Abstract
The vocabulary knowledge of 166 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Taiwan was measured annually over a five year period using a bilingual version of the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Nation, 1983, 1990; Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham, 2001). The five years of data collection involved English language instruction in high school and university. Test scores were examined according to the amount of English language instruction the participants received. The results indicated that one group of participants learned as few as 18 words in one year, while another group learned as many as 430 words. The findings also revealed that in the final year of the study only 47% of the participants had mastered the 1,000 word level, and 16% had mastered the 2,000 word level. The results suggest that vocabulary learning within the institution could be greatly improved. Key features of a vocabulary learning plan within institutions are outlined.
Introduction
L1 and L2 vocabulary growth are different. Most L1 words are learned incidentally through repeated encounters in context. However, the limited amount of second language (L2) input reduces the impact that the frequency and range of occurrence of words have on vocabulary learning in the EFL context. Instead, teachers may have the greatest influence on L2 vocabulary learning (Laufer, 2003). This means that carefully planning how vocabulary will be learned within and between courses in institutions may help to optimize learning.
The present study aims to shed light on the amount and the type of words that are learned over four years of instruction by EFL learners. Corpus driven research has demonstrated that the high frequency words have much greater value to language learners than lower frequency words. By examining the type and number of words learned, the effectiveness of a vocabulary learning program may be determined.
How many words might be learned over one year of study in an EFL context?
Native speakers may learn approximately 1,000 word families per year until they are 20 (Goulden, Nation, and Read, 1990). Surprisingly, little is known about vocabulary growth for non-native speakers. However, it would not be realistic to expect L1 and L2 vocabulary growth to be similar due to the difference in the amount of input and the opportunities to use the target language. Many factors are likely to affect the amount of L2 learning such as the amount of input, opportunities to use the L2, amount of time spent learning, amount of time explicitly focused on vocabulary learning, the extent of overlap between L1 and L2 words, the number of L2 cognates/loan words, the experience of teachers and their approach to teaching, and the effectiveness of activities used during learning. Thus, L2 vocabulary growth in one situation may be quite different from another.
Research has shown that considerable learning can occur within a short period of time. For example, Webb (1962) found that participants were able to learn from 33 to 166 word pairs per hour over a four hour period. Cobb and Horst (2001) found that140-180 words were learned in two months through one hour a week of concordance-based learning. However, few studies have investigated L2 vocabulary growth over longer periods of time. Milton (2006) examined the difference in vocabulary size between French foreign language learners at seven grade levels. He found that about 170 words were learned per year when students received between 58.5-78 hours of tuition and approximately 530 words were learned per year when students received 117-175.5 hours of tuition. Clark and Ishida (2005) found that there was no significant difference on VLT (Nation, 1983, 1990; Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham, 2001) scores after one semester of study for English as a second language students. To our knowledge no research has examined the vocabulary growth of the same EFL learners over several years of study. Our first research question seeks to shed light on the number of words that are learned by EFL learners each year over four years of instruction.
Which words should be learned in an English language learning program?
There are tens of thousands of words. Some of these words are learned by all first language learners, while other words are learned by very few. Frequency and the range of use of words are the biggest factors in whether L1 words are likely to be learned. Vocabulary that is used frequently in a wide range of spoken and written texts is essential for communication; a lack of knowledge of these words will limit comprehension and the ability to communicate effectively. For example, words such as want, can, big, hot, place, and inside are among the most frequent English words and will be repeatedly encountered regardless of the type of discourse. High frequency words such as these are learned in the early stages of lexical development and are most likely to be known. In contrast, vocabulary that is infrequent and used in a small range of texts is less likely to be known with learning varying between individuals and dependent on interests or needs. For example, words such as afflatus, cantabile, dongle, fascicle, gravid, iguonodon, and nemegtomaia may be unknown to many native speakers because they are rarely encountered in speech or writing. Iguonodon and nemegtomaia might only be learned by someone who has an interest in dinosaurs or a specific requirement to know these words. For everyone else though these words have very little value.
Corpus driven studies of the vocabulary in spoken and written discourse demonstrate the relative value of words to language learners. The most frequent 1,000 word families reoccur so often in spoken and written text that they have a much greater value for comprehension and use than the second most frequent 1,000 word families, and these words have much greater value than the third most frequent 1,000 word families. Nation (2006) found that the most frequent 1,000 word families in the British National Corpus (BNC) accounted for just over 77.86% of the words in the LOB corpus, the second most frequent 1,000 word families made up 8.23%, and the third most frequent 1,000 word families accounted for 3.70% of the corpus. The most frequent 1,000 word families in the BNC were also found to make up 85.11% of the words in 88 television programs (Webb and Rodgers, 2009a) and 86.52% of the words in 318 movies (Webb and Rodgers, 2009b). Knowledge of the 2nd most frequent 1,000 word families comprised 4.42% of the television programs and 4.15% of the movies, and the third 1,000 word families represented 1.93% and 1.72% of the television programs and movies, respectively.
These studies demonstrate the value of the high frequency words to learners. In contrast words at slightly lower frequency levels are unlikely to make a similar impact on language learning. For example, in Nation’s (2006) study, the seventh most frequent 1,000 word families only represented 0.28-0.36% of the words in the spoken sections of the Wellington Spoken Corpus. Similarly, the seventh most frequent 1,000 word families accounted for 0.32% of the words in the television programs (Webb and Rodgers, 2009a) and 0.26% of the words in the movies (Webb and Rodgers, 2009b).
Research has indicated that many students in an EFL context may not know the high frequency words after several years of study. Barnard (1961) measured first year university students’ knowledge of the most frequent 2,000 word families from the General Service List (West, 1953) in India. She found that the participants knew approximately 1,500 words. Quinn (1968) found that after about 600 hours of prior English language instruction over six years, first year university students in Indonesia knew approximately 900-1,000 words out of the 2,000 GSL items. In a follow-up study that also measured knowledge of the GSL, Nurweni and Read (1999) found that after six years of formal English language instruction, first year university students in Indonesia knew approximately 60% of the most frequent 1,000 word families, and 37% of the second 1,000 word families.
Taken together, the research indicates that vocabulary learning in an EFL context may often be inefficient. Our second and third research questions seek to determine how many high and low frequency words are learned per year over five years at a high school and an affiliated college in Taiwan. The research may shed light on the time it takes to learn the high frequency words, as well as the effectiveness of the EFL learning program on vocabulary development.
Research Questions
How many words are learned by EFL students in Taiwan per year over four years of study?
To what extent are the high frequency words learned by EFL students in Taiwan?
To what extent are lower frequency words learned by EFL students in Taiwan?
Research Methodology
Participants
The participants were 222 EFL learners in Taiwan. All of the participants were of a similar age and studied at the same grade level over the course of the study. At the first data collection period in year 1, the participants were 15-16 years old, so in the final data collection period in year 5, their ages were 20-21 year old. Participation in the study was voluntary and test results were not included in any course assessment. If a participant was unable to take the VLT in any the five data collection periods, they were excluded from the study. This reduced the number of participants from 222 to 166.
The participants were originally from six intact classes in a vocational senior high school and had a minimum of 5 years of formal English language instruction prior to the study. The school year was made up of two 18 week semesters. However, holidays, mid-semester and final examinations reduced the amount of instruction to approximately 15 weeks per semester. There was no explicit focus within the curriculum aimed at developing vocabulary knowledge using lists such as West’s (1953) GSL. The English language classes at the high school were typically aimed at developing all four skills using global ESL course books. However, courses aimed at improving test scores and listening skills were also included in the English program.
The English curriculum varied between the classes; two classes (Group A) were oriented towards English language learning and English literature, while the other four classes (Groups B and C) took English language learning as one of several study requirements. In these four classes the amount of English instruction was considerably less. In the final two years of the study and fourth and fifth years of the data collection period, the participants continued their studies at a university that was affiliated with their high school. The English courses available to students at university tended to be focused on occupational English and included Business English, Writing in Business, English Conversation, and a seminar class in which students had to write reports. The amount of English language instruction at the university again varied between the groups. Table 1 shows the number of hours of English related courses per week for the participants over the course of the study.
Number of Hours of English Study per Week for Each Group
Measurement of Vocabulary Learning
The VLT (Nation, 1983, 1990; Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham, 2001) was designed to determine students’ knowledge of words at several frequency bands and the Academic Word List. The VLT uses a matching format that involves students selecting the correct word for three definitions from six choices. An English-Chinese bilingual version of the 1,000 and 2,000 levels of the VLT created by Paul Nation and Karen Wang was administered to participants over a one week period early in October each year. The 1,000 and 2,000 levels and other bilingual versions of the VLT are available at Paul Nation’s website: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation.aspx. The other three levels were created for this study. The procedure for the creation of these levels was that they were translated from the monolingual version, checked by a teacher fluent in both English and Chinese, and piloted to ensure that all items functioned correctly. The bilingual VLT version was based on Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham’s (2001) 30-item monolingual test but had two major differences. First, all of the meanings and distracters were written in Chinese (Mandarin). The use of L1 meanings rather than L2 definitions is more sensitive to partial knowledge of form and meaning. Nation and Webb (2011) report that scores on bilingual versions of the VLT may be up to 10% higher for lower level learners than on the monolingual versions. Second, this version incorporated a 1,000 word level that was not included in the monolingual tests. The reason why there was not a 1,000 word level in the original VLT was because it is difficult to create definitions and distracters using only words from the 1,000 word level. However, bilingual versions of the test do not have this problem because the definitions and distracters are made up of known L1 items. The following examples are for three 2,000 word level items from the bilingual and monolingual versions of the VLT.
Bilingual Items
Monolingual Items
The following five levels of Nation and Wang’s version of the VLT were administered by one of the researchers to the participants: 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 5,000, and AWL. The same version of the test was used each year. However, the order of the items in each level was changed between years. Several participants reported at the end of the study that they did not remember having previously taken the test which suggests that a learning effect from taking the test in previous years was unlikely. Participants were given sufficient time to complete all five levels of the test.
Results
The mean scores for the VLT are shown in Tables 2 to 4. The results reveal a gradual increase in vocabulary knowledge each year. The greatest increase on the overall VLT scores between years by any group was 12.91 by participants from Group A. This represents an improvement of approximately 430 words because each point scored on the VLT represents knowledge of 33.3 words. The annual increase for Group A ranged from 7.11-12.91. More typically, the increase in total VLT scores ranged from about 6 to 9 points representing an improvement of 200 to 300 words per year. However, the increase for Groups B and C between years 2 and 4 of the study were much smaller ranging from 0.55-3.43 (18-114 words) for Group B and 2.29-2.73 (76-91 words) for Group C. The difference between Group A and the other groups indicates that the amount of formal instruction was a factor in the amount of vocabulary learning. Group A, which received the most English language instruction, had an average increase of 9.0 on their overall scores. In comparison, the average increase was 4.68 and 4.83 for Groups B and C, respectively.
Means on Each Level for Group A Each Year (N = 63)
Means on Each Level for Group B Each Year (N = 44)
Means on Each Level for Group C Each Year (N = 59)
In terms of the individual levels of the VLT, there were small annual increases across levels. At the 1,000 word level, mean scores increased from 21.24 at the start of year 1 to 26.98 at the start of year 5 for Group A. This is an increase of 5.74 (191 words). Group B and Group C had much smaller increases at this level (2.79, 3.73) with mean scores for the groups improving from 19.80-22.59 and 20.20-23.93, respectively. At the 2,000 word level, mean scores consistently increased each year for all groups. Mean scores increased from 13.73-22.78 for Group A, 10.98-16.16 for Group B, and 12.29-16.90 for Group C.
The final row of Tables 2-4 shows the total increase at each level for the three groups. The total increase will be affected by the number of words that can be learned at a level. For example, all of the groups knew more words at the 1,000 level than at the 2,000 level in year 1. This means that there were fewer words that could be learned at the 1,000 level in comparison to the 2,000 level. For all three groups the greatest increase in mean scores was at the 2,000 word level and the academic word level. Interestingly, the increase at the 1,000 level was similar to the increase at the 3,000 and 5,000 levels for all three groups. For Group A the increase at the 1,000 level was 5.74 from year 1 to year 5, 5.46 at the 3,000 level, and 5.93 at the 5,000 level. For Group B the increase at the 1,000 level was 2.79 from year 1 to year 5, 2.80 at the 3,000 level, and 3.47 at the 5,000 level. For Group C the increase at the 1,000 level was 3.73 from year 1 to year 5, 3.04 at the 3,000 level, and 2.79 at the 5,000 level.
Tables 5 to 7 show the number of students who reached a score of 26 or higher at each level. Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham (2001) report that achieving a score of 26 indicates mastery of that level. Table 5 reveals a consistent increase in the number of students in Group A who mastered the 1,000 and 2,000 levels each year. In the final year of the study 46/63 (73%) of Group A participants had mastered the 1,000 level and 21/63 (33%) of participants had mastered the 2,000 level. A far smaller number of participants in the other two groups mastered those levels. Only 15/44 participants in Group B mastered the 1,000 level while 17/59 participants from Group C mastered that level. Three participants from each of Groups B and C (7% and 5%, respectively) achieved scores of 26 or higher at the 2,000 word level by the final year of the study.
Number of Participants in Group A who Scored 26 or Above (n = 63)
Number of Participants in Group B who Scored 26 or Above (n = 44)
Number of Participants in Group C who Scored 26 or Above (n = 59)
Discussion
In answer to the first research question, the results indicate that vocabulary growth may vary considerably between participants and between years of study. Group A had the greatest improvement in overall VLT scores with increases in VLT scores ranging from 7.11-12.91 (237 to 430 words) per year. The increase in average raw scores was much smaller for the other two groups. The overall increase in scores ranged from 0.55-8.48 (18-282 words) for Group B, and 2.29-7.77 (76-259 words) for Group C. The minimum gains of 18 and 76 words over one year for two of the groups indicates that greater emphasis on vocabulary learning was necessary, and also highlights a need for concrete vocabulary learning goals within and between courses.
The maximum gains of 259, 282, and 430 words over one year for each group suggest that a vocabulary learning target of 400 words per year may be achievable for all students with greater focus on vocabulary learning. Although it may be possible to aim higher and have a target of 500 words, it is better to start with a realistic objective that advances learning, and then evaluate whether or not to modify that goal after trialing the program.
In answer to the second research question, the results indicate that few students in the language learning program are likely to have mastered the high frequency words after nine years of study: two years of elementary, three years of junior high school, three years of high school, and one year of university. Overall, 78/166 (47%) participants had achieved a score of 26 or higher on the 1,000 level and 27/166 (16%) reached that score at the 2,000 level in the final year of the study. The potential to learn the high frequency words appeared to be a function of the amount of formal English language instruction in high school and university. The proportion of participants from Group A who mastered the 1,000 and 2,000 levels was 73% and 33%. In contrast, 31% of participants from Groups B and C had scores of 26 or higher at the 1,000 level, and 6% of those participants achieved a score of 26 or higher at the 2,000 level. Taken together, these findings show that whether students learned English for 2-3 hours per week in this language learning program or many more hours each week, vocabulary learning progress was limited. The fact that few participants knew the high frequency words after many years of study indicates that some form of vocabulary learning plan at the institutional level is necessary because a lack of knowledge of the high frequency words is likely to have a negative impact on all aspects of English language learning.
In answer to the third research question, the results showed a steady increase in knowledge of words at the 3,000 and 5,000 word levels for all groups. The size of the increase at these levels was similar within each group. Over four years of study, mean scores at the 3,000 and 5,000 levels for Group A increased by 5.46 (181 words) and 5.93 (197 words), respectively. For Groups B and C the increase at the 3,000 level was 2.80 (93 words) and 3.04 (101 words), respectively, and at the 5,000 level it was 3.47 (116 words) and 2.79 (93 words). The percentage of words learned at these levels in relation to the overall increase in VLT scores was 32% for Group A, 33% for Group B, and 30% for Group C. An increase in knowledge of lower frequency words should be expected because few materials and topics consist entirely of high frequency words. However, the proportion of learning that occurred at the 3,000 and 5,000 levels and the limited knowledge at the 1,000 and 2,000 levels indicates inefficient learning. Greater focus on learning the high frequency words would provide more benefit to students because these words are needed for comprehension and use on a daily basis while the lower frequency words are not.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the VLT results. The VLT scores indicate the extent to which testees know the form and meaning of words rather than the degree to which they can understand or use vocabulary. A learning program should aim to develop more comprehensive knowledge of words so that they can easily be understood and used. Also because the unit of counting words in the VLT is word families, there is an assumption that if the form and meaning of the headword of the word family is known, then the rest of the family members may also be known. For example, if a testee can recognize the correct meaning for the headword access, he may also be able to recognize the form and meanings of the other family members: accessed, accesses, accessibility, accessible, accessing, and inaccessible. This is supported by L1 research (Nagy, Anderson, Schommer, Scott, and Stallman, 1989), but is likely to depend on the degree to which affixes are known; intermediate and advanced learners are more likely to recognize an unknown derivation of a known word than beginners. Because the VLT is a receptive test, scores only indicate whether or not learners can recognize the meanings of L2 forms rather than produce the L2 forms of words. The Productive Levels Test (Laufer and Nation, 1999) is a more appropriate measure of productive vocabulary knowledge.
A further limitation is that the Vocabulary Levels Test does not contain a 4,000 word level so scores at the 5.000 word level may be an underestimate of the learners’ vocabulary knowledge, but clearly not by much. It would be possible to try to calculate what learners’ scores might be on the 4,000 word level, but it is much safer to use actual scores than to try and fill in the gaps. The Vocabulary Size Test (Nation and Beglar, 2007) is an alternative measure which is now available both in monolingual and bilingual versions.
Pedagogical Implications
The results indicate that an institutional program for vocabulary learning may help to optimize learning. The following steps outline key features that should be included in a vocabulary learning program.
1. Determine the vocabulary to be learned during the program
A reliable measure of vocabulary knowledge is needed at the start of each year of the program to determine which words students know and which words need to be learned. Without an initial measure of vocabulary knowledge, the vocabulary learning target might include a large proportion of known words or exclude higher frequency words that are unknown. The VLT (Nation, 1983, 1990; Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham, 2001) is a useful diagnostic test for measuring vocabulary knowledge because it provides a reliable measure of the high frequency words.
Students should be told their test scores and made aware of how their vocabulary knowledge relates to language learning goals such as comprehension of conversation, television, and movies. For example, if students know the most frequent 2000 words, they will know about 90% of the vocabulary encountered in conversation (Nation, 2001). If they know the most frequent 3000 words, they will know about 95% of the words in movies and television (Webb and Rodgers, 2009a, 2009b). Raising awareness of students’ current vocabulary knowledge in relation to language learning goals may help to motivate them to see the value of the vocabulary learning program.
2. Set vocabulary goals for each year and for the full learning period
Institutional targets will depend on the previous knowledge of students and the amount of time available for learning. However, the primary goal should be for students to master the high frequency words (both the 1,000 and 2,000 word levels). Selecting sets of words to be learned according to their frequency of occurrence represents the greatest value to English language development. This means that items from the first 1,000 word list should be learned before items from the second 1,000 word list. Because the highest frequency words are necessary for comprehension and use, knowledge of these items is likely to continue to develop as they are encountered and used in later courses. This may help students to attain some degree of fluency with these words, which is unlikely to occur if target words are less frequent.
Goals for individual courses and years of study should be created to allow for the continued development of vocabulary knowledge. The vocabulary learning goals should represent a manageable learning burden for students and be practical in terms of the time that teachers can devote to the development of vocabulary knowledge. Providing instructors with specific word lists for each course should make learning more efficient because it ensures that all target words are taught and avoids the repeated teaching of the same items between courses.
3. Outline a plan that is practical, can be easily followed by teachers and applied to different courses
Although there is flexibility with how a vocabulary learning program may be designed and implemented, several key components need to be included. Once the vocabulary learning goal is set for a course, a plan needs to be made for the introduction and distribution of target words. This should involve selecting sets of words from the target list to be introduced at predetermined points in the course and providing time for review and measurement of learning. The plan should account for the increased burden of learning sets of words later in the course because as each new set of words is learned, there is the additional task of developing and maintaining knowledge of the previously learned sets of words.
Second, teachers should plan for how knowledge of the target words will be developed throughout the course. Nation’s (2007) proposal of the four strands provides a useful outline that can be used to help facilitate depth of vocabulary knowledge. Nation proposes a learning program that involves a similar level of contact with the L2 in meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development. The four strands represent a useful framework to plan vocabulary learning because each strand may contribute to the development of vocabulary knowledge in a different way. Meaning-focused input shows learners how words are used. Meaning focused output develops productive knowledge by requiring learners to use words. Language-focused instruction can be a shortcut on learning form and meaning as well as other aspects of knowledge, while fluency development involves the strengthening of knowledge and movement towards native-like proficiency with words.
The initial focus may involve explicit focus on developing knowledge of form and meaning because once learners are able to link form to meaning, meaning-focused activities that involve encounters with target words can be used to help develop other aspects of knowledge. Another reason to begin with explicit learning of form and meaning is that knowledge of other aspects of knowledge may be gained if there is overlap between L1 and L2 vocabulary knowledge (Webb, 2007, 2009). Finally, explicit teaching of form and meaning allows students to work outside of the classroom to consolidate their knowledge using word cards, flashcard software, or vocabulary notebooks.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for teachers is to ensure that there are repeated opportunities for students to encounter and use the words. Encounters with target words in context will allow learners to see how the words are used and develop aspects of knowledge such as collocation and grammatical functions. Vocabulary knowledge should gradually increase through repeated encounters with target items. The best way to ensure repeated encounters with high frequency words is to include extensive reading as part of the overall language learning program. Selecting texts and activities that include target vocabulary throughout a course may also lead to superior learning because spaced learning leads to better retention than massed learning (Karpicke and Bauernschmidt, 2011). The RANGE program (Nation and Heatley, 2002) is a useful resource to help teachers select authentic texts for their courses because it can analyse as many as 32 texts at one time and reveal the vocabulary that occurs within and between texts as well as evaluate the suitability of these materials by determining their vocabulary load (Webb and Nation, 2008). When selecting authentic texts for use in the classroom, teachers should aim to use texts that are primarily made up of the high frequency words with very few encounters with low frequency words. This will provide better conditions for comprehension and allow learners to focus their attention on the target vocabulary when it is encountered.
Activities designed around using target words are also necessary because they help learners to develop productive knowledge of the items. Critical to the effectiveness of vocabulary development through productive activities is ensuring that the target vocabulary will be used rather than ignored or replaced with a more frequent synonym. Nation (2008) provides useful guidelines for designing activities that include: using the target vocabulary in the instructions, and requiring the use of these words to be central to completing the activity. In many learning contexts, a lack of opportunities to encounter and use words after learning their form and meaning may limit students’ ability to effectively communicate, as well as reduce prior learning because of a decay in knowledge.
There should also be some focus within a vocabulary learning program on helping learners to more effectively deal with unknown vocabulary on their own. This may be done through training in vocabulary learning strategies. The best strategies are those which will help with current and future word learning. Strategies that fulfil this function are guessing from context, learning word parts, dictionary use, and learning from word cards or flashcards (Nation, 2001, 2008). Enabling students to effectively use strategies will help to build learner autonomy.
Finally, the plan should include measures of vocabulary learning progress. Measuring progress can have three functions. First, it demonstrates to learners the value that is being placed on vocabulary in a course; learners may prioritize studying material that will be tested so a lack of testing may indicate that there is little need to make much effort in vocabulary learning. Second, it raises awareness of learning progress to all those involved. This can help teachers to evaluate the effectiveness of their learning plan, as well as increase student motivation. Vocabulary is one area of language learning where students can easily see progress being made. Helping learners to recognize their progress may have a positive impact on future learning. Third, tests and quizzes can also be used as a teaching tool by placing emphasis on learning different aspects of knowledge. Because explicit learning has traditionally focused on the development of form and meaning, learners may look at vocabulary learning as simply developing that single aspect. Measuring knowledge of other aspects of knowledge such as word parts and collocation may help them to see that a focus on form and meaning, while important, is only part of the process of lexical development.
4. Raise awareness of key aspects of the plan to teachers and students
For a plan to be effective within an institution, it is important that all of those involved can see its benefits. If some teachers carefully follow the plan while others do not, learning goals are unlikely to be achieved and future learning may be impaired by failures to meet expectations. All of those involved need to be aware of the following key principles of a vocabulary learning plan:
the relative value of the target words to the learners
the need to develop receptive and productive knowledge of multiple aspects of knowledge
the need to repeatedly encounter target words in reading and listening
the need for repeated opportunities to use the words in spoken and written discourse
strategy training
the significance of measuring progress
the value of the vocabulary learning program in relation to language learning goals
5. Evaluate the effectiveness of the plan each year
Evaluation of the effectiveness of vocabulary learning is important within and between courses. Nation (2008: 161) provides a useful list of principles to evaluate the vocabulary learning component of courses that can be adapted to assess institutional learning. The following questions draw on Nation’s (2008) principles:
Are the target vocabulary learning goals within and between courses achieved?
Does the development of vocabulary knowledge extend beyond the learning of form and meaning and allow learners to use target vocabulary effectively? If not, are there sufficient opportunities for students to encounter and use the target vocabulary within courses?
Are teachers and students happy with the vocabulary learning program? If not, do they understand its key components?
Conclusion
The results of the present study revealed that vocabulary learning within institutions where English is a foreign language may be inefficient. Despite many years of study, a large proportion of the words that have the highest value to language learners may remain unknown. Developing an institutional vocabulary learning plan within and between courses may have a positive impact on the development of vocabulary knowledge, and in turn, language learning.