Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Bridging the gap between university and upper secondary school English studies: The ULE project Cover

Bridging the gap between university and upper secondary school English studies: The ULE project

By: Terry Walker and  Rachel Allan  
Open Access
|Apr 2018

References

  1. Adolphs, Svenja and Norbert Schmitt. 2003. Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. Applied Linguistics 24 (4): 425–438. doi:10.1093/applin/24.4.42510.1093/applin/24.4.425
  2. Allan, Rachel. 2010. Concordances versus dictionaries: Evaluating approaches to word learning in ESOL. In R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, M. Mar Torreblanca-López and M. Dolores López-Jiménez (eds.). Further insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning, 112–125. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847692900-009
  3. Berggren, Jessica. 2015. Learning from giving feedback: A study of secondarylevel students. ELT Journal 69 (1): 58–70. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu03610.1093/elt/ccu036
  4. Brown, Dale. 2010. What aspects of vocabulary knowledge do textbooks give attention to? Language Teaching Research 15 (1): 83–97. doi:10.1177/136216881038334510.1177/1362168810383345
  5. Cobb, Tom. 1997. Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System 25 (3): 301–15.10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00024-9
  6. Cobb, Tom. Compleat Lexical Tutor [website]. Accessed 1 May 2017 at http://www.lextutor.ca
  7. Cobb, Tom. Compleat Web VP! [computer program]. Accessed 1 May 2017 at http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp
  8. Cobb, Tom. Text Lex Compare v.3 [computer program]. Accessed 1 May 2017 at http://www.lextutor.ca/cgi-bin/tl_compare
  9. Corder, Stephen Pit. 1967. The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL–International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 5 (4), 161–170.10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161
  10. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Dubiner, Deborah. 2017. Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching. ELT Journal 71: 456–466. doi:10.1093/elt/ccx00810.1093/elt/ccx008
  12. Engber, Cheryl. 1995. The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 4: 139–155.10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7
  13. English Profile. 2012. English Vocabulary Profile [website]. Accessed 1 May 2017 at http://vocabulary.englishprofile.org/staticfiles/about.html
  14. Johansson, Christine and Christer Geisler. 2009. The Uppsala Learner English Corpus: A new corpus of Swedish high school students’ writing. In A. Saxena and Å. Viberg (eds.). Multilingualism: Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics: Uppsala University, 1–3 October 2008, 181–190. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
  15. Johansson, Christine and Christer Geisler. 2011. Syntactic aspects of the writing of Swedish L2 learners of English. In J. Newman, H. Baayen and S. Rice (eds.). Corpus-based studies in language use, language learning, and language documentation, 139–155. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401206884_009
  16. Köhlmyr, Pia. 2003. To err is human... An investigation of grammatical errors in Swedish 16-year-old learners’ written production in English. Göteborg: Göteborg University.
  17. Laufer, Batia. 1990. Words you know: How they affect the words you learn. In J. Fisiak (ed.). Further insights into contrastive analysis, 573–593. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/llsee.30.35lau
  18. Laufer, Batia. 1997. What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy, 140–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Laufer, Batia. 2005. Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In EUROSLA Yearbook 5: 223–250. doi: 10.1075/eurosla.5.11lau10.1075/eurosla.5.11
  20. Laufer, Batia and Geke C. Ravenhorst-Kalovski. 2010. Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 22 (1): 15–30.
  21. Lundstrom, Kristi and Wendy Baker. 2009. To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (1): 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.00210.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
  22. Melka, Francine. 1997. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy, 84–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524759
  24. Nation, I. S. P. 2006. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review 63 (1): 59–82.10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
  25. Olsen, S. 1999. Errors and compensatory strategies: A study of grammar and vocabulary in texts written by Norwegian learners of English. System 27 (2): 191–205. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00016-010.1016/S0346-251X(99)00016-0
  26. Read, John. 2000. Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732942
  27. Rouhi, Afsar and Elnaz Azizian. 2013. Peer review: Is giving corrective feedback better than receiving it in L2 Writing? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 93: 1349–1354. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.04210.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.042
  28. Schmitt, Norbert. 2000. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Schmitt, Norbert. 2008. Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research 12: 329–363. doi:10.1177/136216880808992110.1177/1362168808089921
  30. Schmitt, Norbert. 2014. Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning 64 (4): 913–951. doi:10.1111/lang.1207710.1111/lang.12077
  31. Schmitt, Norbert and Diane Schmitt. 1995. Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions. ELT Journal 49 (2): 133–143.10.1093/elt/49.2.133
  32. Schmitt, Norbert and Diane Schmitt. 2014. A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary. Language Teaching 47 (4): 484–503. doi:10.1017/S026144481200001810.1017/S0261444812000018
  33. Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10 (1–4): 209–232. doi:10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.20910.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
  34. Stæhr, Lars Stenius. 2008. Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal 36 (2): 139–152. doi:10.1080/0957173080238997510.1080/09571730802389975
  35. Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket). 2011a. Curriculum for the English subject at upper secondary school. https://www.skolverket.se/polopoly_fs/1.209313!/English%20120912.pdf
  36. Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket). 2011b. Om ämnet Engelska. https://www.skolverket.se/laroplaner-amnen-och-kurser/gymnasieutbildning/gymnasieskola/sok-amnen-kurser-och-program/subject.htm?subjectCode=ENG
  37. Webb, Stuart and Michael P. H. Rodgers. 2009. Vocabulary demands of television programs. Language Learning 59 (2): 335–366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00509.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00509.x
  38. Wilcox, Kristen Campbell, Robert Yagelski and Fang Yu. 2014. The nature of error in adolescent student writing. Reading and Writing 27 (6): 1073–1094. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9492-x10.1007/s11145-013-9492-x
  39. Yu, Guoxing. 2010. Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics 31 (2): 236–259.10.1093/applin/amp024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0009 | Journal eISSN: 1502-5462 | Journal ISSN: 0801-5775
Language: English
Page range: 191 - 212
Published on: Apr 11, 2018
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2018 Terry Walker, Rachel Allan, published by The International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.