Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:10:35.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computerized lexis-based instruction in EFL classrooms: Using multi-purpose LexisBOARD to teach L2 vocabulary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2015

Azizullah Mirzaei ,
Masoud Rahimi Domakani  and
Sedigheh Rahimi
Azizullah Mirzaei
Affiliation:
Shahrekord University, Iran (email: mirzaei-a@lit.sku.ac.ir)
Masoud Rahimi Domakani
Affiliation:
Shahrekord University, Iran (email: rahimi@lit.sku.ac.ir)
Sedigheh Rahimi
Affiliation:
Shahrekord University, Iran (email: rahimi.sedighe@yahoo.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lexis-based views of second or foreign language (L2) teaching place prime importance on the teaching of conventionalized multi-word lexical items, or unanalyzed chunks, as a useful mechanism for fostering learners’ creative production of forms and their subsequent development of L2 competence. This pretest/posttest quasi-experimental study probed the use of teacher-designed multi-purpose instructional lexis software, dubbed LexisBOARD, on L2 learners’ vocabulary achievement in an Iranian EFL (English as a foreign language) context. A cohort of 50 Iranian junior-high-school students participated in the main instructional phase of the study. Instruction on L2 lexical items (e.g., concordances, polywords, or formulaic sequences) was mainly given to the experimental group using LexisBOARD, which was designed to be user-friendly and attuned to learners’ communicative and curricular needs. LexisBOARD offered further practice or feedback affordances through engaging students in lexical exercises (with word partnerships and collocations) for each unit and several quizzes for self-assessment. The control group was only taught using their mainstream EFL textbooks focusing on grammatical rules, discrete vocabulary items with fixed meanings, and reading texts, without any use of corpus-based activities. The results of the groups’ vocabulary test scores indicate that the lexis group significantly outperformed the control group, pointing to the superiority of practicing and learning L2 vocabulary when lexical items are seen in larger, more holistic ways and, especially, when engaging and experimenting with lexis is scaffolded through computer affordances.

Keywords

lexis-based language teachinggrammaticalized lexisconcordancersLexisBOARD
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 22 - 43
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H. and Demecheeler, M. (2006) Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3): 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British National Corpus. (2007) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cambridge Preliminary English Test. (2014) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.flo-joe.co.uk/preliminaryenglishGoogle Scholar
Campoy-Cubillo, M.-C., Bellés-Fortuño, B. and Gea-Valor, M.-L. (eds.) (2010) Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Channell, J. (1994) Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. and Baker, P. (2010) Lexical bundles and L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2): 30–49.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. (2007) Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3): 38–64.Google Scholar
Collins COBUILD advanced learner’s English dictionary on CD-ROM. (2006) New York: Collins.Google Scholar
Curado Fuentes, A. (2001) Lexical behavior in academic and technical corpora: implications for ESP development. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3): 106–129.Google Scholar
DeCarrico, J. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002) Grammar. In: Schmitt, N. (ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Arnold, 19–34.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004) The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In: Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4): 558–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, D. (2007) Validating the construct of word in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: A critical survey. Applied Linguistics, 28(2): 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (2007) Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4): 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner, C. A. and Miller, L. (2011) Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3): 68–86.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1998) Emergent grammar. In: Tomasello, M. (ed.), The new psychology of language. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (2002) Emergent grammar: Gathering together the fragments. Plenary lecture presented at the Summer Institute in Applied Linguistics, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Huang, H. T. (2007) Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading program. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3): 64–82.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. (2000) Pattern grammar: a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. (2014) Developing autonomous learner for oral proficiency using digital storytelling. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2): 20–35.Google Scholar
Koosha, M. and Jafarpour, A. (2006) Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of prepositions: The case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4): 192–209.Google Scholar
Kweldju, S. (2004) The neuropsychological basis of lexically-based language teaching. TEFLIN, 15(1): 74–90.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991) Teaching grammar. In: Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lee, H. C. (2011) In defense of concordancing: an application of data-driven learning in Taiwan. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12: 399–408.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (1993) The lexical approach: the state of ELT and a way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2000) Learning in the lexical approach. In: Lewis, M. (ed.), Teaching collocation: further development in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications, 155–184.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2008) Implementing the lexical approach: putting theory into practice. Hampshire: Heinle Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2004) New directions in the competition model. In: Tomasello, M. and Slobin, D. I. (eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 81–110.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Wilson, A. (1996) Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Wilson, A. and Baker, P. (1997) Teaching grammar again after twenty years: corpus-based help for teaching grammar. ReCALL, 9(2): 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirzaei, A., Rahimi, D. M. and Heidari, N. (2014) Exploring the relationship between reading strategy use and multiple intelligences among successful L2 readers. Educational Psychology: an International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 34(2): 208–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moudraia, O. (2001) Lexical approach to second language teaching. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. (1980) A lexical phrase grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14(3): 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J. (1992) Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (2003) Second language learning and teaching. Boston MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. (2007) From corpus to classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallant, J. (ed.) (2010) SPSS: survival manual. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Park, K. (2012) Learner-corpus interaction: a locus of microgenesis in corpus-assisted L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 33(4): 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H. (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In: Richards, J. C. and Schmitt, R. W. (eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman, 191–225.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983) The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, C. (2015) Training L2 writers to reference corpora as a self-correction tool. ELT Journal, 69(2): 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimi, M. and Momeni, G. (2012) The effect of teaching collocation on English language proficiency. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(1): 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimi, M., Momeni, G. and Nejati, R. (2012) The impact of lexically-based language teaching on students’ achievement in learning English as a foreign language. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(1): 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajagopalan, K. (2004) The philosophy of applied linguistics. In: Davies, A. and Elder, C. (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. and Rogers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U. (2010) Using general and specialised corpora in English language teaching: Past, present and future. In: Campoy, M.-C., B. Bellés-Fortuño and M.-L. Gea-Valor (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching. London: Continuum, 18–35.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001) Attention. In: Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S. and Durow, V. (2004) Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences. In: Schmitt, N. (ed.), Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2004) Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Grandage, S. and Adolphs, S. (2004) Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid? In: Schmitt, N. (ed.), Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seliger, H. (1982) On the possible role of the right hemisphere in second language in acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2): 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Side, R. (1990) Phrasal verbs: sorting them out. ELT Journal, 44(2): 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2007) Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(4): 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000) The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4): 156–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinert, R. (2010) Formulaicity and usage-based language: linguistic, psycholinguistic and acquisitional manifestations. In: Wood, D. (ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication. London: Continuum, 1–20.Google Scholar
Willis, D. (1990) The lexical syllabus: a new approach to language teaching. London: Collins COBUILD.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A. (1972) Linguistics and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar