Perfecting language: experimenting
with an online language learning
vocab tool
Matthew Absalom & Andrew McGregor
The University of Melbourne
Where are we going today?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learning vocab – what the research says
What we did
How we did it
What did we find out?
What does it mean?
Where to next?
What the research says
• Surprisingly little
• ‘The relative neglect of
studies of vocabulary
acquisition and related
areas of lexical research in
second language acquisition
has often been commented
on within the fields of
language teaching and
applied linguistics’
(Long & Richards, 1997, p.
ix)
• Recent trends in language
pedagogy (e.g.
communication language
teaching) have seen a
‘reduction both in the
volumes of vocabulary
presented to learners and in
the volumes of vocabulary
learned’ (Milton, 2009, p.3)
• It is impossible to be ‘an
accurate and highly
communicative language
user with a very small
vocabulary’
(Milton, 2009, p. 3)
What the research says
• In Nation’s (2006) study it was found that ‘much more
vocabulary than previous estimates: 6,000–7,000 word
families for spoken discourse and 8,000– 9,000 families for
written discourse’ is needed’ to function well.
• …the need for learners to master more vocabulary than
previously thought necessary…
• Explicit teaching often deals with high frequency vocabulary
• Low frequency vocabulary is unproblematic due to
infrequency
• This leaves mid-frequency vocabulary ‘which often receives
little attention’ (Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2010, p. 31)
What we did
• A fourweek experiment in two beginners languag
e subjects (French 1 and Italian 1) at The
University of
Melbourne comparing the use of Language
Perfect with traditional approaches to voca
bulary learning
• Research question: how is student learning
affected by different approaches to voca
bulary learning?
How we did it?
• Four treatments:
– Custom: customised content (textbook and
top 200 words) using Language Perfect
– Online: access to preloaded content using
Language Perfect
– Pen: vocabulary lists distributed weekly for four
weeks
– Control: normal instruction
• Blind experimental design
How we did it?
• Random selection/assignment of groups
• Customised content: frequency list (top 200
words) plus textbook vocab (custom and pen
groups)
• Pre- and Post-test
• Three weekly vocab pop quizzes
What did we find out?
Italian
• Control group
significantly lower
• Both Language Perfect
groups show
improvement
• Pen group shows most
improvement (p=0.003)
What did we find out?
French
• Custom group shows significant improvement
compared to all other groups
• Pen and control groups show least
improvement
What does it mean?
Preliminary findings/implications
• Effect of instructed setting
• Student autonomy
• Any intervention leads to improvement
Where to next?
• Complete the analysis – French post-test still
to come
• Compare final written pieces across groups to
explore wider effects on language
• Consider a longer study with more
participants
• Reconsider teaching practices in relation to
vocabulary learning
References
• Long, Michael H. & Richards, Jack C. 1997. Series
editors’ preface. In J. Coady & T. Huckin, Second
language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for
pedagogy, pp. ix-x. CUP.
• Milton, James. 2009. Measuring second language
vocabulary acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
• Pellicer-Sánchez, A. & Scmitt, N. 2010. Incidental
vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel:
Do Things Fall Apart? Reading in a foreign
language, 22 (1), 31-55.