[t]he word is not an easy concept to define, either in theoretical terms or for various
applied purposes’ (2000: 17), and Llach writes that ‘intuitively everyone knows what a word is, but
the formal definition of “word” is not easy’ (2011: 71).
There are two overall approaches to defining a word, namely 1) a formalistic approach and 2)
a semantic approach, using form and meaning respectively as the defining criterion (Carter 1998: 4;
Singleton 1999: 11-13). The former is operationally applicable in many contexts but also
problematic for many reasons. Firstly, some languages, for instance Greenlandic or Chinese, do not
mark word boundaries, and words can express whole sentences (Singleton 1999: 12). This means
that the definition cannot be applied universally across languages, and its theoretical validity is
therefore problematic. Secondly, the definition does not apply to spoken language, where pauses do
not necessarily indicate word limits (Singleton 1999: 12). Thirdly, there are several ‘words’ in
written language that complicate this understanding, which I will explore further below.
One problem when defining ‘word’ is that there are many terms for it. To explore this, we can
look at the words that make up the primary research question of this thesis. Using a formalistic
definition based on orthography, the question consists of 43 tokens (Nation 2001: 7). However,
some words re-occur, and if these are only counted once, we are looking at types rather than tokens
(Nation 2001: 7). The question contains two inflected forms of the verb ‘to be’, namely ‘is’ and
‘be’. If these are counted as the same word, we are counting lemmas (Nation 2001: 7). Other cases
of different forms of the same word are ‘teachers’, ‘teaching’ and ‘taught’. The three words belong
to the same word family (Nation 2001: 8), as ‘taught’ is the past participle, while ‘teach-er-s’ and
‘teach-ing’ are derivatives of the root ‘teach’.
The hyphenated word ‘research-based’ and the compound noun ‘case study’ complicate
matters further. In the former, the hyphen suggests that the two joined words should be considered
10
differently to if they occurred separately, while the latter appears to be two words forming one
semantic unit. Such a unit is termed ‘lexeme’ or ‘lexical item’ (Singleton 1999: 10), and represents
yet a different term for ‘word’. Another example of such a multi-word unit is ‘based on’, where a
verb and a preposition make up one lexical chunk of language. These three examples illustrate the
problems of a formalistic definition and indicate that a semantic approach may be more useful.
As the discussion above shows, the answer to what a word is depends on what is counted as a
word. Different terms may be useful at different levels of abstraction and for different purposes,
which is why the definition of ‘word’ can be seen as context-dependent (McCarthy 1990: 4). For
instance, in dictionaries we look up lexemes, but when writing essays with a word limit, we count
tokens. This is not ideal in research but, as several researchers point out, delivering a universal
definition of ‘a word’ proves highly problematic. In the words of Singleton: ‘one would look in vain
for a simple definition of the word concept’ (1999: 10).
2.2 Vocabulary and grammar
Another reason why a definition of a word is problematic is that the traditional understanding of
language as consisting of different subsystems has been challenged. If we continue looking at the
words that make up the research question, linguistics traditionally distinguish between word classes
that fall into two overall categories: 1) the open, potentially infinite group of lexical words, and 2)
the closed group of grammatical words, which serve syntactical purposes, only have one word form
and mostly have little semantic content (Carter 1998: 8).
Content / lexical words
Nouns: case, study, gymnasium, teachers,
English, language, relations, recommendations,
policy, vocabulary, teaching, way
Verbs: based, is, taught, can, be, identified,
taught
Adjectives: Danish, foreign, research-based
Adverbs: how, what, why
Table 2: Content and function words
Function / grammatical words
Prepositions: on, of, as, to, for, in
Conjunctions: and
Determiners: a, the
Pronouns: it
Numerals: three
Traditional vocabulary teaching has primarily been concerned with content words, and one
could ask if the words in the second column, the function words, should not rather be seen as
belonging to the domain of grammar teaching. One argument for this would be that an error in their
use would often be classified as a grammatical rather than a lexical error (Llach 2011: 71).
11
Similarly, one could ask if the inflection ‘taught’ does not belong to the grammatical domain as
well, as this word is the past simple form of ‘teach’, and traditionally verb tenses are topics that
appear in what would be perceived as grammar lessons. Such reflections are based on a more
conventional view of language, where grammar and vocabulary have been seen as separate
subsystems. However, the dividing line between the two is no longer considered clear-cut
(McCarthy 1990: 12; Singleton 1999: 15). McCarthy (1990: 12), for instance, argues that rather
than looking at the two as different domains, they can be viewed as different perspectives from
which to approach words.
In recent publications in language learning and teaching (e.g. Folse 2004; McCarthy 1990;
McCarthy et al. 2010), there appears to be a consensus around a theoretical understanding of
language as a more holistic system. For instance, McCarthy et al. (2010: vii) state the following:
Words […] exist in a complex matrix which links them to morphemes (prefixes and
suffixes), other meanings (synonyms, antonyms), other words (that is, the words that
they are likely to occur with or be associated with), grammar patterns, multi-word units
(groups of words that are fixed into phrases or idioms).
In this quote, words are described as part of a larger interface system in which different subsystems
are interconnected and interdependent. This understanding creates a grey area between the
traditionally dichotomised areas of grammar and vocabulary, but as Singleton (1999: 271) states:
Since it is now clear that there is a question mark over the extent to which it is in fact
possible to conceive of lexis as separate from other aspects of language, it no longer
makes any sense to see […] the teaching of lexis in terms of instruction around
individual forms and concepts.
An important development in language teaching that contributed to this shift in the
understanding of grammar and vocabulary was Lewis’ The Lexical Approach, which challenges the
conventional idea that vocabulary items are slotted into grammatical structures and should be
considered add-ons to grammar. He states that ‘[a]n important consequence of viewing language
from a lexical point of view is that the traditional distinction between “fixed” vocabulary and
“generative” grammar is recognised as an invalid over-simplification’ (1997: 11). Lewis’
collocationist view of language has been supported by researchers finding that some language is
learnt and stored in chunks (Ellis 1997: 139; Nation 2011: 56). In my understanding and
operationalisation of vocabulary, I align myself with the more holistic view reflected in recent
12
literature and Lewis’ Lexical Approach, which is based on a semantically-oriented approach, where
vocabulary items are defined as units of meaning. Thus, I do not limit my focus to single content
words, but include multi-word units or lexical chunks.
2.3 Word knowledge and lexical competence
When we talk about ‘knowing a word’, we typically think in semantic terms, i.e. knowing the
meaning of the word, and when learners are tested on vocabulary knowledge, this is commonly
what they are tested on. However, lexical competence, i.e. the ability to understand and use a word,
is highly complex and involves several features. Many researchers talk about it in terms of three
factors: 1) range, 2) depth and 3) control (Laufer & Nation 2012; Henriksen 1995; Schmitt &
McCarthy 1997). Range is quantitative and refers to how many words the learner knows. Depth is
qualitative and refers to how well the learner knows the words, i.e. how many of the interrelated
sub-knowledges are known. Finally, control refers to how accessible the word is to the learner, i.e.
the speed at which it can be retrieved from memory (Laufer & Nation 2012: 166).
When it comes to word knowledge, there is a wide consensus among researchers that this is
not a question of knowing or not knowing. Instead vocabulary knowledge should be considered in
terms of taxonomies of learning, where only at the most basic taxonomic level, knowing a word
means matching the form of a word with its meaning (e.g. Carter 1998; Nation 2001; Henriksen
1995; Folse 2004; Henriksen 1999a; Laufer 1997b). From this initial step, word knowledge should
continue to develop as learners learn some of the deeper aspects, such as collocations and
constraints on use. The complexity of the different features that make up lexical competence is
illustrated in table 3.
13
Form
a) Spoken form
b) Written form
c) Word parts
Meaning
a) Form and
meaning
b) Concept and
referents
c) Associations
Receptive
Productive
Receptive
Productive
Receptive
Productive
What does the word sound like?
How is the word pronounced?
What does the word look like?
How is the word written and spelled?
What parts are recognisable in this word?
What word parts are needed to express the meaning?
Receptive
Productive
Receptive
Productive
Receptive
Productive
What meaning does this word form signal?
What word form can be used to express this meaning?
What is included in the concept?
What items can the concept refer to?
What other words does this word make us think of?
What other words could we use instead of this one?
Use
a) Grammatical
functions
b) Collocations
Receptive In what patterns does the word occur?
Productive In what patterns must we use the word?
Receptive What words or types of words occur with this one?
Productive What words or types of words must we use with this one?
c) Constraints
Receptive Where, when and how often would we expect to meet this word?
on use
Productive Where, when and how often can we use this word?
Table 3: What is involved in knowing a word (Nation 2001: 27)
The table shows that to really know a word, learners need to know different aspects of form,
meaning and use. The table also shows that there is a distinction between receptive and productive
knowledge. The former refers to listening or reading and retrieving the meaning of words, whereas
the latter refers to using words in written or spoken form to express meaning (Nation: 2001: 24-25).
A learner’s receptive word knowledge usually precedes as well as exceeds his or her productive
knowledge, i.e. learners typically understand words before they are able to use them, and they
understand more words than they can speak or write. Furthermore, studies have found that learning
vocabulary for productive use is harder than for receptive use (Nation: 2001: 35; Schmitt 2008:
345).
Table 4 provides an example of how the questions in Nation’s table may be answered about
one of the words in the research question, ‘recommendation’.
14
Form
/ˌrekəmenˈdeɪʃənz/
R-e-c-o-m-m-e-n-d-a-t-i-o-n-s.
It is made up of: recommend (root or free morpheme) + ation (derivative suffix: verb to
noun) + s (inflectional suffix: plural)
Meaning It means ‘a suggestion that something is good or suitable for a particular purpose or
job.’
It has synonymy relations with words such as ‘advice’, ‘suggestion’, ‘favourable
mention’, ‘a good word’, ‘guidance’.
Use
It is used as a noun and commonly in the following phrases or with the following
collocates: to make a recommendation, to ask for a recommendation, to accept/reject a
recommendation, to issue a recommendation, a personal recommendation, someone’s
recommendation, to do something at the recommendation of someone, a letter of
recommendation, a recommendation to do something, a good/bad recommendation,
based on someone’s recommendation.
It is a frequent word, found within the 2000 most frequent word families.
It is appropriate in a range of contexts from informal to formal.
Table 4: Aspects of word knowledge in ‘recommendation’
In relation to form, the word is made up of 12 phonemes (phonology), 14 letters (orthography) or 3
morphemes (morphology). It is a noun derived from the root ‘recommend’ and conjugated in plural,
and its semantic content is ‘a suggestion that something is good’. It is a high-frequency word that
can be found among the most commonly-occurring 2000 word families in the English language,
which means it is a very useful word for learners to know. It also collocates with a range of
different words, can be found in contexts of different levels of formality and, because of its
associations with words such as ‘favourable’ and ‘good’, the word usually has positive
connotations. This word analysis, which is not exhaustive, bears witness to the complexity of
lexical knowledge. It shows that learning a word is not a matter of simply memorising a list of
forms and meanings, and it illustrates the heavy learning burden facing learners.
The extensiveness of what is involved in knowing a word is likely to appear daunting for a
language student, who has to learn a lot of information on top of making the fundamental formmeaning mapping. However, for learners to learn all these different word features or for teachers to
teach all of them in one classroom encounter is unrealistic. Instead learning a word should be seen
as a cumulative process in which word knowledge is added to and fine-tuned over time through
repeated revisiting, usage and as need requires (Henriksen 1995, 1999a). Some researchers
conceptualise the development of vocabulary knowledge in terms of interrelated continuums from
a) partial to precise knowledge, i.e. recognition of a word through different levels of understanding
15
to exact knowledge of its meaning, b) depth of knowledge, i.e. knowledge of few relations between
words to many relations, and c) receptive to productive control (Gass & Selinker 2008; Melka 1997;
Henriksen 1999b). Because there are so many features to learn, it is necessary that vocabulary
teaching not only targets the beginning end of the continuums but also helps learners develop
deeper taxonomic levels.
2.4 Chapter conclusion
In this chapter, I have explored the complexity of the key terms of the thesis. I have conceptualised
and operationalised ‘word’ and ‘vocabulary’, which are used interchangeably in the thesis. I have
explained that I see a word as 1) a semantic unit consisting of one single item or more items joined
to form a language chunk, 2) interconnected with other linguistic elements in a holistic
understanding of language, and 3) consisting of several sub-knowledge elements that make up
lexical competence. In the following chapter, I provide a literature review of existing research on
vocabulary learning and recommendations for practice.
16
3. The research dimension: A literature review of vocabulary research
There has been a substantial increase in vocabulary research in recent decades. This research has
been carried out partly to understand the processes of vocabulary learning and partly to make
pedagogical recommendations for teaching regarding ‘best practice’. In this chapter, I provide a
review of existing research based on theoretical books, anthologies as well as research papers. This
creates the theoretical framework within which the analysis of my empirical data will be carried out.
As mentioned in the introduction, I will look at research in relation to: 1) the place vocabulary
should have in the curriculum, 2) criteria for selecting content, 3) the learning principles that should
guide practice, and 4) approaches to vocabulary teaching.
3.1 Curriculum: The role of vocabulary in language teaching
As noted in the introduction, researchers argue that vocabulary should occupy a central position in a
language curriculum and play an integral role in course design, because studies have found that
word knowledge is closely connected with language skills and a learner’s general proficiency level
(e.g. Singleton 1999: 5; Gass & Selinker 2008: 450). This is reflected in the following comments by
different writers. Meara states that ‘learners with big vocabularies are more proficient in a wide
range of language skills than learners with smaller vocabularies’ (1996: 37). Read argues that ‘an
adequate knowledge of words is a prerequisite for effective language use’ (2000: 83). Llach writes
that ‘vocabulary is central and even preconditional to different areas of language proficiency such
as reading and writing’ (2011: 100). And finally Alderson concludes that ‘language ability is to
quite a large extent a function of vocabulary size’ (2005: 88). The four researchers all talk about
vocabulary as an essential sub-skill, and from these statements it can be concluded that in order to
understand and produce language in both written and spoken form, learners need to develop a
sufficiently large vocabulary. Therefore, instruction in words needs to be systematically, regularly
and methodically addressed as part of the curriculum.
3.2 Content: Vocabulary goals and selection criteria
When it has been established that vocabulary needs to occupy a central place in the language
curriculum, two fundamental questions concerning content need to be addressed: 1) How many
words do learners need to learn? 2) Which words do learners need to learn, and which words should
teachers give attention to? In contrast to grammar, which consists of a much narrower range of
elements to be learnt, deciding what vocabulary items to teach may appear less clear, especially if
17
teachers do not have informed selection criteria. While the English language contains about one
million lexemes (Crystal 1995: 119) or 54,000 word families (Nation & Waring 1997: 7), an
average educated native-speaker is believed to have a vocabulary of approximately 20,000 word
families. There is, however, some uncertainty concerning this number, as there is a large variation
between individuals (Nation & Waring 1997: 7), and some argue that an average person’s
vocabulary is likely to be even larger due to word polysemy and lack of transparency between
derived forms (Nagy 1997: 69-70). Whether these numbers are accurate or not, none of them
constitute realistic targets for foreign language learners. Instead researchers recommend that goals
and selection criteria for deciding on content should be established by analysing the vocabulary
requirements of the tasks which the learners need to perform with the language.
In English in the Danish gymnasium, students are required to understand and work with a
range of authentic text types, which are part of the core materials (Læreplan 2013). In relation to
receptive skills (reading, listening), many studies have found a clear correlation between vocabulary
knowledge and text comprehension (Baleghizadeh & Golbin 2010; Stæhr 2008; Stæhr 2009b;
Henriksen 2009; Henriksen, Albrechtsen & Haastrup 2004; Folse 2004; Nation 2006; Schmitt 2008;
Llach 2011; Laufer 1992). Laufer, for instance, concludes that ‘lexis was found to be the best
predictor of success in reading, better than syntax or general reading ability. Whatever the effect of
reading strategies is, it is short-circuited if the vocabulary is below the threshold’ (1997a: 31).
Several researchers have explored the vocabulary requirements of different kinds of texts, and many
argue that learners need to know up to 98% of the words in a text in order to reach a sufficient
understanding (Stæhr 2009a; Nation 2006; Nation & Chung 2009; Nation 2001). This corresponds
to learners needing a vocabulary of 8000-9000 word families to deal with a range of authentic
written texts such as novels or newspaper articles, while 5000-7000 are needed for spoken texts
such as films (Nation 2006: 79; Schmitt 2008: 329). Stæhr’s (2009a: 188) analysis of
Hemmingway’s short story Indian Camp revealed that students will go far with knowledge of the
2000 most frequent word families in English, but also that to reach the 98%, they are required to
know the 5000 most frequent word families. It is important to note here that the numbers referred to
are word families, which, as discussed in section 2.1, includes a number of individual items.
Therefore, the actual number of words required is much higher.
Research conducted in a Danish context indicates that there may be a gap between task
vocabulary requirements and the competence of gymnasium students. In his study of 88 students’
final exams in the folkeskole, the level just below gymnasium entry, Stæhr (2008) found that 68/88
18
did not have sufficient knowledge of the 2000 most common word families in English. He also
concluded that there was a clear connection between exam results, skills performance and
vocabulary knowledge. In another study of vocabulary knowledge by Albrechtsen, Haastrup and
Henriksen (2008), it was found that only 12/29 students in the first year of the gymnasium knew the
2000 most common word families. The two studies were carried out on a small scale and do not
necessarily reflect the general ability level on a national scale. However, the numbers indicate that
for a sizeable number of students, the requirements may surpass their ability, which suggests that
there is a gap that needs to be addressed in teaching.
English students in the Danish gymnasium are also required to develop the ability to speak
accurately and fluently about both general and subject-specific topics (Læreplan 2013). Like with
reading, in relation to productive skills (speaking, writing), researchers have found a strong
correlation between vocabulary knowledge and learners’ ability to communicate (Henriksen 2009;
Llach 2011; Albrectsen, D., K. Hastrup & B. Henriksen 2008; Gass & Selinker 2008). Studies have
indicated that learners need to know 3000 word families to have an everyday conversation (Read
2004: 150), and Llach argues that a qualitatively and quantitatively well-developed lexical
competence is ‘indispensable and preconditional to writing’ (2011: 42). The reason for this is that
the process of sentence and text construction is believed to be primarily lexically driven. Levelt
states that ‘grammatical and phonological encodings are mediated by lexical entries. The preverbal
message triggers lexical items into activity’ (1989: 81). Thus, when learners want to use language to
communicate, it all starts with vocabulary, which works as the paramount carrier of meaning. Gass
and Selinker write that ‘[v]ocabulary choice is much more central to assigning meaning than is
correct grammar. […] in interpreting NNS [non-native speaker] utterances, grammar is less
important than pronunciation and vocabulary’ (2008: 312) and that ‘native speakers find lexical
errors to be more disruptive than grammatical errors’ (2008: 449). This was supported by the
findings in a study by Haastrup and Phillipson (1983), who found a connection between
communication breakdown and lexical limitations. They write that ‘so far as the causes are
concerned, […] the origin of these lies almost entirely in the learner’s lexical limitations, both in
reception and in production’ (1983: 145).
An inadequate lexical competence may not only impact the success or failure of
communication. It may also have detrimental affective consequences for learners, who will
experience frustration when they find themselves in situations where they do not have sufficient
words to express their intended meaning. The influence of these consequences on the speaker can
19
be reinforced by the reactions of the communication receivers, who may stigmatise speakers (Carter
1998: 185). This was suggested in a study by Albrechtsen et al. (1980), who found that native
speakers made negative judgements of non-native speakers’ oral language production due to a high
number of lexical errors. Finally, the range and accuracy of the lexical resources available to a
student is also a way to express precision, richness, variation and sophistication in language use,
which is an assessment criterion in most tests of language ability.
It is clear from the research findings discussed above that learners need a very substantial
mass of words. In relation to the question of which words to teach, literature on vocabulary
recommends that this decision should be based on 1) relevance and usefulness for learners in their
immediate situation (O’Dell 1997: 269), and 2) frequency and range, i.e. how often words occur
across a range of different text types (Nation & Waring 1997: 8; Gairns & Redman 1986: 36-37;
Moon 1997: 61-62; O’Dell 1997: 269; Read 2004: 148). Nation and Chung (2009: 545) make a
distinction between four word categories based on frequency, which are shown in table 5.
1) High-frequency words
Around 2000 word families
Cover 80 - 90 % of the words in a text
dependent on text type.
2) Academic words
Around 570 word families
Cover around 10 % in an academic text,
4 % in newspapers and less than 2 % in
novels.
3) Low-frequency words
Several thousand word
Occur very infrequently and cover only
families
a small proportion of any text.
4) Technical / specialist
Can come from highCover 20% - 30% dependent on the
words
frequency, academic or low- specialist field.
frequency vocabulary
Table 5: Word frequency categories
Nation and Chung (2009: 545) argue that words should be learnt roughly in order of
frequency, and Nation (2001: 20-21) recommends that words belonging to the different categories
should receive different types of attention in teaching. Group 1, which constitutes a core vocabulary
and a threshold level, as well as groups 2 and 4 should receive focused, explicit attention in the
classroom. Low-frequency words, on the contrary, should not be given significant attention by the
teacher due to their low coverage and range (Nation 2011: 531). However, one thing that
complicates basing word selection on frequency is the lack of agreement between different word
lists as these are based on different corpora. In addition to the criteria mentioned above, Sökmen
(1997: 240) argues that particularly difficult words or words which are likely to cause confusion
20
should also be given high priority and be explicitly focused on. If these are not dealt with, it is
likely that learners will avoid them.
3.3 Learning principles: Repetition, variation and depth of processing
After deciding how many and which words to teach, the next question is what principles should
guide classroom practice in order to maximise learning. As to a large extent vocabulary learning is
considered a question of remembering, we need to look at how words are stored in the brain and
which factors have been found to affect long-term storage. Words are stored in the mental lexicon,
which has a dynamic, complex structure, where items are interconnected in networks based on form
as well as meaning (Aitchison 1994: 14-15). Throughout their learning process, learners encounter a
large number of words via visual or auditory input from many different sources, such as the teacher,
other learners or texts of various kinds. Many of these words will be new to them, and many will be
ignored. Consequently, a lot of vocabulary items are lost. However, if learners’ attention is directed
to the words, these items can enter the short-term or working memory, where they can be stored for
a few seconds and subjected to different mental operations (Gass & Selinker 2008: 464). From here,
the challenge is to commit them to long-term storage and integrate them into the mental lexicon,
where they can be retrieved in real-time conditions.
Long-term storage, however, does not happen automatically. Researchers into vocabulary
learning and the mental lexicon argue that several factors influence this process. Henriksen (1999a:
84) lists five factors that can affect word storage: 1) repeated encounters, 2) depth of cognitive
processing, 3) working with building associative networks, 4) variation in the manner of
presentation, and 5) distinctive features in the word. She argues that these are the factors that most
frequently occur in research, which suggests that her list is not exhaustive. I would argue that
learner motivation and interest is a vital principle. This factor will have a substantial influence on
how much attention learners will direct towards a word and the commitment they will put into
learning it. In the words of Baddeley: ‘It is almost certainly the case that motivation will influence
the subject’s willingness to attend to the material to be learnt’ (1990: 148). Learners may come
across words that they find irrelevant to them, they may not like a word or find it so difficult that
the word will be abandoned.
That ‘practice makes perfect’, or that frequent repeated rehearsal aids performance, is a
general principle which underlies how we think about learning many things in both instructive and
non-instructive settings, e.g. playing a musical instrument, driving a car or doing sports. Among
21
vocabulary researchers, there is wide consensus that repetition is also a key principle in word
learning (McLaughlin 1990: 125; Stæhr 2009a: 185; Carter 1998: 193; Henriksen 2009: 206;
Henriksen 1999a: 85; Singleton 1999: 273; Gass & Selinker 2008: 466; Hulstijn & Laufer 2001:
553; Nagy 1997: 74). Baddeley, for instance, states that ‘the more frequently an item had been
rehearsed, the more likely was it to be recalled’ (1990: 61), while Schmitt argues that ‘[t]he
overriding principle for maximizing vocabulary learning is to increase the amount of engagement
learners have with lexical items’ (2008: 329). Nation (2001: 74) elaborates on the importance of
repetition in the following:
Repetition is essential for vocabulary learning because there is so much to learn about
each word that one meeting is not sufficient to gain this information, and because
vocabulary items must not only be known, they must be known well so that they can be
fluently accessed. Repetition thus adds to the quality of knowledge and also to the
quantity or strength of this knowledge.
As Nations points out, words are very rarely learnt from one encounter. In fact, according to Nagy
(1997: 74), the chances of long-term storage after one encounter with a word during reading are as
low as 5-14 %. Several meetings are required, and each encounter can add to and refine learners’
understanding as well as make the words more accessible (also Stæhr 2009a: 173; Henriksen 2009:
206; Gass & Selinker 2008: 466).
The most effective manner in which to revisit a word involves retrieval, which may be either
1) receptive, i.e. retrieving the word’s meaning when it is met in listening or reading, or 2)
productive, i.e. wishing to communicate a meaning and then retrieving a form (Nation 2001: 67).
Through multiple retrievals, the memory trace of a word is strengthened, which increases the
learner’s ability to produce the word faster and with less cognitive effort (Baddeley 1990: 156).
Many researchers have also provided guidelines as to the number of repetitions required. Stæhr
(2009a: 185), for example, argues that it takes 5-16 meetings to learn an average word, while
Nation and Wang (1999: 370) state that at least ten exposures are necessary. In my opinion,
determining such a number independently of context-specific factors has no point. The number of
encounters required is highly dependent on a variety of factors: the individual learner and his or her
cognitive abilities, the learning burden of a specific word, the manner in which the word is repeated,
the level of engagement with the word in each encounter and the degree of knowledge measured.
The key principle is that instruction needs to include substantial repetition of words, as learners
forgetting words may be caused by insufficient opportunities to recycle items.
22
Research suggests that the nature of repetition is also significant in different ways. Firstly,
findings show that reviews are more effective if they are spaced rather than massed together in a
concentrated session. This means that, after the first meeting with a word, subsequent encounters
and uses need to be distributed over gradually extended periods (Gairns & Redman 1986; Stæhr
2009a; Baddeley 1990; Nation 2011; Hunt & Beglar 2002; Nation 2001). Secondly, as discussed
above, the most effective kind of review not only revisits words, but does so in different ways and
different contexts. Nation (2001) calls this key principle ‘creative or generative use’, which means
that ‘previously met words are subsequently met or used in ways that differ from the previous
meeting with the word’ (Nation 2001: 68). By using different activities, different types of learners
may be accommodated, motivation may be ensured and different word features as well as network
associations can be targeted, so that links can be made between new and old knowledge (Henriksen
1999a: 88).
In addition to the amount of repetition, the quality of the learning activity used plays a
significant role. Studies have discovered that the strength of a memory depends on how deeply a
word is processed and how many aspects of word knowledge are involved (Baddeley 1990; Laufer
& Hulstijn 2001; Hulstijn & Laufer 2001; Gass & Selinker 2008; Henriksen 1999a; Schmitt &
McCarthy 1997; Sökmen 1997). Baddeley states that ‘the more deeply and elaborately an item is
processed, the greater the probability of subsequent recall’ (1990: 9). Some studies have provided
empirical evidence for what is called ‘the involvement load hypothesis’, which argues that the more
mental involvement with a word a task has, the better the retention (Hulstijn & Laufer 2001).
‘Involvement’ is operationalised in terms of 1) need, 2) search and 3) evaluation. Need is not
present if the students do not need the words to complete the task, moderate if they do, but the need
is prescribed by the teacher, and strong if the need is motivated by the students themselves. Search
is absent if forms and meanings are provided as part of the task, moderate if the students need to
search for these, and strong if they need the form to express a meaning. Evaluation is moderate if
the students have to compare or relate words in a given context but strong if they have to create
their own context (Hulstijn & Laufer 2001: 543-544). Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) found that word
retention was better after a composition task compared to gap-fill exercises or just exposure through
reading, and they concluded that the results of their study ‘fully support the hypothesis that words
that are processed with higher involvement load will be retained better than words that are
processed with lower involvement load’ (2001: 552). Keating’s (2008) study resulted in similar
findings and thus supported Hulstijn and Laufer’s hypothesis.
23
Other studies that did not specifically research ‘the involvement load hypothesis’ provide
evidence for the same underlying principle, i.e. that words which are put to work at higher levels of
thinking are better retained. Schmitt’s (2008) review of studies researching correlations between
task engagement and learning outcomes provides support to the idea that the effectiveness of
vocabulary learning increases, the more learners actively do with the words. Ellis and He (1999)
found that the opportunity to use new words in a communicative activity led to better retention than
just exposure to the new items, while Paribakht and Wesche (1997) found that vocabulary-focused
exercises meant a larger increase in retention compared to exposure through reading. Sökmen also
provides some key words to suggest what may characterise activities that involve deeper levels of
processing. She states: ‘When students are asked to manipulate words, relate them to other words
and to own experiences, and then to justify their choices, these word associations are reinforced’
(1997: 242). Based on these research findings, deep cognitive involvement can be identified as a
key factor, and teaching practices should ensure that learners engage elaborately with words and
that activities involve decisions about words at deeper levels of taxonomic complexity.
3.4 Approaches and strands
So far I have explored the place of vocabulary in the curriculum, criteria for selecting content and
the learning principles that should guide practice. In this section, I will look more closely at the
approaches to vocabulary teaching. In the literature, there is a central distinction between 1) the
direct approach, which involves intentional learning, and 2) the indirect approach, which involves
incidental learning (e.g. Read 2004; Stæhr 2009; Hunt & Beglar 2002).
The direct approach involves an explicit focus on decontextualised word items. Specific
words are targeted, and learners are often given study activities, in which they have to perform
operations with the words at different levels of cognitive processing in order to learn them
consciously. As already mentioned, it is considered important to use a variety of activities to target
different aspects of word knowledge and build different associational links (Sökman 1997: 245;
Henriksen 1999a: 84). Table 6 provides examples of different types of vocabulary activities.
24
Activity type
1. Selecting
Description
Involves word recognition and making a choice based on given criteria.
Learners may, for instance, be asked to identify ‘the odd one out’ from a list.
2. Matching
Involves word recognition and matching it with another item, e.g. a definition.
3. Classifying
Involves word recognition and making choices about categorisation. Learners
and sorting
may, for instance, be asked to categorise words according to part of speech.
4. Ordering and Involves word recognition and putting words into an order based on given
ranking
criteria.
5. Memorisation Involves techniques such as the keyword technique or visualisation.
6. Analysing
Is meta-linguistic and may involve a morphological analysis, where learners
make judgements on word parts.
7. Completing
Involves learners completing sentences and texts by making a decision about
sentences and
which words fits the gap and filling in a word. This type is also known as a
texts
cloze.
Table 6: Vocabulary activity types
In order to help learners benefit from exposure, direct teaching should also spend time on
training strategies that can help students learn new words independently (Nation 2011; Nation &
Waring 1997; O’Dell 1997). These strategies include raising awareness of how words are learnt, use
of reference works, guidance on keeping effective word records, guessing meaning from context
and working out word meaning by analysing different word parts. If learners have knowledge of
such strategies, there is a greater chance that they will be able to deal with word learning from
context on their own.
The indirect approach is implicit and involves incidental, unconscious learning that occurs
while learners take part in meaning-focused activities. In receptive work, written and spoken texts
provide exposure to input that creates the opportunity for learners to encounter new words for the
first time and known words in new contexts. Vocabulary learning is facilitated through these textual
encounters, where learners pick up word features from the context (Sökmen 1997: 237). In
productive work, learners develop their vocabulary through output and negotiating word meaning
with others (Stæhr 2009a: 179-184). Thus, in this approach, learners are focused on communicating
and comprehending meaning rather than learning new words. While most of the literature portrays
the two approaches as opposites, Christensen et al. (2000) argue that it may be more useful to
operate with a continuum, as it is possible to both use and produce text with the purpose of studying
words consciously, and thus to have varying degrees of context involved in the deliberate study of
word items. This is illustrated in figure 1 below.
25
No textual context
Decontextualised words
Focus on form
Figure 1: Direct-indirect continuum
Textual context
Words as part of a text
Focus on meaning/communication
While research suggests that the direct approach leads to the largest gain in vocabulary
knowledge (Paribakht & Wesche 1996; Nation 2011; Schmitt 2008), many researchers argue that
neither of these approaches is sufficient on its own. Relying only on incidental learning mainly
through reading is problematic for four reasons. Firstly, the volume of reading that is required is
highly substantial. Stæhr (2009: 180) argues that learners will need to read over 400 novels in order
to expand their vocabulary with 2000 words. As Sökmen points out, this ‘is likely to be a very slow
process’ (1997: 237). Secondly, the learners may lack the skill or knowledge that is necessary for
the incidental learning process to happen, namely linguistic knowledge, world knowledge or
strategic knowledge (Nagy 1997: 76), which could lead to incorrect inferences. Research indicates
that it is necessary for learners to have a vocabulary corresponding to 95% of a text before they can
efficiently learn from context (Nation & Waring 1997: 11; Hunt & Beglar 2002: 262). Thirdly,
there are doubts whether this approach leads to long-term retention, most likely due to the fact that
the necessary processes for storage discussed above are inadequately present (Schmitt 2008: 341;
Sökmen 1997: 238). Fourthly, it is unlikely that this receptive knowledge can be used productively,
as productive learning is required for productive use (Schmitt 2008: 348; Nation 2001: 32). Thus, in
the words of Nation, ‘relying on meaning-focused input alone is leaving too much to chance’ (2002:
268).
On the other hand, the direct approach also has limitations. Firstly, some researchers argue
that it may be ‘superficial’ and only lead to ‘partial word knowledge’ (Nagy 1997: 83). However, I
consider this a generalising characterisation of the many different kinds of activities that give
deliberate focus to words, and in other researchers’ understanding, intentional study can involve
depth of processing and several aspects of word knowledge (Nation 2002: 270). Secondly, there is
simply not enough classroom time for all the words the learners need to be taught explicitly. This
creates a need for incidental learning through an indirect approach, where vocabulary learning is
facilitated through exposure to language but also for learner training and the introduction of
strategies for self-directed learning.
26
For the reasons outlined above, most researchers agree that the two approaches complement
each other, and that vocabulary teaching should be a combination of a direct and an indirect
approach (Laufer & Nation 2012; Nation 2011; Stæhr 2009a; Schmitt 2008; Nation & Meara 2002;
Schmitt & McCarthy 1997; Nation & Waring 1997; Hunt & Beglar 2002; Hunt & Beglar 2005;
Sökmen 1997; Read 2004). For instance, Hunt and Beglar conclude the following: ‘the most
effective and efficient lexical development will occur in multifaceted curriculums that achieve a
pedagogically sound balance between explicit and implicit activities’ (2005: 1). Some researchers
also argue that a combined approach is necessary as the two approaches are effective in relation to
different aspects of word knowledge. Whereas an explicit focus is believed to be effective for
making the form-meaning link and for learning the written form, the concept as well as some of the
word grammar, incidental learning in contexts of use may add to knowledge in terms of constraints
on use, the various morphological forms, collocations and patterns (Nation 2011: 535; Nation 2001:
299). This is discussed by several researchers. Singleton, for instance, states the following:
‘approaches which deal in isolated items have to be supplemented by approaches which give full
value to the collocational, grammatical and other dimensions of the lexicon’ (1999: 272), and along
the same lines Schmitt and McCarthy (1997: 3) point out that:
Explicit teaching can be a very good first introduction to a word; after this, the context
encountered when reading can lead to new knowledge of its collocations, additional
meanings, and other higher level knowledge. In addition, repeated exposure from
reading will help to consolidate the meaning(s) first learned.
Thus, the explicit teaching of an item can form the first stepping stone on which a more elaborate
network of lexical knowledge can be developed through meaning-focused input and output.
Which of the two approaches to use depends on the frequency of the word items and on
learner level. In relation to frequency, researchers argue that high-frequency and specialist
vocabulary should be given high priority in the classroom in a variety of ways, because these make
up a very large proportion of occurring texts and are therefore beneficial to learners in many
different contexts (Nation 2001: 19). Low-frequency words, however, should be learnt through
exposure to language and dealt with through strategies for this type of learning. Schmitt and
McCarthy explain this in the following way: ‘explicit teaching is probably essential for the most
frequent words of any L2 […]. Less frequent words, on the other hand, may be best learned by
reading extensively, since there is just not enough time to learn them all through conscious study’
(1997: 3). In relation to learner level, Hunt and Beglar (2002: 258) argue that this factor should be
27
considered when deciding on which approach to emphasise. In my opinion, they correctly note that
the vocabulary size of low-level learners is likely to pose a barrier, as they do not have sufficient
vocabulary to engage in the amount of extensive reading required.
Nation has written extensively on approaches and guidelines for vocabulary teaching, and
instead of the direct and an indirect approach, he advocates using four strands that complement each
other (Nation & Waring 1997; Nation 2001; Nation & Chung 2009).
Strand
1) Meaningfocused input
2) Meaningfocused output
3) Languagefocused
learning
4) Fluency
development
Focus and principles
Incidental learning
Focus on communication,
understanding and conveying
messages
Some unfamiliar items (2-5%)
Noticing and guessing from
context
Incidental learning
Focus on communication,
understanding and conveying
messages
Some unfamiliar items (2-5%)
Intentional learning
An explicit focus on words
Conscious attention to words
Focus on understanding and
conveying messages
Little or no unfamiliar language
Pressure to perform faster
Repetition to develop
automaticity and make language
available for real-time use
Table 7: Nation’s four strands
Activities
Extensive reading and listening
activities, such as reading graded
readers or listening to recordings,
films or the radio where learners can
meet vocabulary
Communication activities where
learners receive input and negotiate
Speaking or writing activities, such as
conversations and role plays, where
learners negotiate, are encouraged
and have the opportunity to use words
Activities focused on targeted
decontextualised, high-frequency
words with a focus on form,
grammar, meaning and use
Words are manipulated in different
ways in tasks and exercises
Training in vocabulary strategies
Words made explicit in glosses
Dictionary use
Study from word cards
Intensive reading
Feedback on use and constraints
Repeated activities
Easy or repeated reading or listening
28
Table 7 summarises Nation’s four strands, which consist of a combination of both direct and
indirect teaching. Strands 1, 2 and 4 correspond to the indirect approach, where word learning is
facilitated through meaning-focused input and output. Whereas strand 1 is receptive and involves
ensuring that learners receive a great amount of input through reading and listening, strand 2 is
productive and involves giving learners tasks where they have to produce output in generative,
creative ways in different contexts. Most researchers stress that a large volume of enjoyable,
extensive reading of graded texts is essential for strand 2 to be effective (e.g. Schmitt & McCarthy
1997: 3; Nation & Waring 1997: 11; Schmitt 2008: 349; Nation 2001: 156; Nagy 1997: 75). Nation,
for instance, states that ‘it is important that learners do large quantities of interesting reading. Large
quantities for second language learners means something like a graded reader of a suitable level
every week’ (2001: 238). Strand 4 is also meaning-oriented, but in contrast to the previous two, it
does not aim to provide new words for learning, but rather to develop accessibility to language that
has already been taught. This happens through repetition in familiar patterns, tasks and contexts. In
contrast, strand 3, which corresponds to the direct approach, is form-focused and involves the
deliberate study of words as well as learning strategies. Here the learners work consciously on
developing their knowledge about words, and one of the most effective strategies is the use of word
cards with the word in English on one side and the mother-tongue translation on the other side
(Nation 2001; Nation & Chung 2009; Hunt & Beglar 2002).
The four strands represent a systematic balance between input and output, reception and
production, and they provide opportunities for both explicit study as well as implicit learning.
Nation (2001) argues that all four strands are equally important, that high-frequency and specialist
word items should occur in all four and that classroom time should be spent equally between them
if learners are not to lack aspects of lexical competence. This could be the result of a programme
where one of the strands is missing. For instance, Paribakht & Wesche (1997) found that if the focus
of the instruction is on comprehending words, the learners’ knowledge will be limited to
recognition, whereas if explicit vocabulary activities are carried out, learners also gain productive
knowledge.
29
3.5 Applicability: Applying SLA research to teaching practice
Above I have reviewed research on vocabulary and outlined recommendations for how vocabulary
instruction should be carried out. In chapters 5 and 6, I will analyse how this is reflected in policy
for the subject of English and the practices of three teachers in my study. However, the relationship
between research and practice is rarely one where recommendations from the former are simply
transferred into the latter, and research is not the only factor that may influence the way teachers
teach vocabulary. Coady (1997) argues that four factors have a potential impact on a teacher’s
instruction: 1) own learning experiences, 2) attitude towards vocabulary learning, 3) knowledge of
research in the field, and 4) experiences gained through teaching. This list begins to address the
complexity of factors impacting upon the decisions in teaching, but in my opinion and experience,
there may be several additional reasons for why research recommendations are not applied by
teachers. This I will discuss in this final section, where I also problematise the applicability of
research in teaching practice.
As noted earlier, researchers into vocabulary have primarily focused on vocabulary learning,
and based on their findings they have made recommendations for ‘best pedagogical practice’. In
this chapter, I have discussed a variety of these different recommendations. One example is
provided by Schmitt and McCarthy, who state that ‘a well-designed vocabulary programme needs
to integrate explicit teaching […] with some method of achieving maximum exposure, probably
including reading’ (1997: 231). This suggestion illustrates one problematic issue for the teachers
teaching in the context researched in this thesis, namely that gymnasium teachers do not design
vocabulary programmes. Rather they design a complex, holistic language teaching curriculum
consisting of a varied set of elements including grammar, cultural and historical knowledge,
competence in different written genres that occur in the final exam, and textual analysis of a range
of different text types according to the objectives outlined in the ministerial guidelines. In their
specific context, teachers may therefore find it difficult to implement researcher recommendations,
because these are made by applied linguists from the very narrow perspective of vocabulary without
considering the teaching context or providing guidelines as to how a vocabulary programme could
or should be integrated into a comprehensive language programme or balanced with other elements
in the curriculum.
Ur (2012) addresses the problems in the applicability of SLA research:
Research relevant to ELT [English Language Teaching] relates almost exclusively to
language acquisition. It only very rarely deals with pedagogical issues such as
30
classroom management and discipline, homework, teaching heterogeneous classes,
using the coursebook, exams and so on. Yet it is these issues that determine teachers'
decisions on procedures and materials, far more than empirically demonstrated
methods of facilitating language learning in controlled conditions. Moreover, many
studies are not directly relevant to a specific teaching context. Schoolteachers […] find
that most classroom studies are based on groups of young, academic adults (these being
most easily accessible for university-based researchers) and their conclusions may not
be easily applicable to my classes of unruly teenagers. The topics on which studies are
published are selected for reasons that serve the interests of the researcher, and that
have nothing to do with their usefulness to the practitioner. So they tend to be ones that
are readily ‘researchable’ and likely to provide a basis for articles that will be accepted
in refereed journals.
What Ur points to here is that researchers make recommendations from an applied-linguistic
perspective, not a practitioner’s perspective, which means that the recommendations may not be
very practical in the actual and specific classroom reality facing teachers. Nunan (1992: 103) has
also criticised that researchers who have conducted controlled, experimental studies claim that their
findings are applicable to teaching practice. What is often ignored by researchers in linguistics is
that language teaching takes place in a specific educational context in a specific classroom, which
constitutes a complex space with a number of uncontrollable, often conflicting and complicating
variables impinging on the decisions which teachers have to make. A consideration of these
variables are, in my opinion, necessary for research that seeks to be applicable, and I would argue
that, in addition to the immediate classroom, there are a number of other contexts at different levels
(e.g. the educational institution, the education system) which influence teaching practices. One of
these will be looked at in chapter 5, where I analyse policy.
3.6 Chapter conclusion
This chapter has reviewed research on vocabulary learning and the recommendations for teaching
practice. To sum up the findings of the literature review, it was found firstly, that vocabulary
learning does not take care of itself and that therefore it should play a significant role in the
curriculum. Nation states: ‘vocabulary growth is such an important part of language acquisition that
it deserves to be planned for, deliberately controlled and monitored’ (2002: 267). Secondly, I found
that a number of factors are conducive to long-term storage of words, but that spaced repetition,
variation in presentation and practice forms as well as cognitive depth of processing are essential
factors. Thirdly, I discussed how many and which words should receive classroom attention. Here it
31
was concluded that learners need knowledge of up to 9000 word families to meet the task
requirements in this context. I also found that researchers recommend that high-frequency
vocabulary, which has a wide range across a variety of texts, should be prioritised along with
specialised vocabulary, while low-frequency words should be learnt through exposure, and learners
should be taught strategies for dealing with these. Lastly, it was found that a balanced approach of
direct and indirect teaching or four strands was recommended for an effective vocabulary
programme.
As mentioned in the introduction, researchers argue that in many classrooms the approach to
vocabulary teaching does not reflect the recommendations and that current unsystematic practices
may result in insufficient learning (e.g. Nation 2011; Christensen et al. 2000). Singleton (1999:
272), for instance, states the following: ‘On the pedagogical front, too, we need to re-examine our
assumptions. […] it becomes clear that much of what has passed for “vocabulary teaching” in both
L2 and L1 classrooms addresses only the tip of the tip of the lexical iceberg.’ Many researchers
stress the importance of a systematic and principled approach to developing a mental lexicon that
matches the requirements facing learners (Stæhr 2009; Nation & Chung 2009; Schmitt 2008).
However, in the chapter, I have also discussed why the recommendations made by researchers may
not be easily applied by teachers. In the following chapter, I will turn to the research method used in
this thesis.
32
4. Method
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research method used in the thesis. The choice of
method is determined by the research question (Nunan 1992: 71), and because the purpose of this
thesis is to gain a detailed insight into teaching practices conducted in naturally-occurring
classroom contexts, I chose to do a case study. The research design is a methodological hybrid and,
in the collection of my empirical data, I used a multiple-data approach characteristic of case studies
(Duff 2008: 23; Nunan 1992: 74). My sources consist of:
Classroom observations and video recordings
Interviews with the observed teachers
Analysis of lesson materials
Analysis of policy documents
These data sources correspond to the three E’s in qualitative data collection: Experiencing
(observations), Enquiring (interviewing) and Examining (studying documents) (Duff 2008: 128). In
the following sections, I will describe and discuss 1) case study research, 2) the process of my study
and 3) lesson observation, video recording and interviews as research methods. In the final section,
I will discuss the reliability and validity of my study.
4.1 Case study
According to Duff (2008: 23), a case study is characterised by the following key principles:
In-depth study
Particularity
Contextualisation
Triangulation or multiple perspectives
Interpretation
These principles very much capture the method used in this thesis. My study does not seek to
understand vocabulary teaching in general but is an in-depth exploration of the teaching practices of
three English teachers at a gymnasium in Denmark. Thus, typical of case studies, the thesis provides
insight into the complexity of particular cases in their particular real-life instructional contexts and
not in an artificial setting constructed for research purposes (Mackey & Gass 2005: 172). The
33
observations, video recording and interviews with three different teachers constitute different data
sources and thus provide multiple perspectives, allow for triangulation as well as enable me to give
more detailed descriptions of the practices used. Finally, in my study, the data is approached from
an interpretive position that seeks ‘to understand the how and why of phenomena from a holistic,
participant-informed perspective’ (Duff 2008: 33).
Duff distinguishes between different types of case studies based on research objectives (2008:
101). As reflected in my research question, my aim is descriptive as well as explanatory (Duff 2008:
101) in that I seek: 1) to describe how vocabulary is worked with in my cases and how the
relationship is to research and policy, and 2) to explain some of the reasons why the vocabulary
practices are as they are and why the relationship between the three dimensions is as it is. There are
three main reasons for my choice of study and research objective. Firstly, as discussed in chapter 1,
this type of study is lacking in existing research on vocabulary, which is predominantly of a
quantitative or evaluative nature, i.e. engaged in measuring learners’ vocabulary knowledge or
evaluating the effectiveness of specific teaching strategies (e.g. File & Adams 2010, Folse 2006,
Hulstijn & Laufer 2001, Keating 2008). Therefore, a qualitative method is needed to supplement
existing research and to gain an increased understanding of vocabulary teaching. Secondly, studying
the relationship between teaching and learning is highly complex, as there is no one-to-one
relationship between the two, where the former necessarily leads to the latter. Finally, as I am a
language teacher myself, a focus on the classroom context is also motivated by a personal interest in
this setting and in a desire to conduct research that is applicable to the practical reality of teachers.
Nunan states this well when he argues that case study research is characterised by being ‘strong in
reality and therefore likely to appeal to practitioners, who will be able to identify with the issues and
concerns raised’ (1992: 78).
Conducting case studies is a complex process with several stages. The first step of my study
was the identification in the literature of the discussed paradox between, on the one hand, the
forceful and convincing argument for a systematic approach to vocabulary teaching and, on the
other hand, the claimed vocabulary deficit in language teaching. As previously noted, this
seemingly paradoxical relation calls for in-depth exploration. This meant that the thesis started with
a clearly defined purpose, which led to the formulation of the research question.
The next step was the case selection. I chose to conduct a multiple or collective case study,
and the reason for this was that I wanted to gain insight into a broader spectrum of practices than
would be possible by looking at only one participant. As pointed out by Duff, the advantage of such
34
an approach is that it ‘increases the sense of representativeness of, or variation among, cases’ (2008:
36). Therefore, the rationale behind obtaining data from multiple case participants is that the
different cases can complement each other. It also allows comparisons between and contrasting of
the practices used (Duff 2008: 124). Duff (2008: 124) states that between two and six participants is
common in multiple case studies. I chose three in order to be able to conduct an analysis with
sufficient depth and breadth, while also ensuring manageability in relation to the amount of data, so
that it was possible to carry out the study within its timeframe and scope.
I made use of convenience sampling (Mackey & Gass 2005: 122), as my first recruited case
participant is a former colleague of mine. This was done mainly for practical reasons as access and
consent are more easily obtained in this way (Duff 2008: 116). Classrooms can be closed spaces,
and Duff argues that ‘gaining access to fieldwork sites for direct observation is becoming
increasingly complicated’ (2008: 13). While it is my experience from working in different
educational institutions that classrooms are opened up to outsiders for many reasons, finding
participants for this kind of study can be a challenge as it requires a substantial amount of time for
already busy teachers, who may also find it intimidating to let researchers scrutinise their teaching.
As I had previously been employed for a brief period at the research site, I had the advantage of a
good level of knowledge of the school. In this connection, Duff states that ‘[b]eing familiar with the
site and participants, […] having an ally on the inside […] help a great deal when negotiating access
and permissions’ (2008: 126). Through teacher 1, and therefore through chain sampling, two
additional case participants were found, a male and a female colleague of hers. Table 8 gives a
summary of the case participants.
English teacher 1 (T1)
Female
Former colleague of researcher
Recruited through convenience
sampling
Table 8: Case study participants
English teacher 2 (T2)
Female
Colleague of Teacher 1
Recruited through chain
sampling
English teacher 3 (T3)
Male
Colleague of Teacher 1
Recruited through chain
sampling
In accordance with ethical recommendations in educational research (Duff 2008: 146;
Mackey & Gass 2005: 29), the three participants were informed about the focus of the case study as
well as the timeframe, procedures and activities involved1. This transparency is important in order
to foster a relationship of trust and co-operation (Mackey & Gass 2005: 189). For ethical reasons
1
See appendix 1. This contains my initial letter to the teachers.
35
and to protect the privacy of the case participants, their names have been withheld, their faces
anonymised in stills used in chapter 6 and they will be referred to as T1, T2 and T3.
4.2 Observations
As one of my data sources, I use video recordings of lessons. As a research method, this has the
advantage that the researcher can obtain a more detailed insight into the practices used and aspects
of the classroom context. Essential for the depth of the analysis, video recordings also provide the
possibility of repeated watching (Duff 2008: 139-140), which was necessary due to the different
coding of the data required for my analysis. However, as my camera was positioned in a certain
place, pointed in a certain direction and has a limited scope, not everything that happened in the
observed classrooms was captured on the recordings. This also means that video recording is a
subjective method. Nunan states that ‘there is no such thing as an “objective” observation, i.e. what
we see will be determined, at least in part, by what we expect to see. Our vision will also be
influenced by the instruments we develop, adapt, or adopt to assist us in our observations’ (1992:
98).
In my positioning of the camera, I chose to place it in the corner of the classroom to provide
the least degree of disturbance to the lessons. This meant that during stages when the students were
working in groups, the teachers sometimes left the frame and that some audio data was difficult to
understand when I viewed the recordings. It would have been possible to avoid this by using
multiple cameras or a hand-held camera that followed the teacher closely, but I deemed these
options impractical due to the complications in handling several cameras, the amount of data that
this would generate as well as the level of intrusion involved. According to Mackey and Gass
(2005: 187) and Wragg (1999: 16), it is important for an observer to attempt to be as little obtrusive
as possible in order not to cause difficulties for the teacher and complicate the delivery of the
lesson.
Based on the literature review in the previous chapter, I designed an observation guide2 in
order to provide focus to my observations. Not all the collected data was relevant to my analysis as
other things such as assignments or textual analysis also constituted the pedagogical focuses at
stages in the lessons. Therefore, after the observations, I viewed the recordings to produce lesson
descriptions and to extract the lesson sequences where vocabulary was the pedagogical focus both
as planned lesson stages as well as brief, unplanned segments that occurred as spontaneous
2
See appendix 2.
36
vocabulary teaching when the focus of the lesson was not vocabulary3. Subsequently, the extracted
recordings were viewed again and the identified vocabulary-teaching sequences were subjected to
more detailed scrutiny4. I also obtained copies of the teaching material used, and these were also
examined as part of the analysis5.
Compared to using surveys or only interviews with teachers, lesson observations can give
insight into the actual practices carried out rather than perceived or intended practices. There can
sometimes be discrepancies between what teachers believe they do and the actual procedures in the
classroom (Wragg 1999: 58). However, as an outside observer of a classroom, the researcher has to
be aware of the Observer’s Paradox (Mackey & Gass 2005: 176) and the Hawthorne effect (Mackey
& Gass 2005: 114; Wragg 1999: 120). The former refers to the fact that the objective of lesson
observations is to gain insight into naturally-occurring practices, i.e. what happens when
participants are not being observed. However, the only way to do this is to observe, and thereby risk
affecting what happens in the classroom. The latter refers to the potential ‘positive’ influence of the
observer’s presence on how the people who are observed behave. It is imaginable that the teachers,
who knew that they were taking part in a study of their vocabulary teaching practices, would
increase their focus on vocabulary, prepare vocabulary components of lessons more thoroughly or
apply different techniques in order to meet what they perceived to be the expectations of the
researcher. For this reason, the observations may not be a complete reflection of regularly-occurring
activities. However, this poses a paradox, which means that there is no solution to avoiding this
influence, and it is not possible to determine the extent to which the Hawthorne effect played a role
in my observations. In order to minimise the contamination of data, I used ‘incomplete disclosure’,
i.e. I did not discuss the criticism from researchers concerning a vocabulary deficit, which
motivated my study. Mackey and Gass argue that this may be necessary and is acceptable, as
providing the participants with detailed information may ‘lead to an unrepresentative sample of
data’ (2005: 30). In my initial correspondence with the teachers, I also mentioned the importance of
them not changing their practices.
3
See appendix 3. Here ‘T’ refers to ‘teacher, ‘L’ to lesson, ‘S’ to lesson stage. These abbreviations will be used in the
analytical chapter, when referring to these lesson descriptions.
4
See appendices 4 and 5.
5
See appendices 6, 7 and 8.
37
4.3 Interviews
Another data source was interviews with the observed teachers6. These were conducted after the
observations, so that I had the opportunity to ask the teachers questions about the observed
practices. The potential disadvantage of interviewing participants is that they may be selective or
not objective when talking about their own practices. However, in my opinion, interviews can
constitute a highly beneficial supplementary data source to lesson observations. Here the observer
can get a broader and deeper understanding of the elements at play in the observed lessons. In other
words, interviews can supplement and refine the initial findings from the observations and thereby
lead to more complex insights into the research problem compared to if only observations are used.
According to Duff, interviews can be used ‘to collect data about the insights or perspectives of
research participants’ (2008: 133), ‘to ascertain selected participants’ perspectives on their actions
or behaviours’ (Duff 2008: 141), and they can also provide more details about different contextual
layers, which is an important factor when conducting educational research (Duff 2008: 124). This
is, in my opinion, especially important in relation to the explanatory part of the research objective in
this thesis, as this is not directly observable.
As stated above, this thesis subscribes to an interpretive, qualitative research paradigm, in
which the possibility of objectivity is questioned, and subjectivity is not considered problematic as
reality is perceived as constructed rather than existing out there for researchers to discover (Duff
2008: 56). Typical for studies that subscribe to this type of scientific paradigm (Nunan 1992: 149), I
used the format of a semi-structured interview and constructed an interview guide7. I chose this
format because of its flexibility and in order to be able to have a more natural conversation with the
teachers, where I could react to their answers and ask follow-up questions. In some situations, this
led to a digression from the planned questions but also allowed for going into further depth when I
judged that this would benefit my study.
Similar to the way in which the Hawthorne effect may influence observations, Mackey and
Gass (2005: 174) talk about the Halo effect in connection with interviews. This refers to
interviewees picking up cues and therefore delivering answers according to what they believe the
interviewer would like to hear. To minimise this effect, I attempted to formulate neutral questions in
the construction of my interview guide (Duff 2008: 137), so that they were not leading nor revealed
a bias or anything about the pedagogical recommendations of researchers. I also attempted to
6
7
See transcriptions in appendix 10. In the analytical chapter, I will refer to these as A10a, A10b and A10c.
See appendix 9.
38
construct the questions so that they were open-ended in order to invite the interviewees to answer
what they wanted in the way they wanted.
In the table below, an overview of the data collection process with case participants and dates
can be found:
Teacher 1
Observation 1
12/9 95 min.
Observation 2
13/9 95 min.
Interview
13/9 27 min.
Table 9: Overview of empirical data collection
Teacher 2
9/9 95 min.
12/9 95 min.
16/9 28 min.
Teacher 3
10/9 95 min.
11/9 95 min.
25/9 53 min.
4.4 Reliability and validity
In this final section, I discuss the reliability and validity of my study. The former concerns
consistency in results across replicated studies of the same field. Reliability in case studies is
commonly considered problematic due to inherent factors in this type of research, such as an
emphasis on context and participant specificity, which reduce the possibility of other studies
producing the same results. Merriam (1998: 206) states that:
because what is being studied in education is assumed to be in flux, multifaceted, and
highly contextual, because information gathered is a function of who gives it and how
skilled the researcher is at getting it, and because the emergent design of a qualitative
case study precludes a priori controls, achieving reliability in the traditional sense is
not only fanciful but impossible.
I agree with Merriam, and I do not consider replicability an aim in this thesis. Still, I have attempted
to increase the possibility of comparison with other studies and for other researchers to carry out
similar studies through the following: 1) the provision of explicitly operationalised constructs in
chapter two, 2) an outline of the methods and the data collection in this chapter, and 3) consistency
in the data collection, ensured by the observation and interview guides.
In relation to validity, there is a distinction between internal and external validity (Scott &
Usher 2006: 68-69). The former concerns the design and instruments of the study, and one way to
seek internal validity is through triangulation (Duff 2008: 30; Mackey & Gass 2005: 181). As
already noted above, by collecting data from observations, interviews and documents, I have used
triangulation in my study. These data sources do not lead to ‘the one truth’, but they supplement
each other and can strengthen the interpretations. Duff states that ‘the principal goal is to investigate
the research problem from different perspectives in order to provide more complex and ideally more
39
valid insights’ (2008: 144). Another way of increasing the validity of a case study is to conduct it
over a longer period (Mackey & Gass 2005: 180; Wragg 1999: 15). A longitudinal study with more
observations would have provided more data and thus perhaps more insight. However, such a study
was not possible within the scope and time frame of my thesis. It can be argued that this is not
necessarily a negative element, as a longer-term commitment to a case study provides a larger
degree of disturbance and disruption into a teacher’s routine and adds to his or her work load, thus
increasing the risk that teachers would not wish to take part or would withdraw from the study.
A study’s external validity concerns the extent to which the findings can be generalised to
people outside the study. Because the case study in this thesis is based on a limited amount of data
and uses subjective selection and interpretation of this data, it is difficult to make generalisations.
This poses the strongest limitation of research based on case studies (Duff 2008: 48; Mackey &
Gass 2005: 171; Nunan 1992: 81), and the external validity of my study can be criticised from a
positivist perspective, which values generalisability as well as objectivity of evidence and seeks to
establish general laws (Duff 2008: 50). With a case study limited to three teachers, naturally I do
not claim that my data is representative of all practices used by all English teachers in vocabulary
teaching in all English language classrooms in all Danish gymnasiums. However, according to Duff
(2008: 176) and Nunan (1992: 71), generalisability is not the objective with case studies like this
one that subscribe to an interpretative paradigm. Such a paradigm rests on different
conceptualisations of evidence and truth in that it questions the ontological assumption of one
reality or the absolute truth existing out there to be uncovered (Duff 2008: 178; Nunan 1992: 20,
54).
Instead of seeking external validity in a positivist sense, case studies aim for ‘transferability’
or ‘comparability’ (Duff 2008: 51, Nunan 1992: 69), which ‘assigns the responsibility to readers to
determine possible congruence, fit, or connection between one study context […] and their own
context, rather than have the original researchers make that assumption for them’ (Duff 2008: 51). I
would therefore argue that researchers interested in the type of context studied in this thesis and
teachers teaching in similar contexts directed by the same policy and with access to some of the
same textbook materials can compare with their own settings and, in case of recognition, gain
increased understanding that may form the basis for informed action. After having laid the
theoretical foundation with the literature review in chapter 3 and having discussed the method in
this chapter, I move on to the analytical chapters of the thesis. In the following chapter, I
concentrate on the policy dimension.
40
5. The policy dimension: Danish gymnasium policy on vocabulary in
English language teaching
In this chapter, I turn to policy in relation to vocabulary in English language teaching in Danish
gymnasiums. As mentioned in the introduction, based on a content analysis of the ministerial
documents Læreplan (2013) (Learning Plan, LP) and Vejledning / Råd og vink (2010) (Guidance /
Advice and hints, GAH), I explore the following questions:
Which place should vocabulary have in the curriculum?
Which and how many words should be taught?
What are the principles behind vocabulary learning that should guide practice?
Which approaches should be used in vocabulary teaching?
I will also discuss to which extent policy is in line with the recommendations put forward by
researchers, which were discussed in chapter 3.
The LP and GAH are produced by the Danish Ministry of Education and can be accessed on
the ministry’s website. The former is an integrated part of the executive order from the ministry
concerning teaching in the Danish gymnasium. It contains rules which are binding for teachers
working in this context and outlines the ministry’s official aims for the subject of English. In
contrast, the GAH is not legally binding, but it offers further information as to how the points in the
LP are to be understood as well as recommendations, inspiration and examples of good practice.
There is a plan and a guidance document for both levels B and A. I have chosen to only focus my
attention on the one for B as there are very few differences between the two8.
The two documents have the same overall structure with the same section headings: 1)
‘Identitet og formål’ (Identity and purpose), 2) ‘Faglige mål og indhold’ (Goals and content), 3)
‘Tilrettelæggelse’ (Planning) and 4) ‘Evaluering’ (Evaluation). However, they vary significantly in
terms of length. Whereas the LP is a brief document, the GAH is considerably longer, contains
more sub-sections and elaborates on the LP. As the two documents contain the same content areas,
but the GAH is the more extensive and elaborative of the two with advice concerning good practice,
I focus my attention on this in my analysis.
8
The goal in relation to vocabulary for both levels is a ‘varied’ vocabulary and in relation to core materials the same
elements are mentioned (idiomatic language, vocabulary and word formation). Regarding fluency and language
complexity, however, the LP for level A describes higher requirements of the students.
41
5.1 The place of vocabulary in the curriculum
So far in this thesis, I have discussed how research has found that vocabulary is of crucial
importance in language learning and teaching. This important role appears to be recognised in the
policy documents, and vocabulary is assigned a relatively important place in the curriculum for the
subject of English as both documents make explicit references to it in several sections. In the
section ‘Identitet og formål’, the students’ ability to express themselves in written and spoken form
is identified as a key subject element, and the main purpose of the teaching of English is described
as enabling students to use the language as a communication tool in a globalised world (LP 2013).
Furthermore, in the section ‘Faglige mål og indhold’, the four core skills (listening, reading,
speaking and writing) are listed as one of the six main areas of the subject. In this connection, the
GAH identifies vocabulary as an essential component of language skills:
Sprogbrugskompetencerne skal altså forstås i sammenhæng med hinanden. Samtidig
gør beskrivelsen det klart, at de hver især og sammen bygger på beherskelse af
sprogbygningen (sprogsystemet) i form af udtale, grammatik og ordforråd. (2010: 4)9
This description reflects the discussion in chapters 2 and 3 of this thesis, where it was concluded
that vocabulary needs to be seen as interconnected with other subsystems in a holistic language
system, and where it was found that researchers have established a close connection between
vocabulary and a learner’s performance in all language skills. This view is also reflected on p.9 of
the GAH, where it states: ‘det sproglige kernestof består af sproget betragtet som sammenhængende
system (sprogbygningen) og af sprog i anvendelse’ (2010: 9)10. Therefore, in this respect, policy
reflects current beliefs by researchers.
The GAH also specifies goals more directly in relation to vocabulary. Firstly, in the section
‘Faglige mål og indhold’, it states that students need to be able to demonstrate a command of a
varied vocabulary, which makes it possible for them to operate in all four skills in relation to
general and subject-specific topics as well as take part in conversation and discussions using fluent
and mainly correct language (GAH 2010: 4). Secondly, in the subsection ‘Kernestof’, idiomatic
language, vocabulary and word formation are identified as elements that need to be covered (GAH
2010: 8). Thirdly, vocabulary is mentioned as an integrated element in relation to working with
9
‘The language competencies have to be understood in connection with each other. At the same time, the description
makes it clear that separately and collectively they depend on the command of the language system: pronunciation,
grammar and vocabulary.’ (my translation)
10
‘The linguistic core material consists of both language considered as an interconnected system and language in use.’
(my translation)
42
texts. For instance, it says: ‘Det vil derfor være oplagt at indtænke ordforrådsøvelser i forbindelse
med alle emner’ (GAH 2010: 17)11. These goals all position vocabulary as an important area of the
curriculum in this context.
5.2 Content
In chapter 3, I concluded that there is consensus among researchers concerning the lexical
requirements needed to carry out the tasks that students have to perform in the Danish gymnasium.
In research, there are therefore clear findings that could guide policy. However, the goals in the LP
and the GAH concerning how many and which words should be taught must be characterised as
vague. In relation to how many words learners need, the LP does not specify a number. Teachers
are therefore not informed that, in order to deal with the types of authentic texts which are part of
the core materials, such as novels, newspaper articles or films (GAH 2010: 8), between 5000 and
9000 word families are required for a sufficient understanding. Policy also describes that students
must be able to speak about general as well as subject-specific topics using a varied vocabulary.
This is a very vaguely-formulated goal, as it is not specified which topics or which criteria ‘a varied
vocabulary’ should be measured against. It is therefore not particularly helpful for teachers
considering the findings in the literature review, where I concluded that 3000 word families were
needed for having an everyday conversation. The lack of clear guidelines means that it is left up to
individual teachers to interpret these goals and significant variations in interpretations are
inevitable.
In relation to which words should be selected, the importance of students learning and using
subject-specific terminology is stressed throughout the document (2010: 5, 7, 9, 11, 13). Apart from
that, no goals or guidelines are specified. Here policy lacks information from research as
researchers stress the necessity of having clear goals in relation to vocabulary content (e.g. Nation
2001; Nation and Waring 1997) and, as discussed in section 3.2, these should be based primarily on
frequency lists. In policy, there is no mention of word frequency as an important selection criterion
or of how different types of words (high-frequency, low-frequency, specialist and technical) should
be treated differently. Instead policy describes how vocabulary choice should be connected with
text and topic. As learners are examined in these texts and topics in the oral exam, this rationale
makes sense, because vocabulary work then prepares students for the exam, and the selection of
content is based on usefulness for learners in their immediate situation. The lack of clear goals
11
‘It would be obvious to include vocabulary exercises in connection with all topics’ (my translation).
43
concerning which words to teach is therefore closely connected to the general terms in which policy
formulates objectives and the high degree of freedom that teachers in this context have regarding
choice of texts and topics (GAH 2010: 3). This freedom for teachers makes it more difficult to
establish more specific goals regarding vocabulary beyond the subject-specific terminology,
because which words need to be taught will to some extent depend on the individual teacher’s
choice of texts and topics. However, it can be viewed as problematic that policy does not provide
guidance regarding the requirements widely agreed on by researchers as to how many words or
which words need to be incorporated into teaching in order for students to be able to meet the goals
set.
In terms of providing teachers with guidance in relation to vocabulary, it may also be seen as
problematic that the complexity of word knowledge is reduced. The document makes reference to
meaning, collocations, connotations and word formation (GAH 2010: 9-10), which goes some way
towards addressing word complexity, but compared to the discussion in section 2.3 above several
features of lexical competence are not referred to. This means that if vocabulary teaching is guided
by the document, important elements of word knowledge will not be targeted.
5.3 Learning principles and teaching approaches
In section 3.3, I found that some of the key principles behind vocabulary learning are: frequent and
spaced repetition in different contexts, depth of cognitive processing and variation in presentation
and practice forms. Policy provides very limited guidance in relation to these principles that should
guide good practice in vocabulary teaching. The only one that is hinted at is the mentioning of
variation as important in the way the core materials are worked with (GAH 2010: 8), which
includes vocabulary.
In section 3.4, I observed that, according to researchers, a balanced approach of direct and
indirect teaching or four different strands is necessary for effective vocabulary teaching. The GAH
does not specifically refer to direct and indirect approaches or to vocabulary strands, but from its
recommendations it is possible to draw some conclusions. As listening to, reading as well as
speaking and writing about different types of texts constitute a large part of the subject’s core, the
teaching of it involves a substantial amount of input and output and provides contact with language
in use. Working with these texts in this context has both meaning-focused and language-focused
potential. When the students predominantly attend to the message, the indirect approach is present
and there are opportunities for incidental vocabulary learning, which is facilitated through
44
encounters with words in the texts or use of the words in communicative contexts. It is also stated in
the LP that teachers need to prioritise student production of the language (2013: 2); in other words,
students need to produce meaning-focused output. When the texts are subject to close, detailed
analysis, the textual work is typically of a more intensive rather than extensive nature, which
belongs to the direct approach, where the focus on language is explicit.
In several places, the GAH also specifies that language-focused exercises should be used
(2010: 16, 17, 20). These exercises constitute a direct approach with activities that target specific
language items.
Det er en god idé, at læreren selv udvikler sproglige øvelser, som er integreret i det
aktuelle tekstarbejde, således at de to områder understøtter hinanden, og relevansen af
de sproglige øvelser bliver tydeligere og det fra tekstarbejdet kendte ordforråd fæstnes.
Både gloser og grammatik læres bedst i en relevant sammenhæng. (GAH 2010: 20)12
This passage suggests the usefulness of classroom activities with an intentional focus on language,
but the recommendation is that this should be done in the context of a text, as this leads to more
effective learning. The research discussed in section 3.4 does not support this last claim, as I found
that the deliberate study of decontextualised words leads to the largest gain in vocabulary
knowledge. Therefore, in relation to approaches and their effectiveness, policy both is and is not in
line with research.
It is important to note that, when it comes to texts, there is a significant deviation from the
researchers’ recommendations in policy. As seen in table 7, researchers recommend that meaningfocused input should contain only 2-5 % of unfamiliar words, which is ensured by the use of
simplified material, also called ‘graded readers’ (Nation and Waring 1997: 11; Nation 2011: 532;
Schmitt 2008: 350; Nation 2001: 148), whose linguistic complexity has been reduced to match the
linguistic abilities of learners at different levels. For instance, Nation argues that ‘simplified
material is so important in language curriculum design. Without it, meaning-focused input and
output will not operate successfully’ (2001: 389). However, the core material in the Danish
gymnasium has to be ungraded and in authentic English (GAH 2010: 15). This policy specification
makes it impossible for teachers to implement the meaning-focused input strand as researchers
recommend, and the policy dimension works against the research dimension. As noted in section
12
‘It is a good idea for the teacher to develop language-focused exercises, which are integrated into the textual work, so
that the two areas support each other and the relevance of the exercises becomes clearer and vocabulary from the text is
consolidated. Both vocabulary and grammar are learnt most effectively in a relevant context.’ (my translation)
45
3.4 above, researchers argue that if students are confronted with texts whose vocabulary poses a
challenge beyond their level of competence, they are unlikely to possess enough lexical knowledge
to be able to make informed guesses, which will inhibit their learning.
Vocabulary is also referred to in the section on strategies for foreign language acquisition in
the GAH, where it says: ‘Fornuftig anvendelse af håndbøger er et element i effektiv sprogindlæring.
Andre elementer er fx at arbejde målrettet med ordforråd’ (2010: 16)13. In section 3.4, I discussed
how learner training on strategies is a central element in the direct approach and an important part
of what researchers consider effective vocabulary teaching. Therefore, policy is in line with
research on this point. However, although the GAH does list three useful examples of strategies in
relation to vocabulary learning (memory strategies, compensation strategies and guessing
strategies), it remains unclear what exactly is meant by the formulation ‘working purposefully with
vocabulary’. As discussed in chapter 3, the principles behind memory are essential in relation to
vocabulary learning. Therefore, the guidance in the GAH must again be characterised as vague, and
the document could have benefitted from a clearer, more thorough description of effective practice
in relation to vocabulary teaching and learning.
The GAH also refers to the indirect approach in the form of extensive reading. It states that:
‘Forskere har slået fast, at den bedste kilde til at udvide ordforrådet er ved at læse for fornøjelsens
skyld’ (2010: 17)14. Regarding the need for the meaning-focused input and incidental vocabulary
learning, policy reflects research recommendations. However, it was not found in the literature
review that this has been identified as the most effective means to learn vocabulary. On the
contrary, I found that it was less effective than deliberate learning and that a balance between four
strands was necessary for the most effective vocabulary learning. In addition, policy leaves out the
crucial factor that this reading has to be of graded material. In this respect then, policy lacks
grounding in research.
13
‘Sensible use of handbooks is one element in efficient language learning. Other elements are e.g. working
purposefully with vocabulary.’ (my translation)
14
‘Researchers have concluded that the best way to increase one’s vocabulary is by reading for pleasure.’ (my
translation)
46
5.5 Chapter conclusion
In this chapter, I have analysed policy on vocabulary teaching and examined the extent to which it
reflects the recommendations made by researchers discussed in chapter 3. The ministerial
documents clearly position vocabulary as an important element in the curriculum and identify
vocabulary as an essential sub-skill in language competence. Policy also follows the
recommendations of researchers in other respects. Firstly, although context is emphasised, the GAH
advises a balanced approach of explicit study of words through exercises and learning words in
context as well as implicit learning through reading. Secondly, it refers to the importance of training
students in strategies that are proposed for effective vocabulary learning.
However, there are also several places where the policy guidelines are lacking or do not
correspond to the recommendations made by researchers. Firstly, the documents lack complexity
when it comes to lexical competence, lack clarity when it comes to goals, and the main criterion for
vocabulary selection, the treatment of different types of vocabulary as well as the key principles
behind word learning that should guide teaching are absent. As discussed, this is partly a result of
the general terms in which policy is formulated and the high degree of freedom given to teachers.
Secondly, policy appears to be misinformed in its claim that words are learnt most effectively in
context and through extensive reading as this is in contradiction with research findings, which are
that the direct approach, where decontextualised words are studied intentionally, leads to the largest
gain in a learner’s vocabulary. Finally, through disallowing graded text as part of the core material,
policy creates barriers for teachers in implementing research recommendations. In conclusion, it is
positive that policy recognises the importance of vocabulary. However, with the problems raised in
this chapter, it is clear that the policy dimension, which frames teaching in this context, only to a
limited extent reflects the research dimension and does not inform teachers clearly, effectively or
accurately concerning research recommendations. In the next chapter, I turn to the practice
dimension, the analysis of my empirical data and a discussion of the relationship between the three
dimensions.
47
6. The practice dimension: Analysis of vocabulary teaching practices
Having reviewed research in chapter 3 and analysed policy in chapter 5, in this chapter I turn to the
practice dimension and analyse the classroom practices of the three participants based on my
observation and interview data. While the purpose of chapters 3 and 5 was to explore how
vocabulary should be taught, in this chapter I look at how it actually is taught in the classroom.
Before looking at the data, it is worth providing a summary of the findings so far. This can be seen
in table 10.
1) Curriculum
2) Content
3) Principles
Research
Vocabulary is a core sub-skill of
language skills and key to
language proficiency.
Vocabulary should play a
central role in language
teaching.
Vocabulary should be worked
with both in its own right and in
connection with meaningfocused work.
Knowledge of 5000-9000
word families is required for a
range of authentic texts.
High-frequency words and
specialist words particular to
student needs should be given
high priority.
A range of elements are
required to know a word and
to be able to use it receptively
or productively: form, word
parts, meaning, concept,
associations, grammatical
patterns used with the word,
collocations, constraints on
use, e.g. frequency and
register.
The main principles behind
how students learn are:
Spaced repetition in
different contexts.
Involvement and depth of
cognitive processing.
Variation in presentation.
Associative networks.
Policy
Vocabulary is a core sub-skill of
language skills and linked to a
student’s ability to communicate.
Vocabulary is part of the core areas
to be studied (‘kernestof’).
Vocabulary should be an integrated
part of textual work.
No specification of a number of
words required.
Words (not specified which or how
many) connected to studied topics
and texts should be given explicit
focus in the context of the texts.
Specialist subject-specific
terminology should be learnt.
Students need to learn different
aspects of word knowledge:
meaning, collocations, connotations
and word formation.
It is indicated that variation is
useful in relation to the core areas,
which include vocabulary.
48
4) Approaches
A balanced approach is
recommended between:
A direct approach (strand
3) with a deliberate,
explicit focus on targeted
decontextualised words,
which are focused on as
language rather than
communicative messages
and worked on through
study activities.
An indirect approach
(strands 1, 2 and 3)
involving incidental
learning in the context of
meaning-focused
reading/listening or
speaking/writing
activities, where learners
are exposed to words and
learn from the context.
Large quantities of
extensive reading of
graded test are required
for this to be effective.
Table 10: Overview of findings in research and policy
The usefulness of a balanced
approach between languagefocused exercises and language
integrated into textual work is
indicated.
Student output should play an
important role.
Reading for pleasure is mentioned
as the most effective method for
vocabulary learning.
Like the literature review and the analysis of policy, this analytical chapter is structured
around the four key areas in the table. In the first section, which is largely descriptive, I discuss the
teachers’ beliefs and opinions expressed in the interviews about the role of vocabulary in the
curriculum. Furthermore, I account for the role vocabulary played in the observed lessons. In this
connection, I look at two types of vocabulary teaching that were identified in my data: 1) planned
vocabulary teaching and 2) unplanned vocabulary teaching. In the second section, I look at the
content of the lessons, i.e. the teachers’ goals and selection criteria concerning vocabulary as well as
which words and word features were taught in the lessons. In section 6.3, I analyse the learning
principles present in the vocabulary activities used by the teachers. In the fourth section, I look at
the approaches that were used. Throughout the different sections, I conduct a relational analysis,
where I compare my findings with the recommendations made by researchers and the goals and
guidelines specified by policy. Finally, based on my data, I attempt to explain why the identified
relationship between these three dimensions is the way it is.
49
6.1 Curriculum and lessons: Planned and unplanned vocabulary teaching
The interviews revealed that the teachers all ascribe a significant role to vocabulary in language
learning, teaching and assessment, and they all see it as a necessary receptive and productive subskill. Teachers 1 and 2 both used the words ‘very important’ to characterise its role. T1 said: ‘I think
it’s very important cos well you can’t speak a language if […] you don’t know the words’ (A10a
ll.5-6), while T2 stated that ‘I think it’s very important because ehm well to enable the students to
talk about specific subjects they need to have the basis of a certain vocabulary’ (A10b ll.3-4). T3
characterised it as ‘exceptionally important’ (A10c l.3), because as he described, it is necessary for
comprehension, production, precision as well as variation in language use (A10c ll.14-19). Thus, in
accordance with the discussion in chapter 3, the teachers all expressed the belief that vocabulary is
pre-conditional to speaking a language and that knowledge of words is a prerequisite for doing what
is required of the students. In addition, T1 and T3 mentioned that they have noticed that a lack of
vocabulary knowledge poses a barrier for some of their students (A10a ll.9-11, A10c ll.264-266).
However, the teachers also stated that vocabulary was just one content area out of many in a
multifaceted curriculum (A10a ll.7-9, A10b ll.157-159). This highlights the fact that, while
vocabulary researchers are preoccupied solely with the vocabulary component of a language course,
teachers have to design complex curricula that include a range of aspects. As mentioned in section
3.5, this is a factor that complicates the application of research. While teachers may have an interest
in keeping abreast of developments in all the aspects of the curriculum, the reality is that asking
them to navigate in research results in so many specialised applied linguistic areas is idealistic,
especially if researchers do not take the classroom or teaching context into consideration.
My observation data shows that attention to vocabulary varied significantly in the observed
lessons. In all the six lessons, vocabulary was the pedagogical focus in specific classroom activities
and talk, but this occurred in different ways, at different levels and with different amounts of time
allocated to it. This indicates that, while the teachers all considered it an important aspect of the
curriculum, these beliefs translate into different classroom practices due to different reasons, which
I will discuss in this chapter. Overall, two main types of vocabulary teaching occurred, and their
characteristics are summarised in table 11. The table illustrates that the two types differed in several
respects, including pedagogical focus, duration, word selection, initiator, nature of the activity and
materials used.
50
Planned vocabulary teaching
Vocabulary was the pedagogical focus of
the lesson stage.
The focus on vocabulary lasted for a
relatively extended amount of time.
The focus on specific words had been
planned by the teacher and was part of the
lesson plan.
The word items had been pre-selected by
the teacher.
The students were typically engaged in
some form of activity or exercise that was
specifically designed to direct their
attention to, present and/or practice new
vocabulary items or review previously
presented items.
Worksheets and textbooks were typically
used.
Unplanned vocabulary teaching
Vocabulary was most often not the main
pedagogical focus of the lesson stage.
The focus on vocabulary occurred as a
spontaneous, incidental suspension of the
main pedagogical focus of the stage and
lasted for a brief amount of time, typically
2-8 interactional turns.
The focus on a specific word or specific
words had not been planned by the teacher
but occurred spontaneously as a result of
the immediate classroom situation and
needs that arose out of the interaction.
The word items had not been pre-selected
but were brought up as a result of the
situation.
The focus on vocabulary took the form of
teacher-student exchanges prompted by a)
student-initiated questions about words, b)
teacher-initiated checks of student
understanding, or c) teacher-initiated
reactive interventions in the form of
corrections of student output.
Table 11: Types of vocabulary teaching
6.1.1 Planned vocabulary teaching
In both T1’s lessons, there were a number of lesson stages where planned vocabulary teaching
occurred. In lesson 1, the second stage consisted of T1 presenting more formal ways of expressing
‘to play hard to get’ as a student had raised this question in a previous lesson. The vocabulary focus
only involved the word and more formal synonyms being written on the board and the teacher’s
clarification. The lesson continued with revisiting a characterisation of the main characters in
Romeo and Juliet (L1 S3), where the teacher encouraged the students to use some adjectives that
had been discussed in a previous lesson although it remained partly implicit which specific words
she was referring to. As seen in figure 2, the teacher wrote key words from the students’ output on
the board, which highlighted them and directed the students’ attention to them. She indicated that
some of the words on the board were the ones that they had talked about earlier.
51
Figure 2: T1 L1 Words on the board (17.42)
In the subsequent stage (L1 S4), the students worked with questions in the textbook Wider
Contexts in pairs. As seen in figure 3, this stage involved a small amount of vocabulary input in
questions 3-4, which contain thematic words from which the students had to choose the best one to
communicate about the text.
Figure 3: Exercise (Engberg-Pedersen et al. 2012: 91) T1 L1
52
The lesson ended with a plenary discussion of the questions shown in figure 3 and a new
characterisation in which some of the same words from stage 4 re-occurred and were also re-written
on the board.
In T1’s second lesson, there was a strong focus on terminology connected with analyses of
short stories (figure 4).
Figure 4: Literary terms (Engberg-Pedersen et al. 2004: 254) T1 L2
This decontextualised vocabulary was the pedagogical focus of stages 1-3. The students first
brainstormed items in pairs and wrote the words that they could come up with on the board. These
words were then discussed in a plenary discussion with the textbook Contexts as a reference that
added words to the discussion. These were added to the words on the blackboard by the teacher.
53
Figure 5: T1 L2 Words on the board (18.33)
After having summarised the text ‘Just Like That’ in pairs, the students completed an exercise in the
textbook (figure 6), where they had to look up words and decide which could best be used to
describe quotes.
Figure 6: Exercise (Engberg-Pedersen et al. 2004: 24) T1 L2
54
Their choices were then discussed in a plenary discussion. In the final stage of the lesson, the
students worked with questions related to the short story in pairs, and the teacher instructed them to
match the questions to the literary terminology discussed earlier in the lesson.
Planned vocabulary teaching also occurred in both T2’s lessons. For both classes, she had
produced worksheets with exercises that were specifically designed to target word items connected
with the texts worked with in the lessons, the short stories ‘Lies’ (L1) and ‘Just Like That’ (L2). In
the first lesson, stage 1 had an explicit focus on eighteen words that the teacher had selected from
the glossary to the text, and the students had to perform different operations with the words:
translate them, use them in a sentence, explain and guess them (figure 7). These tasks were done
individually or in pairs and then briefly discussed in a plenary.
Figure 7: Worksheet T2 L1
In the second lesson, the teacher had put two exercises from the textbook Contexts on a
worksheet, the first related to the specific text studied, ‘Just Like That’, and the second related to
the theme ‘Growing up’. In the first exercise, the students had to find the odd one out and then use
the words to say something about the text. In the second exercise, they had to put words on a scale
based on a given criterion (figure 8). After the students had worked with these tasks in pairs, they
were discussed in a plenary. In the final stage of the lesson, the students were asked to complete an
exercise in the textbook, where they had to match textual passages with words to describe the
character.
55
Figure 8: Worksheet T2 L2
T3 had also produced worksheets that included a focus on pre-selected vocabulary items,
which the students had to study. Similar to T1 and T2, the words came from the texts that were
studied in the specific lessons, the short story ‘The Tunnel’ (L1) and the film The Breakfast Club
(L1 and L2). The exercise connected to the short story involved students finding a word in a text
passage to match definitions or finding out meanings and the parts of speech of the words by using
mono-lingual dictionaries that the teacher had brought to class (figure 9). After the students had
completed the exercise, it was discussed in a plenary session.
Figure 9: Worksheet T3 L1
56
The vocabulary activities connected to the film clips were on three worksheets with several
tasks. Worksheet 1 was used in the first lesson, and the tasks involved practicing the pronunciation
of the words, using a dictionary to find out word meaning and part of speech and answering
questions about for instance collocations or word parts (figure 10). The final task on worksheet 1
was given for homework and followed up on in the beginning of the second lesson. This involved
using the words to produce a letter, making a drawing to illustrate some of the words or making
associations to music, and the teacher elicited the products they had made at home from each
student.
Worksheet 2 focused on idiomatic expressions from the film, and while watching the clip the
students had to identify idioms that referred to a sexual concept and use dictionaries to find out the
meaning of expressions that the teacher had selected and highlighted (figure 10). Afterwards, the
questions were discussed in a plenary.
Figure 10: Worksheets 1 and 2 T3 L2
In stage 4, the students were asked to use online dictionaries and thesauruses to find
synonyms for the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’, which they then wrote on the board (figure 11).
57
Figure 11: Synonyms for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ on the board T3 L2
Finally in stage 5, the students were asked to use these words as well as adjectives from a
previous lesson to write about the characters on worksheet 3 (figure 12).
Figure 12: Worksheet 3 T3 L2
The accounts of the observation data above shows that all the six lessons included a planned
pedagogical focus on vocabulary with exercises that were labelled ‘vocabulary’ and/or used ‘word’
58
in the task instructions. It is clear from the lesson descriptions that all the teachers engaged their
students in activities that presented and/or practiced pre-selected words in a pre-determined fashion.
The majority of these words came from the texts or the textbooks used, and the activities were
predominantly either 1) tasks connected to a text but with a vocabulary goal or 2) tasks with a
textual or literary goal but with a vocabulary component. However, it is also clear that in some
lessons the planned focus on vocabulary was larger than in others. In the interviews, the teachers
indicated which factors influenced the extent to which vocabulary played a role in the lesson. One
of these was learner level. T1 stated, for instance, that: ‘because I at the moment teach English at Alevel so I expect them to have a certain level of vocabulary before they come to me ehm so I focus
mostly on the literary terms and tools that they need to work with texts’ (A10a ll.18-21), and later
she also mentioned that ‘I focus more on it in the first year’ (A10a l.160). A second factor was the
position of the specific lesson in the sequence of lessons on a particular theme. Both T1 and T2
indicated that, when they work with a theme over a sequence of lessons, they spend more time on
vocabulary in the beginning (A10a l.162; A10b ll.118-122). A third factor was the choice of
analytical method used in connection with the text. This was mentioned by T3 (A10c ll.24-26, 5760), who also mentioned that the type of text had an influence (A10c ll.3-8). Whereas the
significance of learner level is addressed by some vocabulary researchers, neither of the other two
factors was found in any of the literature reviewed for this thesis. What the interview data therefore
reveals is that there are particular contextual factors that influence how vocabulary is worked with,
which are not taken into consideration by researchers, as they only look at the design of general
vocabulary programmes rather than comprehensive or context-specific language programmes.
6.1.2 Unplanned vocabulary teaching
Unplanned vocabulary teaching took place throughout the lessons during stages when words were
not necessarily the primary focus. As mentioned above, it took the form of teacher-student
exchanges initiated in the following three ways: a) student-initiated questions, b) teacher-initiated
checks of understanding or c) teacher-initiated corrections of output. The words or word features
that were targeted in these exchanges had not been pre-selected for attention, but received focus as a
result of a need that arose and was dealt with in the immediate classroom situation. Two examples
of student-initiated questions come from T1 L1. One example can be seen in the following
exchange:
59
1
St 3: Is it [bʊzəm] or [bʌzəm]?
2
T: [bʊzəm].
3
St 3: [bʊzəm].
4
T: Yeah.
5
St 3: [bʊzəm].
6
T: And you can be bosom buddies. Do you know that? Like best friend forever.
(T1 L1: 11.54 – 12.07)
Unlike in the planned vocabulary stages, where the word item and the way in which the
vocabulary was worked with was controlled by the teacher, here in line 1 the focus on ‘bosom’ is
initiated by a student, who is unsure about the pronunciation of the word. For this reason, the
student requests clarification from the teacher, who in her response in line 2 supplies information
about an aspect of word knowledge by saying the word with the correct pronunciation. The main
pedagogical focus of this lesson stage is the characterisation of Romeo and Juliet, which does not
include a planned focus on this particular word. Interestingly, the student’s question prompts the
teacher to present the word ‘bosom buddy’, which shows that a focus on one word can generate the
spontaneous presentation of new words by association. Another example can be seen in the
exchange below.
1
St 2: Hey. Can you say ‘charlatan’?
2
T: A charlatan? Yes, you can.
3
St 2: Alright.
4
T: Do you think he is?
5
St 2: I don’t know. Well if he’s charming he can be.
6
T: There’s something negative in charlatan though, isn’t there?
7
St 2: Yeah, I think there is.
(T1 L1: 53.59 – 54.18)
Similar to the example above, this exchange revolves around a word which had not been preselected for pedagogical focus before the lesson. Instead it occurred spontaneously, prompted by a
student’s immediate need for lexical information, here the confirmation of the existence of a word
(line 1), which the teacher develops into a brief discussion of appropriacy (line 4) and connotations
(line 6) of the word.
60
Type b, teacher-initiated checks of student understanding, also occurred several times in the
lessons. Two examples can be seen in the following exchanges.
1
St 13: Also the betrayal.
2
T: Yeah, who’s betraying what or whom?
3
St 13: Both Romeo and Juliet are betraying their families.
4
T: OK.
5
St 13: In some way.
6
T: (writes ‘love of betrayal’ on the board).
7
St 13: Because they are willing to give away their names.
8
T: Mm mm. Good. (points to the board). Does everybody know the word ‘betrayal’?
9
Sts: Yeah.
10 T: OK let me ask again. Does anybody not know the word ‘betrayal’? No? Yes? Good. Can
11 someone please explain what ‘betrayal’ means. Or give a synonym. St 3?
12 St 3: Go behind someone’s back eh.
13 T: Yeah. Yeah, you can say that. Was that the same explanation down there?
14 St 2: Well I was like cheating.
15 T: Cheating somebody yeah.
(T1 L1 49.34 – 86.54)
1
T: It makes it more general. Do you know the word ‘general’?
2
Sts: Yes.
3
T: Not somebody who’s in charge or in charge of an army or anything like that but when
4
something happens in general it’s more common for makes it more ehm:: well it applies to a
5
lot more things. To you. To everybody in a way. OK?
(T2 L2: 70.09 – 71.09)
In both situations, the teacher asks a question (T1 l.8, T2 l.1) with the purpose of checking whether
the students understand a word that was used by either another student in example one (‘betrayal’)
or by the teacher in example two (‘general’). These kinds of questions also occurred during stages
with a planned vocabulary focus.
Type c) of unplanned vocabulary teaching is teacher-initiated corrections, which took
different forms, for instance prompts or repairs. An example of the former occurred in T2 L1.
61
1
St 4: We said that the father that he is the supporter of the family cos he has this desk job. And
2
then the father also have an affair with auntie Maxine.
3
T: Yeah, alright. Do you know another word for supporter in this case where you are the one
4
the breadwinner of the family? St 5?
5
St 5: Provider.
6
T: The provider, yes. The one who provides for the family. Yeah.
(T2 L1: 75.15 – 75.41)
In line 1, the student uses the word ‘supporter’. This triggers a reactive corrective feedback move
from the teacher, who prompts the student to give her an alternative word that fits the meaning more
appropriately in lines 3-4. As the student cannot self-correct, T2 elicits the answer from another
student. Another example of a correction of vocabulary in student output occurred in T3 L1 S7,
when the students were completing an exercise in a grammar book about countable and uncountable
nouns.
1
T: Is it correct or is it not correct?
2
St 3: It’s correct.
3
T: It’s correct. It is.
4
Sts: (cheer)
5
T: Because? Because what? Where’s the there must be an uncountable noun or something like
6
this, right? Where is it?
7
St 3: [prəˈɡres]
8
T: [ˈprɑːɡres]. Good. [prəˈɡres] is the verb form.
(T3 L1: 62.45 – 63.08)
In this example, the trigger occurs in line 7, where the student mispronounces the word ‘progress’.
In line 8, the teacher provides corrective feedback by repairing the pronunciation and also gives a
meta-linguistic explanation related to the word’s part of speech (‘verb form’). These teacher
interventions by T2 and T3 direct the students’ attention to certain aspects of words and thus
provide a brief vocabulary focus, which for a moment suspends the pedagogical focus of the lesson
stage in order to focus on a lexical feature.
In this section, I have described how words received focus in the lessons, either as a planned
or unplanned activity. The next question I will look at is content, i.e. the teachers’ goals concerning
62
how many and which vocabulary items to teach, which words were targeted in the lessons and what
the selection criteria were.
6.2 Content
In the interviews, the teachers explained their goals concerning vocabulary and their selection
criteria when deciding on which words to address in their lessons. The table below summarises the
data.
Goals / criteria
How many words
Which words
T1
No goals (A10a
l.34)
Literary/technical
terms (A10a l.18,
20, 24, 43, 94, 196)
Adjectives (A10a
l.27)
Text-, topic- or
theme-related
(A10a l.162, 196)
T2
No goals (A10b
l.38)
a) Text-, topic- or
theme-related
(A10b ll.42-43, 7576, 116-121, 159,
202)
T3
No goals (A10c
l.103)
Text-, topic- or
theme-related
(A10c ll.33-54, 57,
225-226, 245, 354356)
Adjectives (A10c
l.115, 118, 244)
c) Different parts
of speech (A10c
ll.224-225)
Table 12: Overview of goals and selection criteria
The data shows that the teachers do not think along numerical lines in relation to their vocabulary
goals, which could indicate that they are not aware of the actual number of words involved in some
of the tasks required of the students. As discussed above, the vocabulary size required to deal with
authentic texts is a question that has occupied many researchers, which has led to clear findings
concerning how many words learners need to know in this context. In the previous chapter, I
problematised the fact that policy does not provide goals or guidelines in this respect, especially as
studies that have measured the vocabulary knowledge of students at this educational level have
revealed a gap between ability and requirements. T1 and T3 indicated that they had also noticed the
existence of such a gap in some of their students. T3, for instance, stated that some of his students
had ‘trouble understanding just basic texts that we are reading’ (A10c ll.265-266). My analysis of
policy showed that we may begin to seek an explanation for why this gap exists in the lack of goals
or guidance concerning the necessary vocabulary knowledge. My empirical data indicates that we
can add to that explanation by looking at the practice dimension, as the teachers lacked awareness
of findings concerning the actual vocabulary requirements of what students are asked to be able to
63
do in this context. Such awareness can be considered the basis for vocabulary instruction that
addresses the needs of the students.
Regarding word selection, the teachers revealed that they are not oriented towards the main
criterion identified in the research dimension. The data above demonstrates that the teachers do not
primarily use word frequency and range as criteria in their selection of words for teaching. T1 did
indicate that she sometimes referred to frequency of use in her teaching, as she mentioned that she
sometimes tells her students if words occur too infrequently for it to be worth focusing their
attention on (A10a ll.271-274). Both T1 and T3 referred to usefulness. T1 mentioned that she
sometimes targets words that ‘they could use later on’ or which are ‘good to know’ (A10a ll.258262), and T3 referred to focusing more on words that ‘they’ll be able to return to time and time
again’ (A10c ll.314-315). However, the main criterion that the teachers used for deciding which
words to teach was text-, topic- or theme-related. In this connection, T2 stated, for instance, that she
selects ‘words which are related to the subject ehm and very often that will be words which are
already in the glossary to each of the texts’ (A10b ll.42-43), and later explained that ‘we do a lot of
thematic work so in that respect they train how to talk about the texts using the appropriate
vocabulary’ (A10b ll.75-76). T3 described the text as ‘the deciding factor’ (A10c l.57), stated that
he selected words that ‘were central to the thematic ideas’ (A10c ll.225-226) of the text studied and
also elaborated in the following:
I think [word selection] depends on the text […] if my focus in working with a
particular text is understanding comprehension then vocabulary will have a high
priority. If it’s more method how do we […] figure out what the theme of this text is then
[…] I won’t have as much of a focus on vocabulary. (A10c ll.354-357)
The fact that word frequency plays a very small, if any, role for the teachers in vocabulary
selection is also demonstrated in the observation data. The table in appendix 4 provides an overview
over which words were given attention in the six observed lessons, which frequency group they
belong to (high-frequency, low-frequency and specialised) and whether the words were glossed,
used in exercises or occurred spontaneously in brief exchanges. The table shows that, contrary to
research recommendations concerning treatment of vocabulary items, words belonging to high- and
low-frequency groups were not treated differently. The overview demonstrates that, in three out of
six lessons, low-frequency words were used in explicit vocabulary-study exercises and, in three out
of six lessons, high-frequency words were only glossed rather than being given elaborate attention.
This does not correspond to the advice provided by vocabulary researchers, who recommend that,
64
whereas high-frequency and specialist words should be given significant, varied and explicit
attention in the classroom, low-frequency words should not be worked with in class but instead be
learnt implicitly. As the glosses were already in the textbooks and some of the exercises used came
from there, a fourth dimension becomes part of the equation, namely textbooks and textbook
writers, which is a factor that influences vocabulary practice to a large extent. As T2 stated: ‘if an
anthology has the vocabulary exercises then I use them’ (A10b l.202). To some extent, practice is
then determined by textbooks in relation to which words are taught and how they are worked with.
My data shows that the majority of the targeted words in the lessons came from the text that
was studied in that particular lesson or were related to the theme of the sequence of lessons that
structure English teaching in this context. At level B, students have to study six different themes or
topics, while students at level A have to study nine. Organising teaching around a narrow selection
of topics and themes without a segregated vocabulary component focusing on the most frequent
words means that the main criterion for vocabulary selection recommended by researchers is not
applied. In the lessons, words were chosen to be brought to the students’ attention, because the
teachers considered them useful for comprehending the text or for communicating about the text
rather than for being more generally useful across a range of different texts and contexts. This
shows that the teachers are primarily oriented towards text and analysis, which is a large component
in learning English in this context. For instance, T3 stated that: ‘Not all analysis forms will […]
have vocabulary as an interesting factor’ (A10c ll.59-60). My data thus indicates that a vocabulary
focus is less frequently planned in and for itself. Instead it is mainly planned as a by-product of, or
to support, textual and analytical work. The teachers also mentioned other criteria that reinforce this
point. Both T1 and T3 stated that adjectives were particularly useful, as they saw them as necessary
for doing characterisation tasks. T1 noted that specialised vocabulary in the form of subject-specific
terminology was her main focus, as these terms were applicable across many texts.
The teachers mentioned that they are not influenced by research in relation to their goals for
vocabulary teaching (A10a l.101, A10b l.97). Instead the criteria that they use to select words are
clearly more guided by policy, as policy specifies that vocabulary and textual work should be
integrated. Since the policy documents outline the goals against which the students’ performances
have to be evaluated in the exams, it is also possible to identify a washback effect, i.e. the exam
affects vocabulary teaching choices and practices. T2 mentioned the exam in relation to why she
sees vocabulary as important (A10b ll.4-5), and she said that the exam and comments made by
external examiners in the past influences her teaching ‘quite a lot’ (A10b ll.176-180). T1 referred to
65
the exam several times during the interview: ‘I’m quite focused on the curriculum thing what we
have to go through and what they have to do in the exam’ (A10a ll.40-41), ‘[policy] has all the
influence in the world more or less I guess cos everything I do revolves around that cos that’s what
I need to test them in at the exam’ (A10a ll.82-83) and ‘[the exam] influences everything ehm:: cos
I often focus mostly on words that I know that they […] will have to be able to use in the exam’
(A10a 11.238-240). The teachers’ mentioning of adjectives as especially useful for students in this
context also link to washback from the exam, as they characterised this part of speech as a key
component in the task or content obligatory language of one of the central exam tasks, namely
analysis.
The discrepancy between research and practice in relation to word selection criteria can
perhaps be seen as a result of a difference in perspective. Whereas researchers look at vocabulary
development from a long-term, general perspective and thus recommend a practice oriented towards
frequency, teachers have factors in their more immediate context and short-term goals defined by
policy’s specifications that influence their pedagogical decision-making. This means that the
amount of attention and lesson time spent on a word is not necessarily proportional to its usefulness
across a range of different texts, i.e. the chances of meeting the word in general language use.
Instead teachers spend classroom time on words that they believe will help students succeed in the
final exam and the specific texts that they can meet there. It is interesting, however, that my data
shows that vocabulary teaching practices are oriented towards assisting students with authentic texts
as preparation for the exam, while at the same time research findings show that a different focus on
word frequency is needed in order to deal with this type of textual material.
In relation to features of lexical competence, the teachers were asked in the interviews which
aspects of word knowledge they focused on in their teaching, and in appendix 5 there is an
overview of which aspects were addressed in the lessons. In this overview, I have not included the
words that were glossed if they did not receive another type of attention by the teacher or the
students, as glosses only target meaning. The table below provides a summary of the findings of the
interview as well as the observation data, and at the same time a comparison is made with research
as the same table was used on page 14 above in the theoretical discussion of lexical competence. It
is to be read in the following way: a blue symbol indicates that the aspect was mentioned by the
teacher during the interview as something they focused on. A red symbol indicates that the aspect
was addressed at least once by the teaching practices in the observed lessons during planned or
unplanned vocabulary focuses.
66
Spoken form
Written form
Word parts
Form and
meaning
Concept and
referents
Associations
Grammatical
functions
Aspect of word knowledge
R: What does the word sound like?
P: How is the word pronounced?
R: What does the word look like?
P: How is the word written and spelled?
R: What parts are recognisable in this word?
P: What word parts are needed to express the meaning?
Receptive: What meaning does this word form signal?
T1
T2
T3
P: What word form can be used to express this meaning?
R: What is included in the concept?
P: What items can the concept refer to?
R: What other words does this word make us think of?
P: What other words could we use instead of this one?
R: In what patterns does the word occur?
Productive: In what patterns must we use the word?
Collocations Receptive: What words or types of words occur with this one?
Productive: What words or types of words must we use with
this one?
Constraints
Receptive: Where, when and how often would we expect to
on use
meet this word?
Productive: Where, when and how often can we use this word?
Table 13: Teacher goals concerning word knowledge
As I only observed each teacher twice, my data is unlikely to show evidence of all the aspects
that the teachers may address generally in their vocabulary teaching practices. However, the
overview in the table still raises interesting and important points. Firstly, the fact that gaps can be
identified between theory and what the teachers referred to may indicate that their awareness of
lexical competence lacks complexity. Secondly, the fact that some aspects were addressed in the
lessons but not mentioned by the teachers in the interviews could be an indication that some of their
vocabulary teaching practices are not conscious or that the teachers address some aspects less
systematically. Thirdly, the most significant gaps appear to be in relation to use, which indicates
that the teachers are primarily oriented towards understanding words.
The table above does not reveal how frequently the observed teaching practices addressed the
different aspects of word knowledge, but this can be seen in appendix 5. This overview of targeted
67
word features shows that with the vast majority of the words the students worked only with form
and meaning, i.e. the most basic taxonomic level. Tasks at higher taxonomic levels included
working with associations, which were addressed occasionally through synonyms or less frequently
antonyms of words, while aspects that concern word use were rarely touched upon. The fact that
only a few properties were targeted with the majority of the words means that there was less
elaboration involved. According to research, this creates less optimum conditions for retention, as
the more lexical information that learners process, the better the retention of the word is likely to be.
On the other hand, as mentioned above, word learning should be seen as a cumulative process
and not all aspects can realistically be learned in the first encounter or in one encounter. It is
important that the initial step, making the fundamental form-meaning link, is followed up by
repeated encounters in context and communication-focused input and output, especially large
amounts of extensive reading. This is necessary so that the vocabulary knowledge can be
strengthened and added to, i.e. learners can develop some of the deeper aspects, including
collocations, frequency, constraints on use, register and so on. As already mentioned, many of the
targeted words came from the texts used in the lessons, which means that there were opportunities
for the students to develop their knowledge of the words through noticing different aspects of their
use in these texts.
All the teachers mentioned that they considered both receptive and productive knowledge
important for vocabulary learning (A10a ll.70, A10b l.68, A10c l.167). T3 mentioned, however, that
aspects related to productive knowledge as well as productive practice were sometimes neglected
due to time constraints (A10c ll.172-173). As discussed in chapter 2, receptive learning does not
necessarily transfer into productive knowledge, and a productive command of a word requires that
the student possesses more aspects of lexical knowledge, especially the aspects concerning use,
such as grammatical functions, collocations and constraints on use. For this reason, it is necessary to
work with receptive and productive knowledge aspects if the intended goal is for students to possess
both. Therefore, it is also interesting that the aspects concerning use in Nation’s model were rarely
focused on.
68
6.3 Learning principles
So far I have analysed the place of vocabulary in the curriculum and the lessons. I have also looked
at content, i.e. which words and word features were targeted. In this section, I turn to the principles
behind the practices used by the teachers, and I start by analysing the interview data. The teachers
were asked what they considered to be the key principles in vocabulary learning that they used to
guide their teaching practices, and they were also asked to which extent they saw their practices as
being influenced by research recommendations. Each teacher said that they were informed by
research and theory on vocabulary to varying extents. T1 revealed that she had received input on
vocabulary learning and teaching as part of pre-service and in-service training and, as seen in the
quote below, her answers corresponded very well with what I found in the literature review.
I read once that you have to meet a word 13 times I think they’re saying at the moment
to be able to store it in your long-term memory so I have that in mind every time I teach.
So a lot of repetition and I also learnt once that […] it’s not enough just to repeat the
word but you have them in different contexts and in different ways and at different levels
so I try to get them to to meet the word the different words at different times in different
contexts. (A10a ll.110-115)
Here T1 refers to the application of the principles repetition, variation in presentation and
different levels of cognitive processing, which are some of the central tenets of the
recommendations made by researchers. T2, on the contrary, stated that she had not received any
training on vocabulary teaching, had no knowledge of research findings and had not familiarised
herself with any theory on vocabulary. In her opinion, research therefore had no influence on her
teaching (A10b ll.170-171). Yet, she still explained that she saw practicing words as being
important (A10b l.105), i.e. she perceived it as useful for vocabulary learning to get students to
generate their own sentences or texts with the words in spoken (A10b l.131) or written form (A10b
l.125). She also referred to variety in the following statements: ‘get them started using new words in
in in different connections and so on in different ways’ (A10b ll.147-148) and ‘when you read it or
you write it or you say it all altogether then I think it sort of sticks better in your your mind’ (A10b
ll.31-32). Similar to T2, T3 did not see his practices as being grounded in vocabulary research. He
stated that: ‘Maybe my approach […] to vocabulary is more haphazard or more kind of based on
my own experience with eh with working with vocabulary with students than it is on theory’ (A10c
ll.282-284). However, also like T2, he mentioned several points that are in line with research
recommendations. For instance, below he refers to both repetition and variation.
69
I wanted them to read them, hear them out loud first and then see them in the movie and
then again they had them in print because I had printed out the excerpts from the script
and then we then we went into work with them […] so that’s the kind of philosophy or
that was the philosophy behind that particular exercise (0.1) getting them in touch with
the words in as many different ways orally visually eh:: then you know in print on the
screen as possible. (A10c ll.139-148)
It is clear from the interview data that the teachers consider their practices as guided by
research to different extents. However, they were all aware of the key roles that repetition and
variation should play in vocabulary teaching practice, while only T1 referred to depth of processing.
T1 and T3 even mentioned a specific number of encounters required (A10a ll.110-111, A10c ll.123124), which I also discussed in section 3.3 above. Therefore, in relation to learning principles, based
on the interview data, the two dimensions seem to be in line with each other to a fairly good degree
although for two of the teachers this was grounded more in personal experience or general ideas
about learning rather than knowledge of vocabulary research. My data suggests that the extent to
which research informs practices on a more conscious level is partly connected with input during
pre- and in-service training, as T1 mentioned that her knowledge of vocabulary theory came from
these sources. This highlights the necessity of including a vocabulary component in linguistic as
well as didactic modules at university level and teacher-training institutions. In addition, it suggests
that there is a need for in-service vocabulary training courses for teachers in this specific context.
In the observed lessons, the key principles of repetition, variation and depth of processing
were present in different ways. In relation to repetition, because most words in the lessons were
studied in relation to a specific topic across a sequence of lessons, and because the lessons are
organised around a limited number of topics throughout a school year, the students are likely to do a
significant amount of narrow reading, i.e. reading a great deal around the same topic. This increases
the chance of words re-occurring across texts and provides opportunities for creative, or generative
use, i.e. variation in the way a word is presented and worked with. Students may also be prompted
to re-use the items when communicating about these texts. Such variation is also likely to occur
with the specialist vocabulary, such as ‘narrator’ or ‘character’, as the teacher uses and re-uses these
terms in most lessons in his or her teacher talk. Through these re-encounters, the students have
multiple opportunities for implicit learning and development of depth in lexical competence.
In the lessons, the teachers also re-visited words through what could be called task repetition.
This occurred when: 1) an activity was repeated in a lesson that had been done in a previous lesson
or 2) through the organisation of individual lessons. An example of the former was in the third stage
70
of T1’s lesson 1, when a characterisation task was repeated in which she encouraged the students to
use some of the same adjectives that had previously been worked with. There were several
examples of the latter. As seen in the lesson descriptions in appendix 3, the lessons were typically
structured so that the students worked with tasks or exercises in pairs or small groups, which was
followed up by a plenary feedback stage, where the results were discussed. This means that the
students who participated actively in the follow-up stage had the opportunity to activate productive
retrieval of the words from the pair-work task, while the students who did not verbally contribute
had the chance to use receptive retrieval and re-encounter the words in input from other students
and the teacher. The disadvantage of relying on this strategy to ensure repetition is that the stronger
students are often the most active at this stage, which means that weaker students will not
experience the same amount of active engagement.
Another factor that contributed to ensuring repetition was the serialisation of texts or working
with the same text across a series of lessons. My data shows that all the teachers used either or both
of these. T1 mentioned in the interview that the characterisation in L1 S3 had also been done in the
last lesson with the same text and that one of the purposes was to re-visit some of the vocabulary.
T2 explained that she tends to work with the same text across two lessons, mainly including
vocabulary exercises in the first lesson and then encouraging students to use the targeted words in
the second one (A10b ll.161-164). T3 used the Breakfast Club in both observed lessons and also
gave homework which meant that some of the targeted words in the first lesson re-occurred in the
second lesson. These practices provide good conditions for spaced repetition of words in the short
term, as it is made possible for learners to re-use words that occur in the textual input. It also means
that it is possible for word knowledge to be built up gradually through the different re-visits.
However, for the vast majority of the words presented in the lessons, it is questionable
whether practice is distributed over a sufficiently extended period to ensure long-term storage. As
mentioned in section 3.3, repetition needs to be sustained over a long period, where the time elapsed
between the reviews is gradually increased. None of the teachers referred to the importance of
spaced repetition in the interviews, and in T1 and T2’s teaching, there did not appear to be a system
in place to ensure that presented vocabulary was recorded systematically as neither the students nor
the teachers were observed to be keeping a systematic record of words. T3, however, seemed to
have such a system in place for some of the words. He used the projector to display vocabulary
presented in a previous lesson, which he encouraged the students to use when working with
worksheet 3. This activity then designed both repetition and retrieval into the task.
71
Figure 13: Words projected T3 L1
With his I-phone, he also took a picture of the board with brainstormed synonyms for ‘good’ and
‘bad’.
Figure 14: Teacher picture of the board T3 L2
This kind of discipline in relation to vocabulary record-keeping is necessary on the part of the
teacher as well as the students with as many words as possible. This is crucial in order to ensure that
vocabulary recycling occurs in a systematic fashion across lessons over an extended period of time
in accordance with the principle of spaced repetition. It is especially important due to the way in
which the teaching in this context is organised around topics or themes, which I discussed above.
As each theme has its own set of vocabulary items connected with it, it is less likely that previously
72
presented words belonging to a different topic receive sufficient spaced practice without records
and an explicit focus on these segregated from textual work.
In relation to depth of processing, the different activities that involved vocabulary engaged the
students in processing the words at different levels of elaboration in terms of search, need and
evaluation. A very large number of the words that were targeted in the lessons came from glosses,
which is a way of scaffolding reading, so that more difficult and unsimplified texts can be used. In
four of the observed lessons (T1 L1, T1 L2, T2 L1, T2 L2), the texts were accompanied by glosses,
which drew students’ attention to unfamiliar words and presented the meaning of potentially
unknown words either in the margins or in the form of a glossary at the back of the book.
Figure 15: Glosses
The glosses all consisted of a translation of the word into Danish and thus provided students
with a convenient access to the accurate, context-specific word meaning, which they might not
otherwise have guessed correctly. Glosses have the potential to start the word learning process, as
the first step is giving an item attention. However, in three out of the four lessons where glosses
were used, the students were not required to engage with the words in any other way. This means
73
that the involvement load was low. Other observed vocabulary-focused activities involved a higher
degree of involvement or deeper level of cognitive processing. In table 14, some of the activities
used are analysed in terms of involvement15.
Activity type and description
Teacher / lesson / stage
Selection activity: students had
T1 L1 S4
to recognise the words or
T1 L2 S6-7
alternatively search for their
T2 L2 S1
meaning in a dictionary. Then
T2 L2 S4
they had to make choices
amongst the words and select
words based on given criteria.
Matching activity: students had T1 L2 S8
to recognise words and then pair
them with something.
Looking up in a dictionary/
T1 L2 S6
thesaurus: students had to search T2 L1 S1
for the word in a dictionary to
T3 L1 S3
find out an aspect of the word
T3 L1 S9
(meaning, part of speech,
T3 L2 S3
synonym)
T3 L2 S4
Creation activity: students had
T2 L1 S1
to produce sentences or texts
T3 L2 S1
using the words.
T3 L2 S4
Ordering: students had to
T2 L2 S1-2
recognise the words and put
T3 L2 S4
them into an order based on
given criteria.
Associating: students had to
T3 L2 S1
think of associations to words.
Table 14: Depth of processing in classroom activities
Search
Need
Evaluation
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate strong
moderate
moderate
moderate strong
moderate
moderate
As mentioned above, many words were presented in the form of glosses, but the table shows
that the presentation of new words in some lessons involved the students having to look up words in
a dictionary or thesaurus. These words had been put on worksheets as individual items in tables or
they occurred in their co-text in bold print. Because such an activity involves search as well as need,
these tasks had a moderate involvement load, engaged the students at a higher cognitive level than
15
Search, need and evaluation were explained on p.23 of this thesis.
74
presenting unfamiliar words through glossing and thus provided better conditions for long-term
retention. However, as mentioned by T3, dictionary use may not generate or sustain student interest
or motivation (A10c ll.169-170). Interest generation was also observed to pose a challenge in T2’s
first lesson especially, where a few unruly students struggled with keeping their focus and
concentration on the tasks. This demonstrates that the inherent level of cognitive processing in a
task can be amputated by lack of student interest and motivation. It also testifies to the fact that the
complexity of the classroom space includes pedagogical and affective issues such as dealing with
discipline, working with student resistance to activities and maintaining student interest. All of
these concerns may complicate the application of research recommendations.
As table 14 demonstrates, a significant number of activities with a moderate involvement load
can be identified in the data. In all three teachers’ lessons, what Christensen et al. (2000) call
‘problem-solving activities’ were used, more specifically matching, ordering and selecting. All the
activities involved need, as the students were required to use the given words to complete the task,
and evaluation, as the words had to be related to and compared with other words in order to make
decisions about them, e.g. which word was dissimilar to the others, which word could best be
applied to describe a textual passage, or which word matched with a specific question. The ordering
and selection activities also involved search. If the words were unfamiliar to the students, they had
to consult another student, a dictionary or the teacher.
In T2 and T3’s lessons, there were examples of extended vocabulary stages where the same
word items had to be worked with in a series of different tasks, which increased the level of
cognitive depth involved (appendices 7a and 8c). In the tasks on these worksheets, the students had
to put the words to work in the following ways: a) search for the meaning of the words (T2 and T3),
b) create an original context for the word and produce a sentence (T2) or use the word in a given
context (T3), c) explain or guess the words (T2), d) analyse different aspects about the words (T3).
Thus, the students had to make several decisions about the words, and they were engaged in active
and elaborate processing, as the principles search, need and evaluation were all present. Some tasks
on the worksheets also involved associations and making connections with other words, which is a
factor that has been found to affect long-term storage. T2 asked them to explain words to a partner,
which triggers associations, while the students in T3’s class could associate words with songs.
75
6.4 Approaches
Both the direct and the indirect approach were used in the observed lessons. The direct approach, or
Nation’s (2001) language-focused strand, occurred in different forms where words were
decontextualised to be studied explicitly and consciously learnt. In the different sections above, I
have discussed how the three teachers focused on word items isolated from their context through: 1)
planned activities or exercises that were designed for the students to study different aspects of preselected word items as part of the language system, 2) glosses, 3) writing key words from student
output on the board to highlight them, 4) correction of lexical errors in student output, 5) asking or
answering student questions about aspects of specific word items. These different forms of direct
teaching lasted for anything from a brief moment to extended lesson stages and are all examples of
the teachers using the direct approach.
According to researchers, the direct approach should also involve strategy training with the
purpose of developing strategies for independent word learning and helping students benefit from
exposure. In chapter 5, I found that the GAH also specifies that students need to be taught these
strategies. Such training includes raising students’ awareness of how words are learnt, training the
use of reference works such as dictionaries, providing guidance on effective vocabulary recordkeeping, and giving learners tools to help them work out meaning from context. My observation
data does not contain examples of teachers discussing word learning with their students or
providing guidance on how to record vocabulary, and none of the teachers mentioned doing so
during the interview. However, dictionary use featured in all the lessons either encouraged by the
teacher or initiated by the students themselves. Therefore, the students received practice in using a
resource for independent learning.
T3 was the only teacher who was observed to engage students in looking at word parts, which
is a tool that can be used in the learning of unfamiliar vocabulary by relating new words to ones
which are already known. He also talked about strategy training during the interview, when he
described it as useful for the students to be taught affixes and how to analyse word parts: ‘there are
some […] prefixes and suffixes that they can begin to recognise and then that can help them (0.1)
eh when they meet new words but with those particular endings eh or prefixes in context and they
might be able to figure things out’ (A10c ll.331-333). T3 was also the only teacher who referred to
another part of the language-focused strand, namely word cards (A10c ll.384-387). In addition to
vocabulary-focused exercises and strategy training, these are recommended as part of the direct
76
component of vocabulary instruction, and research has identified this as one of the most effective
methods for deliberate word learning, as their use involves retrieval.
T2 appeared to indicate that she only saw vocabulary learning as being a result of direct
instruction. She stated that: ‘I don’t expect them to to develop or improve their vocabulary […]
skills without my giving them some exercises and so on’ (A10b ll.160-161). This is interesting
when compared to the research dimension, which emphasises a balanced approach of direct and
indirect teaching. However, my data shows that the indirect approach or Nation’s meaning-focused
strands also occurred in all the lessons in the form of meaning-focused input and output. The
classroom environment in the six lessons must be characterised as rich in the English language, as
the teacher and the students carried out classroom interaction predominantly in English in almost all
the lesson stages. Some of the vocabulary exercises also had a meaning-focused component as the
words had to be related to the text and therefore used to communicate messages in a context (e.g.
figures 6, 8 and 13). In addition, all the lessons revolved around texts, either written (the short
stories ‘Just like that’, ‘Lies’ and ‘The Tunnel’ and the play Romeo and Juliet) or spoken (film clips
from The Breakfast Club). The students had read these before the lesson and had to discuss them
during the lesson with the exception of The Breakfast Club, which was watched in class. The input
and output involved in these message-focused tasks provided opportunities for incidental word
learning, which occurs when the learner’s focus is not on conscious language learning but on
comprehending and communicating meaning. In such situations, word learning occurs as a byproduct facilitated through encounters or use in context, and opportunities for such learning are both
beneficial and necessary for vocabulary development.
However, when compared to the findings in section 3.4, my data indicates that the conditions
necessary for the meaning-focused input strand to be effective were not present, especially for the
weaker students in the classes. Firstly, researchers argue that for reading to support vocabulary
learning, it has to be extensive rather than intensive. Extensive reading is done primarily for
pleasure, whereas intensive reading is the subjection of texts to close analysis and classroom study.
In the observed lessons, the reading of texts was predominantly of an intensive nature with the
purpose of analysis and interpretation in mind. Secondly, researchers stress that only 2-5 per cent of
the words in the read texts should be unknown to the students, i.e. the input has to be graded to
match the students’ level. They also argue that a learner’s vocabulary size is among the critical
factors in successful guessing words from context. As the students’ vocabulary knowledge was not
tested as part of this study, I cannot judge whether this was the case for the students in the classes
77
that I observed. However, in the interviews both T1 and T3 explained that the classes consisted of
students of very mixed abilities and that vocabulary posed a barrier for some students. T1 said: ‘I
can see in in the sort of weaker students that I have that what stops them from saying something is
that they don’t have a vocabulary they can use’ (A10a ll.9-11) and also ‘I have students who come
with a wider vocabulary than I have myself and then I’ve got students who can’t put three words
together in a sentence’ (A10a ll.34-36), while T3 stated that:
they’re on such different levels. I mean there’s one student in there who I mean just
basically understanding the text is about as far as she can get. There’s a couple of
students at that level. And then there are others […] they’re on a completely different
and higher level. (A10c ll.258-261)
From the teachers’ descriptions, it is clear how the reality of the classroom context makes it
problematic to ensure that meaning-focused input contains only 2 per cent unknown words for all
students. Thus, my data illustrates that this particular research recommendation, which is central to
Nation’s idea of the four strands, is hard to implement effectively in practice due to the classroom
reality and pedagogical issues related to heterogeneous groups. The reality of a mixed-ability
classroom also poses a challenge in another respect. As noted in section 3.4, some researchers
rightly argue that learner level should be a factor in deciding which approach to use. While an
indirect, meaning-focused approach may be better suited for stronger students at a higher level of
proficiency, who already have a good command of the most high-frequent words, weaker students
may still require a more direct approach as their less-developed vocabulary knowledge can pose a
significant barrier that makes it hard for them to engage in the large amounts of meaning-focused
work necessary.
These points demonstrate that the reality of the classroom is often neglected in research
recommendations. The same neglect applies to the educational policy that guides practice. As we
saw in the previous chapter, due to constraints by policy, it is not possible for teachers to provide
graded texts to weaker students. These simplified texts have a vocabulary that is more proportionate
to the students’ language levels and, according to researchers, this is essential for the meaningfocused input strand to be effective. Thus, this recommendation lacks applicability for a teacher in
this context, which amputates the four-stranded approach. If one is to believe the advice that the
research dimension provides, the consequence of this policy requirement and the practice used is
that weaker students are likely to be overburdened with unknown vocabulary and that meaningfocused input will not be effective for them, which is likely to inhibit their learning.
78
The observations also revealed that a significant number of students had not done their
homework for the lessons, which was typically a reading task that could have provided some of the
large amounts of meaning-focused input required for incidental vocabulary learning. As mentioned
in section 3.4, very large quantities of reading are necessary for the effectiveness of the meaningfocused input strand. The question is to which extent it is possible to implement this
recommendation in the particular context researched in this thesis. English teachers in gymnasiums
experience a reality that includes the following: some students come to class who have not even
done the assigned homework; English is one subject out of many; many students read little outside
class even in their own language; some students come from homes where reading is not common;
weaker students struggle with the language or with motivation; some students prioritise other
subjects over English; and many teenage students will not act on the teacher saying: ‘you should
read these because it is good for your vocabulary development’. This scenario and the abovementioned issues with implementing the four strands leave the teachers with little guidance as to
what to do if the main recommendations cannot be applied in the actual teaching context. On the
other hand, it is possible to argue that the research recommendation concerning incidental learning
through exposure may be more easily applied in a Danish context compared to learners in other
countries with less liberal language policies. Danish learners have the advantage that there is a large
amount of exposure available in the media and the accessibility of English-language cultural
products, which means that learners have more opportunities for incidental learning compared with
other countries.
6.5 Chapter conclusion: The relationship between research, policy and practice
After exploring how researchers recommend that teachers should approach vocabulary teaching and
which goals and guidelines are provided by policy, in this chapter I have analysed what actually
happens in the practices of three English teachers in a Danish gymnasium and some of the reasons
for why the practices are as they are. As part of the analysis, I have looked at how the three
dimensions of research, policy and practice relate to each other and some reasons for the extents to
which they correspond. I have investigated the following areas: the role of vocabulary in the
curriculum and the lessons, the content and the selection criteria, i.e. which words, how many words
and which word features were targeted, the principles that guide practice as well as the approaches
used.
79
Vocabulary researchers place words at the heart of language processing and production, and
they characterise vocabulary as the central aspect of language learning. As discussed in chapter 1,
some researchers have criticised teachers for using an approach to vocabulary teaching that is
unsystematic and insufficient. My analysis shows that the teachers consider it one out of several
important areas of the curriculum specified in policy, and that vocabulary did play a significant role
in the classrooms observed with both planned and unplanned focuses on word items occurring in all
the six lessons. However, it was also found that the practices of the teachers varied concerning time
allocated to vocabulary and the systematicity with which it was carried out. Here other contextual
factors were found to have an influence on teaching practices.
In relation to vocabulary goals and selection criteria, I found that the teachers were not in line
with research recommendations. Researchers recommend that clear goals need to be set based on a
thorough screening of students’ vocabulary knowledge and that frequency and range of occurrence
should be used for deciding which items to learn and how to learn them. The analysis of my data
shows, however, that the teachers had not screened their students for vocabulary knowledge, had
little or no awareness of the number of words required and did not orient towards frequency when
deciding on which words to target and how to deal with the words. Here their practices were
influenced by washback and more guided by policy, which states that vocabulary should be
connected with textual work and that specialist vocabulary need to be used by the students.
In relation to aspects of word knowledge, researchers have described the complexity of lexical
competence and the many features that learners need to know. My analysis shows that, like policy,
the teachers revealed that their awareness of lexical competence may lack complexity, as the
observation data demonstrated that the features of lexical competence targeted in the lessons were
predominantly meaning and form, whereas aspects concerning use were often not addressed.
In relation to learning principles, research has found that especially repetition, variation and
cognitive depth are critical for vocabulary learning. My analysis suggests that the teachers possess
varying degrees of familiarity with these principles. The teachers themselves stated that their
knowledge of research ranged from unfamiliar (T2) over somewhat familiar (T3) to a good level of
familiarity (T1). An analysis of the observation data showed that the principles were present in
some of their practices used. However, I found that in relation to many of the words targeted, a lack
of depth of processing and long-term spacing of repetition is problematic when compared to what
researchers argue is necessary for vocabulary learning. Part of the explanation for this may be the
lack of guidelines in policy.
80
Finally, in relation to approaches used, researchers advise a balance between direct and
indirect teaching. My analysis showed that, while the teachers lacked awareness of
recommendations in relation to approaches, both direct and indirect instruction occurred in the
lessons. For instance, the teachers used different exercises to establish a deliberate focus on words
as part of the language system in several different ways, but also provided message-focused input
and engaged the students in communicative output, where incidental vocabulary learning could
occur. However, it was also found that several factors influence how effective the meaning-focused
strands are and that especially the material as well as the type of reading did not correspond to
research recommendations.
The relational analysis between research, policy and practice revealed that there are areas
where the three dimensions are in line with each other, but also several areas where there are
discrepancies between them. Some of the vocabulary teaching practices identified reflect research
recommendations, but this was not necessarily because the teachers consciously applied knowledge
of research. Some practices were the result of a process of negotiation, involving policy constraints
and the teacher’s own experience gained through teaching. My analysis has also provided insight
into some of the complex reasons for why the relationship between the three dimensions is as it is.
The most significant factors that affected the application of vocabulary research recommendations
were: curriculum complexity; lack of training / familiarity with research in vocabulary learning and
teaching; lack of correspondence between research and policy that directs teaching; washback from
the exam; lack of correspondence between research and textbooks; and lack of applicability in the
reality facing teachers.
81
7. Conclusion
The points of departure for this thesis were two gaps. The first, a claimed gap between research
recommendations and teaching practice. As discussed in the introduction, researchers have directed
criticism at teachers for neglecting vocabulary and addressing it in an insufficient fashion despite its
crucial importance in language learning. The second, a methodological gap in vocabulary research.
In the introduction, I identified a lack of qualitative studies which explore how vocabulary is
actually taught and what some of the reasons are for why practice takes the forms that it does. In the
thesis, I have sought to address these two gaps, attempting to gain a deeper understanding of the
complex nature of the former, while starting to fill the latter. This has been done through 1) a
review of the pedagogical recommendations made by vocabulary researchers, 2) an analysis of the
goals and guidelines of policy directing teaching, 3) an analysis of teaching practices based on
observation and interview data, and 4) a relational analysis investigating the relationships between
research, policy and practice. In this final chapter, I conclude on my findings, discuss what has been
learnt about the relations between the three dimensions and suggest how my findings are relevant to
researchers, policymakers and teachers.
From my analysis of the practice dimension and its relations to research and policy, we can
conclude that, while some of them do it more regularly and systematically than others, all the
teachers in my case study do, to a certain extent, work with vocabulary in a planned, purposeful and
methodical fashion within their teaching context. However, in some areas, my study has confirmed
that a gap exists between what researchers suggest constitutes best practice and actual teaching
practices used. In relation to content, my analysis showed that the teachers lacked clear vocabulary
goals, did not orient towards word frequency in their vocabulary selection and had little knowledge
of research recommendations concerning which and how many words to teach. Furthermore, their
understanding of lexical competence appeared to lack complexity compared to that found in
theoretical literature and only a narrow range of word features were targeted in the lessons,
predominantly receptive meaning and form.
In relation to learning principles and approaches, my analysis suggests that the teachers are
familiar with these to varying extents. Whether the teachers applied them consciously or not, the
principles that researchers have identified for effective vocabulary learning were present in some of
the activities used. However, I also found that the engagement with many of the targeted words had
a low degree of depth of processing and lacked long-term spacing of repetition. Regarding
approaches, I found that the teachers used a balance between direct and indirect teaching, as
82
researchers suggest. However, my analysis showed that the meaning-focused input strand did not
have optimum conditions for a substantial number of students due to the materials used and the type
of reading involved.
In my study, I have found that a complex, interlinked set of reasons exist for why research
recommendations are not necessarily applied in practice.
Curriculum complexity. The policy documents reflect that English in the Danish gymnasium
is a highly complex subject. Not only do students need to develop a high level of proficiency
in receptive and productive language use, they also have to learn how to analyse and
interpret a wide range of fiction, non-fiction and media texts, obtain knowledge of history,
society and culture in English-speaking countries as well as be able to describe language.
Teachers therefore need to navigate in this multifaceted curriculum, to prioritise and deal
with sometimes competing concerns. It must be characterised as unrealistic that English
teachers can keep abreast with and apply research in all the areas of the curriculum (the
many specialised sub-areas researched in applied linguistics, literary studies, cultural
studies, etc.) as well as developments in methodology and didactics, especially as they have
to do this on top of busy teaching loads, which have been increased with recent educational
reforms in Denmark.
Lack of knowledge of vocabulary research and lack of training in vocabulary teaching. For
different reasons, including subject complexity, busy schedules and limited time allocated
for professional development, research recommendations simply do not reach some teachers
unless it is part of their training. Some of the teachers had little knowledge of findings in
vocabulary research, as this had not been part of the pre- or in-service training they had
received. Here my analysis showed that the amount of attention given to specific areas in
teacher education and training can influence the role it will play in teaching practices and
the systematicity with which it will be addressed.
Lack of correspondence between research and policy or vagueness in policy goals and
guidelines. The ministerial documents position vocabulary as an important element in the
curriculum and in some respects their guidelines are in line with the recommendations of
researchers. However, there are also several places where discrepancies exist. The
documents lack complexity in relation to lexical competence as well as clarity regarding
goals. In addition, the selection criteria and learning principles that researchers argue should
guide practice are absent. In relation to the most effective approach to learning, policy is
83
even misinformed and, concerning materials, it creates barriers for teachers in the
implementation of optimum learning conditions.
Washback from the exam. In the final exams, students are tested on their grammatical
knowledge, their analytical skills in working with different texts and their ability to
communicate in written and spoken form about these texts. Therefore, to a large extent, the
practices of the teachers in my study are based on what they believe to be most necessary for
the students to do well in the exam. This includes focusing on reading of an intensive nature
and vocabulary connected with texts and topics rather than extensive reading and vocabulary
based on frequency as researchers recommend.
Lack of application of research recommendations in textbooks. Because the teachers at
times simply teach based on the textbooks available and use the exercises that they contain,
practice becomes textbook-determined, i.e. what and how the teachers teach is decided by
the textbook, and the teachers mediate these materials. This makes textbooks and materials
writers a significant part of the equation, and further studies are required to explore the
extent to which publications for this context reflect current knowledge about vocabulary.
Lack of applicability of research recommendations in the reality facing teachers. A
significant amount of vocabulary research focuses on learning processes and measuring
competence isolated from the teaching context. This means that when it comes to making
recommendations for practice, some of these are idealistic and do not easily transfer to
everyday teaching practices, where teachers operate under different forms of constraints and
face mixed-ability classes as well as unruly, unmotivated students, who do not necessarily
do what is asked of them.
In his article on the application of vocabulary research, Nation argues that it is important ‘for
researchers to suggest clear principles that teachers can apply, and that are supported by research’
(2011: 537) and that the findings of vocabulary research ‘move forward into teaching’ (2011: 530).
I agree with Nation, but I would argue that there is a need for the practice dimension to move into
research as well and, in order to maximise applicability potential, more effective lines of
communication between the three dimensions is needed. This thesis has started to create a basis on
which such communication can be established. However, changes are necessary in all three
dimensions in order to narrow the divide between them.
84
In relation to the research dimension, the applicability of the recommendations may be
increased through a greater awareness and acknowledgement of the complex reality that teachers
face in the classroom. Vocabulary researchers are interested in discovering the ideal conditions for
learning, and thus often carry out experimental, quantitative studies in constructed settings, where
the objective is to measure the effect of controlled variables. However, in their formulation of ‘best
practice’, some researchers seem to disregard the day-to-day reality of teaching and the contextual
constraints within which teachers have to operate. Put differently, the concerns of teachers do not
necessarily correspond to the concerns of researchers, and teachers are more interested in the most
effective solutions that work in practice. One recommendation that was discussed in this thesis is
that learners need to read one graded reader every week. In most classrooms in a Danish
gymnasium context, including the ones studied in this thesis, such a recommendation is far too
idealistic, not possible to implement due to policy constraints and therefore of little value in
assisting in the creation of a more effective practice. Thus, there is a need for researchers who seek
to provide applicable recommendations to get into real language classrooms and refine research
agendas, but also to relate findings to the actual lives of teachers to a greater extent. When
researchers criticise practitioners for not applying their recommendations, there is an underlying
hierarchical assumption that research is conducted by experts, and their findings should be
channelled down in a top-down, linear movement. However, my analysis shows that a more
circular, collaborative communication system would be more beneficial.
Not only does there seem to be a need for research recommendations to take the practice
dimension into consideration, but there is also a need for recommendations that are contextsensitive. My relational analysis highlights that not all pedagogical recommendations are applicable
to all teaching contexts, and that there is no one-size-fits-all best practice. Instead, what teachers
need is advice on context-specific effective practices that take local constraints into consideration.
Based on my study, some of the aspects of vocabulary teaching that English teachers in the Danish
gymnasium need advice on include how to balance vocabulary with other parts of the curriculum,
how to provide instruction for mixed-ability classes, how to teach vocabulary when extensive
reading is unlikely to be realised and meaning-focused input cannot be graded due to policy
constraints. Some of these issues could be taken up by vocabulary researchers as agendas for future
studies.
In relation to the policy dimension, it would be beneficial for practice if the goals and
guidelines for teachers reflected knowledge in the field to a greater extent, because my study shows
85
that if policy documents are not grounded in research, practice is likely to follow along the same
lines. Upon updating policy, policymakers could seek the guidance of researchers to ensure that the
documents reflect well-established and current knowledge. Because policy provides binding rules
for teachers and thus directs practice to a large extent, it is especially problematic when it deviates
from consensus knowledge in the field. Policy could fairly easily be improved in the following very
concrete and specific ways. Firstly, by setting vocabulary goals that correspond to the requirements
of the other goals in the curriculum, e.g. reading authentic literary texts, for which a vocabulary size
of between 5000 and 9000 words is necessary. Secondly, by removing the unsupported guidelines
that extensive reading and learning in context are the most effective. Thirdly, by increasing the
complexity in the description of lexical competence. Fourthly, by allowing graded text as part of the
core materials.
In relation to the practice dimension, my study has identified a knowledge gap when it comes
to some teachers’ familiarity with and application of research recommendations. However, as
argued, this is interlinked with policy, textbooks as well as university-level education and teacher
training. These factors all impact the forms that practices take, as these levels mediate research to
teachers in different forms. Thus, for teachers to be better informed, their sources of information
that help shape and guide practice need to be in line with the research dimension.
My qualitative case study has limitations – the most obvious one being its small size in terms
of the number of participants, the number of lessons observed as well as the brief time span over
which it was conducted. However, as argued in chapter 4, this also has benefits for the case study
participants and the researcher, and I would argue that it has been a fruitful method to investigate
the interface between research, policy and practice. My thesis has attempted to begin to counterbalance a heavy focus on learning in vocabulary research, and the study contributes with new
insights and knowledge by providing documentation of how words are worked with. I do not claim
that my data is representative of all vocabulary teaching practices in English language teaching in
all Danish gymnasiums, but it contains significant evidence of a variety of vocabulary teaching
practices across a range of classrooms and thus begins to address the knowledge gap of how
vocabulary teaching is conducted and what factors influence it. I would argue that this is necessary
to supplement existing, predominantly quantitative, vocabulary research, i.e. we need not only look
at pedagogical implications of how words are learnt, but also at how vocabulary is in fact taught and
why it is taught in the way that it is. Further research and more longitudinal studies of a qualitative
nature are required to add to the insights which this thesis has provided into vocabulary teaching
86
and the interface between research into second language learning on the one hand and second
language pedagogy on the other. Such research could beneficially cover a range of different
teaching contexts, as my study has shown that contextual factors impact practices to a large extent.
87
Bibliography
Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the Mind – an introduction to the mental lexicon, 2nd edition, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Adams, G. (1979). ‘Lies’ in Bridgewater, P. and D. Simonsen (2002). A Lift, Too. Copenhagen:
Gyldendal.
Albrectsen, D., K. Hastrup & B. Henriksen (2008). Vocabulary and writing in a first and second
language: Processes and development, Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Albrechtsen, D., B. Henriksen & C. Færch (1980) Native speaker reactions to learners’ spoken
interlanguage in Language Learning 30, pp. 365-396.
Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency, London: Continuum.
Baleghizadeh, S. & M. Golbin (2010). The Effect of Vocabulary Size on Reading Comprehension
of Iranian EFL Learners in Linguistic and Literary Broad Research and Innovation, vol.1 (2),
p. 33.
Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary – Applied Linguistic Perspectives, 2nd edition, London: Routledge.
Carter, R & M. McCarthy (1988). Vocabulary and Language, London: Longman.
Christensen, B., J. Engberg-Pedersen, M. Grønvold & B. Henriksen (2000). Ord og tekst - sproglig
opmærksomhed i engelskundervisningen i gymnasiet og på hf, Uddannelsesstyrelsens
temahæfteserie nr. 25.
Coady, J. (1997). L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: A synthesis of research in Coady, J. & T. Huckin
(eds.) Second language vocabulary acquisition, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.
225-237.
Crystal, D. (2006). How Language Works, London: Penguin.
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Danish Ministry of Education (2013). Engelsk B Læreplan, retrieved September 2, 2013, from
https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=152507#Bil19.
Danish Ministry of Eduction (2010). Engelsk B – Stx Vejledning / Råd og vink, retrieved September
2,
2013,
from
http://www.uvm.dk/Uddannelser-og-dagtilbud/Gymnasiale-uddannelser/
88
Studieretninger-og-fag/Fag-paastx/~/media/UVM/Filer/Udd
/Gym/PDF10/Vejledninger%20til%20laereplaner/Stx/100811_vejl2_engelsk_B_stx.ashx.
Ellis, N. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: word structure, collocation, word-class and meaning in
Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy (eds.) Vocabulary. Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 122-139.
Ellis, R. & X. He (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of
word meanings in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, pp. 285-301.
Engberg-Pedersen, J. et al. (2012). Wider contexts, Copenhagen: Gyldendal Uddannelse.
Engberg-Pedersen, J. et al. (2004) Contexts, Copenhagen: Gyldendal Uddannelse.
File, K. & R. Adams (2010). Should vocabulary instruction be integrated or isolated? in TESOL
Quarterly, vol. 44(2), pp. 222–249.
Folse, K. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention in TESOL
Quarterly, vol. 40(2), pp. 273–293.
Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary Myths – Applying Second Language Research to Classroom
Teaching, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Gass, S.M. & L. Selinker (2008). Second Language Acquisition – An Introductory Course, 3rd
edition, New York: Routledge.
Gairns, R. & S. Redman (1999). Working with Words – a guide to teaching and learning
vocabulary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henriksen, B., D. Albrecthtsen & K. Hastrup (2004). The relationship between vocabulary size and
reading comprehension in the L2 in Angles on the English-Speaking World, 4, pp. 129-140.
Henriksen, B. (1999a). Ordforråd og ordindlæring in Holmen, A. & K. Lund (eds.) Studier i dansk
som andetsprog, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Henriksen, B. (1999b). Three dimensions of vocabulary development in Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, vol. 21(2), pp. 303-317.
Henriksen, B. (1995). Hvad vil det sige at kunne et ord – ordforståelse og ordbeherskelse in
Sprogforum, 3, pp. 12-18.
89
Hiebert, E. H. & M. L. Kamil (eds.) (2005). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary – Bringing
Research to Practice, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hughes, J. (1985) The Breakfast Club, A&M Films, Channel Productions & Universal Pictures.
Hulstijn, J. & B. Laufer (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in
vocabulary acquisition in Language Learning, vol. 51(3), pp. 539–558.
Hunt, A. & D. Beglar (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary in Reading in a
Foreign Language, vol. 17(1), pp. 23-59.
Hunt, A. & D. Beglar (2002). Current Research and Practice in Vocabulary Teaching in Richards, J.
C. and W. A. Renandya (eds.). Methodology in Language Teaching – An Anthology of
Current Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 258-266.
Haastrup, K. & Phillipson, R. (1983). Achievement Strategies in learner/native speaker interaction
in Faerch, C. and G. Kasper (eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, London:
Longman, pp. 140-158.
Keating, G. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement
load hypothesis on trial in Language Teaching Research, vol. 12(3), pp. 365–386.
Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most
vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence in The Canadian Modern Language Review,
59, pp. 567-587.
Laufer, B. (1997a). 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. & T. Huckin (eds.) Second
language vocabulary acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 20-34.
Laufer, B. (1997b). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy in Schmitt, N. and M. McCarthy
(eds.) Vocabulary – Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 140-155.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? in Arnaud, P. & H.
Béjoint (eds.) Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, London: Macmillan, pp. 126-132.
Laufer, B. & J. Hulstijn (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the
construct of task-induced involvement in Applied Linguistics, 23, pp. 1-26.
90
Laufer, B. & I.S.P. Nation (2012). Vocabulary in Gass, S.M. & A. Mackey (eds.) The Routledge
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, London: Routledge, pp. 163-173.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice, Hampshire:
Heinle.
Llach, M. P. A (2011). Lexical Errors and Accuracy in Foreign Language Writing, Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Long, M.H. & J.C. Richards (2007). Series Editors’ Preface in Daller, H., J. Milton & J. TreffersDaller (eds.) Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge, Cambridge; Cambridge
University Press, pp. xii – xiii.
Mackey, A. & S. M. Gass (2005). Second Language Research – Methodology and Design,
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, M., A. O'Keeffe, & S. Walsh (2010). Vocabulary Matrix: Understanding, Learning,
Teaching, Hampshire: Heinle.
Meara, P. (1996). The dimensions of lexical competence in Brown, G., K. Malmkjaer & J. Williams
(eds.) Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 35-53.
Melka, F. (1997). Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary in Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy
(eds.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 84-102.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education, 2nd edition, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English in Schmitt, N. and M.
McCarthy (eds.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 40-63.
Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning in
Schmitt, N. & M. McCarthy (eds.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, pedagogy,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-83.
91
Nation, I. S. P. (2011). Research into Practice: Vocabulary in Language Teaching, vol. 44(4), pp.
529-539.
Nation, P. and T. Chung (2009). Teaching and Testing Vocabulary in Long, M.H. & C.J Doughty
(eds.) The Handbook of Language Teaching, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? in The
Canadian Modern Language Review, vol. 63(1), pp. 52-82.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, P. (2002). Best Practice in Vocabulary Teaching and Learning in Richards, J. C. &
Renandya, W. A. (eds.) Methodology in Language Teaching – An Anthology of Current
Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 267-272.
Nation, I. S. P. and P. Meara (2002). Vocabulary in Schmitt, N. (ed.) An Introduction to Applied
Linguistics, London: Arnold.
Nation, P. and Wang, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary in Reading in a Foreign Language,
12, pp. 355-379.
Nation, P. and Waring, R (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists in Schmitt, N. &
McCarthy, M. (eds.) Vocabulary – Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 6-19.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
O’Dell, F. (1997). Incorporating vocabulary into the syllabus in Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (eds.)
Vocabulary – Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 258-278.
Paribakht, T. S. and M. Wesche (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for
meaning in second language vocabulary development in Coady, J. & T. Huckin (eds.) Second
Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy, New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 174-200.
92
Paribakht, T. S. and M. Wesche (1996). Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: a
hierarchy of text-related exercise types in The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, pp.
155-178.
Read, J. (2004). Research in Teaching Vocabulary in Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 24, pp.
146-161.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing Vocabulary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, M. (1987). ‘Just Like That’ in Engberg-Pedersen, J. et al. (2006). Contexts, Copenhagen:
Gyldendal, pp.24-30.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning in Language
Teaching Research, vol. 12(3), pp. 329-363.
Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds.) (1997). Vocabulary – Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, D. & R. Usher (2006). Uddannelsesforskning – Data, metoder og teori til undersøgelse af
uddannelser, Aarhus: Klim.
Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stæhr, L. S. (2009a). Tilegnelse og testning af ordforråd in Byram, M. et al. (eds.) Sprogfag i
forandring – pædagogik og praksis, Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur, p. 167-204.
Stæhr, L. S. (2009b). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a
foreign language in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 31(4), pp. 577-607.
Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of reading, listening and writing in Language
Learning Journal, vol. 36(2), pp. 139-152.
Sökmen, A. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary in Schmitt, N. &
McCarthy, M. (eds.) Vocabulary – Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 237-257.
Ur, Penny (2012). How useful is Tesol academic research? in The Guardian Weekly, Oct. 16.
Wragg, E. C. (1999). An introduction to classroom observation, 2nd edition, London: Routledge.
93
Tables and figures
List of tables
Table 1: Research sub-questions and thesis structure .......................................................................... 8
Table 2: Content and function words ................................................................................................. 11
Table 3: What is involved in knowing a word (Nation 2001: 27) ..................................................... 14
Table 4: Aspects of word knowledge in ‘recommendation’ .............................................................. 15
Table 5: Word frequency categories .................................................................................................. 20
Table 6: Vocabulary activity types .................................................................................................... 25
Table 7: Nation’s four strands ............................................................................................................ 28
Table 8: Case study participants ........................................................................................................ 35
Table 9: Overview of empirical data collection ................................................................................. 39
Table 10: Overview of findings in research and policy ..................................................................... 49
Table 11: Types of vocabulary teaching ............................................................................................ 51
Table 12: Overview of goals and selection criteria............................................................................ 63
Table 13: Teacher goals concerning word knowledge....................................................................... 67
Table 14: Depth of processing in classroom activities ...................................................................... 74
List of figures
Figure 1: Direct-indirect continuum .................................................................................................. 26
Figure 2: T1 L1 Words on the board (17.42) ..................................................................................... 52
Figure 3: Exercise (Engberg-Pedersen et al. 2012: 91) T1 L1........................................................... 52
Figure 4: Literary terms (Engberg-Pedersen et al. 2004: 254) T1 L2 ................................................ 53
Figure 5: T1 L2 Words on the board (18.33) ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 6: Exercise (Engberg-Pedersen et al. 2004: 24) T1 L2........................................................... 54
Figure 7: Worksheet T2 L1 ................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 8: Worksheet T2 L2 ................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 9: Worksheet T3 L1 ................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 10: Worksheets 1 and 2 T3 L2................................................................................................ 57
Figure 11: Synonyms for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ on the board T3 L2 ........................................................ 58
Figure 12: Worksheet 3 T3 L2 ........................................................................................................... 58
Figure 13: Words projected T3 L1 ..................................................................................................... 72
Figure 14: Teacher picture of the board T3 L2 .................................................................................. 72
Figure 15: Glosses .............................................................................................................................. 73
94