Perfecting language: experimenting with an online language learning vocab tool

Matthew Absalom & Andrew McGregorThe 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 four-week experiment in two beginners language subjects (French 1 and Italian 1) at The University of Melbourne comparing the use of Language Perfect with traditional approaches to vocabulary learning

• Research question: how is student learning affected by different approaches to vocabulary 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.