Towards effective Vocabulary Acquisition and by First Year Students of the Department of French Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana.

D.K. Ayi-Adzimah (Ph.D)Department of French Education

University of EducationWinneba, Ghana

ayiadzimmah@gmail.comAbstract

Vocabulary serves as a useful and fundamental tool for communication and acquiring knowledge and therefore plays an important role in literacy acquisition. However, acquiring an extensive vocabulary is one of the greatest challenges in learning second and foreign languages. Incidentally, vocabulary acquisition is one of the greatest challenges of first year university students learning French as a foreign language in the Department of French Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana. Majority of the students in question lack both normal and academic vocabulary that they can use in effective oral and written communication in French. It is therefore the aim of this paper, more or less longitudinal, to investigate the state of inadequate vocabulary of the learners and also trace their vocabulary growth. Two simple essays topics for written production, one at the beginning of the semester and the other at its end; will be given to students for data collection. Data collected from the first test will be analysed and appropriate strategies for vocabulary development put into practice as intervention throughout the semester before the second test is given to the students at the end of the semester for further analysis to ascertain the impact of the strategies on the students.

Key Words: Vocabulary acquisition, academic vocabulary, normal vocabulary, vocabularydevelopment, French as a foreign language

1.0 Introduction

1

In learning any language, vocabulary is the center focal point of acquisition. A vocabulary is a set of familiar words within a person's language. It is usually developed with age, serves as a useful and fundamental tool for communication and acquiring knowledge. Acquiring an extensive vocabulary is one of the largest challenges in learning a second language (Asgari et al., 2011). It can be explained as the words a person must understand to communicate effectively. According to the website: www.readingrockets.org/teaching/reading-basics/vocabulary, educators often consider four types of vocabulary which are: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Listening vocabulary refers to the words we need to know to understand what we hear. Speaking vocabulary consists of the words we use when we speak. Reading vocabulary refers to the words we need to know to understand what we read. Writing vocabulary consists of the words we use in writing.

Word knowledge or vocabulary is very important in the reading process and is a critical factor in reading comprehension because a reader cannot understand a text without knowing what most of the words mean (Stoffelsma, 2014:48). She added that “word knowledge is one of the skills students need to be able to read and understand academic texts”. They normally learn the meanings of most words indirectly, that is, through everyday experiences with oral and written language while others are learned through carefully designed instruction. In addition, lack of vocabulary knowledge can also affect the development of other language skills; leading to problems : incorrect use of words, lack of awareness of more appropriate words in graduate academic research reports in South Africa (Dowse & Howie, 2013). Vocabulary serves as a useful and fundamental tool for communication and acquiring knowledge and therefore plays an important role in literacy acquisition (Asgari et al, 2011). In view of the foregoing, it is crystal clear that without adequate vocabulary students cannot effectively and successfully undertake their studies in various fields of endeavor, since they need vocabulary in all areas of literacy. However, acquiring an extensive vocabulary is one of the greatest challenges in learning second and foreign languages. Incidentally, vocabulary acquisition is one of the greatest challenges of first year university students learning French as a foreign language in the Department of French Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana.

1.1 Background of the study

Since 1999, the Department of French Education, University of Education, Winneba in Ghana admits highly heterogeneous groups of students and trains them to become graduate teachers of French in the Junior and Senior High Schools after four years training and instruction. The various groups of students included among others holders of General Certificate Examination ‘Ordinary’ and ‘Advanced’ Level Holders, the francophone Baccalaureat and Brevet, 3-Year Post Secondary Certificate and 3-Year Diploma from, the Colleges of Education, Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination and West African Senior Secondary Certificate Examination; all mixed up in the same classroom.

Of all these groups, it has been observed through daily classroom interactions that students belonging to the last two groups encounter more difficulties in pursuing the course than the rest,

2

obviously because of their lack of vocabulary to express themselves well in oral and written productions. This precarious situation can be attributed to the fact that many students of these two groups started learning the French language in the Senior High Schools and consequently did so in three academic years, plagued by relatively limited periods allocated for the teaching and learning of the French language. Consequently and as argued by McCarthy (1992: 50) “without words to express a wider range of meanings, communication in L2/FL just cannot happen in any meaningful way".

1.2 Statement of Problem

We have observed in the past five years, the intake of these two groups has seen a phenomenal increase in numbers making them more than half of total annual intake. Indeed, Asgari et al (2011: 85) asserted that vocabulary has been gradually recognized as crucial to language learning and use in which insufficient vocabulary knowledge of the learners led to difficulties in L2/FL learning.

Research in L1/L2 learning shows a strong relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading proficiency (Grabe, 2004; Read, 2004) Academic vocabulary is important for students’ academic performance (Nagy & Townsend, 2012) and one of the most important challenges L2/FL learners face is vocabulary learning. Vocabulary has been recognized as crucial to language use in which insufficient vocabulary knowledge of learners led to difficulties in L2/LF learning (Asgari et al, 2011:84)

Incidentally, a large proportion of first year students of UEW find it very difficult to construct simple sentences correctly in French and this phenomenon sometimes persists up to the fourth year of their studies. It is therefore not surprising that a very large proportion of the students face many learning difficulties thus making their studies an uphill task. Among their areas of difficulty, lack of vocabulary features very prominently. Consequently, majority of the students in question lack both, normal or Tier One words which are of everyday use (Common Core State Standards, 2010) and academic vocabulary (DataWorks, 2014), that they can use in effective oral and written communication in French. As such, many first year students of the Department find it very difficult to construct simple sentences correctly and this phenomenon persists up to the third and fourth years of their studies. These are the facts that motivate us to undertake this study to find ways of helping learners to consciously develop their vocabulary so as to facilitate their study of the French, which is a foreign language in Ghana

1.3 Objectives

The aim of this paper is to investigate the state of inadequate vocabulary of the learners so as to know their actual level in view of prescribing and putting into practice certain strategies to help them overcome their challenge. Our main objectives are:

i. To assess the level of vocabulary stock and use in written productions of First Year students of French in the Department of French Education at University of Education, Winneba

3

ii. To find and suggest ways in which the students can be helped to develop their vocabulary for an effective learning of the French language.

1.4 Research Questions

i. What is the level of vocabulary stock and its’ use in written production of First Year students of French at the Department of French Education at the University of Education, Winneba commit in vocabulary usage in written production?

ii. In what way can the students be helped to develop their vocabulary of the French language for effective communication and successful learning of the language?

2.1 Theoretical Foundations

Craik and Lockhart (1972), proposed the theory of Levels of word processing, which was enhanced and exposed in Groot (2000), is apt to constitute the solid basis for a work on vocabulary acquisition in a foreign language. It took into consideration certain differences between the various theories on how words are learned, stored in, and retrieved from the internal lexicon (cf. Aitchison, 1995), It also recognizes the general agreement that in a natural (L1) word acquisition process several stages, which can however not be always be clearly distinguished, may be identified; due to the fact that learning a word is an incremental process that gradually develops with repeated exposure and because there is constant interaction between the various stages.

Thus, to solidly embed a word in the mental lexicon for efficient and productive use, the three stages described below should receive adequate implementation, because the neglect of any one of them will result in an improper fixation of the word in the mental lexicon, and thus inhibit efficient lexical retrieval. As such, the learner will not or barely recognise the word in a reading or listening text and will certainly be unable to use it in speaking or writing.

Incidentally, the following three stages of vocabulary acquisition were retained and described: i. Notice of the various properties of the new word: morphological and phonological, syntactic, semantic, stylistic, collocational, and so forth.

ii. Storage in the internal lexicon in networks of relationships that correspond to the properties described in (i).

iii.Consolidation of the storage described in (ii) by means of further exposure to the word in a variety of contexts which illustrate its various properties. This results in a firmer embedding in the memory needed for long term retention.

According to Groot (2000:60), the ideas about the importance of an intensive processing of a new word were first presented in a systematic fashion in Craik and Lockhart's (1972) “levels of processing” theory. They proposed that “rates of forgetting are a function of the type and depth of encoding" information and distinguished between various levels of processing. To them,

4

“processing semantic properties of a word represented a deeper level than just processing its phonological features”.

Groot (2000) acknowledges that certain aspects of this theory have been criticised (especially its inability to clearly define the differences between levels in operational terms) but it has since led to a general consensus among researchers that there is a stringent relationship between retention and intensity or elaborateness (Anderson, 1990) of processing lexical information about a new word (i.e., paying close attention to its various features such as spelling, pronunciation, semantic and syntactic attributes, relationships with other words, etc.).

Adequate implementation of the stages described above will result in a solid embedding of the word in the mental lexicon, which is necessary for efficient receptive and productive use. If one of the stages is neglected, the word will not properly fix itself in the internal lexicon and will be stored only superficially without the many associations and links with other words needed for efficient lexical retrieval. Important elements in this intensive processing are the variability (Anderson,1990) and specificity (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) of the encoding activity. Indeed, this theoretical position appears to have several important pedagogic implications for the teaching/learning of new words

2.2 Review of Literature

2.2.1 Classifications of vocabularyDifferentiating between the types of vocabulary can help teachers decide how much effort to put

5

into teaching particular vocabulary words, as well as which strategies will be most effective when teaching the words – DataWORKS (2014). We therefore present below some classifications of vocabulary and their implications.

Source: DataWORKS: (2014)

The diagram above shows the three types of vocabulary identified by DataWORKS with clear examples:

- Academic vocabulary are words not relating to any specific content area and students can be exposed to them during lessons on all manner of subjects, be they science or arts. Though they are not explicitly taught during lessons, they regularly appear in texts and tests. They can appear at any point of a lesson and also as what are called skill words in learning objectives of lessons. Some examples of academic vocabulary cited are consist, constitute, distribute, establish, indicate, occur, significant, recognize, respond. Due to the manner in which they occur or are introduced to learners, it is most appropriate to teach academic vocabulary words as they arise, in the context of lessons.

- Contrary to academic vocabulary, content vocabulary is subject area specific and is rare to occur outside the content of a particular subject area. Content vocabulary is seen to be more often nouns and is present as concept words present in a learning objectives. These words are extensively treated during concept development phases of lessons. Due to the fact that content words and terms serve as the foundation of a lesson, they are taught through the use of definitions, examples and questions that help to check understanding . Affixes, dialogue exponents, circumference, cellular respiration, photosynthesis, legislature are examples of content vocabulary.

6

- DataWORKS (2014) identified support vocabulary as the third type of vocabulary as consisting of all other words L2/FL learners need to know in order to understand particular sentences or phrases in a sentence. They are typically found in reading passages or texts and are unrelated grade-level concepts and skills. So little time is spent on teaching these words because they are often not critical for the success of lessons, for example, starboard, attic, marbled, invested, stocks, calorimeter, galleon, hostler.

The same dataWORKS table contain another classification of vocabulary in use in 36 states of the United States of America since 2010: Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This classification of vocabulary known as Common Core Types of Vocabulary is also tripartite and named as tiers as briefly exposed below:

- Tier One: it consists of words used in everyday speech or normal vocabulary, which according to CCSS will not present a challenge to native English speakers, in terms of our work native French speakers, though attention to Tier One words may be necessary for English Learners or French learners. It is also noted that, regardless of the student population, Tier One words are not meant to be the focus of instruction, as they are often acquired though regular speech. However, we are of the view that this assertion cannot apply to our subjects who are learning French as a foreign language and have to learn Tier one words too.

- Tier Two: this are words referred by CCSS as words are referred to in the standards as “general academic words.” It is evident that Tier Two words are parallel to DataWORKS category of Academic Vocabulary. Due to their importance in comprehending complex texts and wide applicability to all content areas, the CCSS notes that teaching Tier Two words is critical throughout all grades and subjects.

- Tier Three words, similar to Content Vocabulary, are domain-specific words – that is, their use is closely tied to a single area of study. These words are necessary for understanding new concepts taught during lessons, and, accordingly, appropriate attention should be paid to Tier Three words.

2.2.2 Vocabulary DevelopmentAccording to Roush (2015), Vocabulary development is the exposure and acquisition of new and unfamiliar words, and also their application in language. To Zahra (2014), Vocabulary development is integral to literacy, quite simply. Linguist Paul Nation emphasizes the importance of developing vocabulary depth by allowing students to master all aspects of a word (multiple meanings, associated grammar, common phrases formed with the word, derivative forms and special topic-specific uses).

Roush (2015), identified two main types of vocabulary in language: receptive and expressive vocabulary. Receptive vocabulary is explained as all of the words that a person hears and understands when they are spoken or used in writing. On the other hand, expressive vocabulary includes words that that a person knows how to use in conversation or when writing. We are of the opinion that what is targeted by this paper is expressive vocabulary since our subjects were asked to write a composition on a simple topic as a data collection tool. In this case they were called upon to use words they know how to use in writing the composition.

7

Roush pointed out that the journey between hearing a word for the first time, understanding why and how it is being used, and then being able to use it accurately in one’s own writing or speaking is what is commonly referred to as vocabulary development. So in a classroom situation, vocabulary development would rightly begin with identifying unfamiliar words from a book or passage that students read. Students would then discover its meaning, using context clues or formal definitions, and then try to use those same words in their own writing or speaking. Stoffelsma (2014) remarked that L2/FL vocabulary can be acquired incidentally, through extensive, reading, for example, though Read (2004) argued that intentional instruction of vocabulary within the language curriculum can also be important. In supporting this view, Grabe (2009) states that although explicit vocabulary instruction might not yield large development of the area, it offers possibilities to teach key words for comprehension or words that are not likely to be learned in contextual word learning. In addition, literature sufficiently supports direct instruction of vocabulary.

It is interesting to note the assertion by Read (2004) that not all words are equally important, therefore the main priority in teaching vocabulary is to decide on which words to study. Consequently, it is more profitable for L2/FL learners to focus on high frequency words of the target language (Nation, 2001; Read, 2004). Such words normally account for about 80 % of running words in any written or spoken text in the target language. It is in this perspective that academic word lists serve as useful tools in teaching academic vocabulary.

3.0 MethodologyAs already indicated in the introduction and background sections, the target population of this study is made up of about 200 first-year French students who are taking a three- hour credit course in Essay Writing, Comprehension and Summary. This target population is divided into five groups or classes (A, B C, D, & E) of about forty students each. 40 students were selected by simple random sampling to represent the target population, that is, 8 students out of each group.

The instrument used for data collection is a written production test on a topic framed in the form of a question, thus: Que pensz-vous de la vie estudintine à University of Education, Winneba? To wit, What do you think about student life at University of Education, Winneba? The test was given as a home work to be done overnight at home and was collected on the following so as not to restrict learners and prevent them from looking for appropriate vocabulary for the exercise.

There is a lot to say about data collection and analysis which was laborious and a bit complicated. First and foremost, there was the need for a standard word list to which data collected could be confronted to ascertain the level of vocabulary acquired and used by the students. We have settled on the word list of “Le Français Fondamental for West Africa, published in 1993 by the West African Examinations Council. This is a revised version of the word list of “ Le Français Fondamental” published by the French Ministry of Education in the 60s consisting of a list of grammatical and lexical items considered as fundamental or basic for the study of the French language. However, in the early 70s it became clear to many of French

8

language specialists in the sub-region that the vocabulary items in this word list was not prepared with the African learner in mind, because some important words required to describe some African realities are not found in this original version; hence, the adaptation and publication of the West African version of “Le Français Fondamental” to cater for the needs of the African learner.

The “Le Français Fondamental for West Africa” contains a word list of 2,536 words from 1,740word families. These words serve as a yardstick of vocabulary acquired and used by holders of West African Senior Secondary School Certificate Examinations (WASSSCE) and for that matter the level of these students as they enter the universities. This document corresponds to level B1on the European Common Framework of Reference for Languages current used to rate language proficiency in Europe. From the total number of 2,536 words in “Le Français Fondamental for West Africa” we carefully selected 771 words (representing 30.4 %¨of the total number, that is, 2,536) that we believe can be used in the written production by students because they are candidates of the semantic fields of possible sub-themes of the essay topic given to students.

4.0 Data analysis

4.1 Group use of vocabularyTo begin with, it is interesting to note that despite the very low number of words as the yardstick for assessing the level of vocabulary used by the students less than half of the 771 selected words only 303 (39.3 % of the selected words and a meagre 11. 9 % of total lexical items in “Le Français Fondamental for West Africa”) were used by the students in the written production exercise. This underscores the fact that the vocabulary stock of the students is extremely limited.

It is worthy to note that of the 303 words that occurred in students’ written production, the most occurring ones are simple everyday words (Normal vocabulary or Tier 1 words, see pages 6 & 7), made of pronouns: qui (who) - 53, nous (we) – 35, Je (I) – 22; determiners: un (a/one) - 31, une (a/one) – 32, conjunctions: mais (but) – 10, car (because/as/for/since) - 10 ; prepositions: sur (on) - 23, dans (in) – 55, avec (with) – 9 and some common adverbs: … pas (not) – 33, aussi (also) – 27, ici (here) – 21, comment (how) – 14, beaucoup (a lot/very much) – 14. It is clear that except for the adverbs above, all the highest occurring words in the data are grammatical morphemes which are normally everyday words that help to connect lexical morphemes together to form sentences. Let us pause here to look the chart below:

Source: Students’ written production - Chart1: Occurrence of grammatical items

9

The chart above shows that qui, the commonest relative pronoun that plays the role of subordinating conjunction linking subordinate clauses to main ones has occurred 53 times in the data while the only lexical item here, question, occurred only 4 times.

raison

recherch

er

recréation

reçu

religion

remerci

remercier

rendre

rentrer

responsa

ble

ressembler

rien

route rue0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1

11

12

1 1 1

11

1 1 1

3

1 1

Words Used Under The Letter R

Chart 2: Occurrence of lexical items

On the other hand, chart 2 shows that the lexical items, which are more likely to contain academic vocabulary, the rate of occurrence is low. Here, the most occurring words rechercher (to research) and render (to submit/to render) have 11 occurrences while all the rest have an average occurrence of 1.

10

quand que quel question qui quoi0

10

20

30

40

50

60

41

5 4

53

3

Words Used Under The Letter Q

eau éco

le

égalementéglis

eéglis

e

électrici

téélève

enfantenfin

ennuyeux

enseignent

ensemble

ensuite

entre

environnement

essaye

r0

5

10

15

20

25

30

24

9

1 1 1 2 31

31

6

2 3 42 1

Words Used Under The Letter E

Chart 3: Occurrence of lexical items

In the case of chart 3, eau (water), a lexical item occurred 24 times in the data followed by école (school) and enseignent (teach) occurred 9 and six times respectively. We have observed that these three lexical items are very common words in the environment and domain of the students.

4.2 Individual use of vocabulary

The students were not limited in the total number of words to use for the written composition and they have varying lengths of the work. Interestingly, the composition with the largest number of words has 99 words in all. Out of this, 22 words occurred once while 77 out of the lot occurred more than two times. This makes 32.7 % of the total 303 words the students use in their work which is 12.8 % of the words we selected can possibly feature in the written composition. Incidentally, the shortest production has only 20 words of which 15 occurred only once and 5 occurred more than once. This student therefore used 6.6 % and 2.6 % respectively of the 303 words used by all the students and 771 words we think could be used for the composition. It is amply clear from the foregoing that limited vocabulary stock is the bane of our students and that is the main reason why they are unable express themselves freely in both oral and written productions.

4.3 Erroneous use of vocabularyWe have observed a very disturbing phenomenon which ran through the written productions of the students we want to put on record that a very high proportion words used in the compositions were erroneous. And we have identified four types error of vocabulary use: Wrong Word forms, Confused Words, Anglicisme and Non Standard Vocabulary. We present a few of them below:

Wrong Word Forms*d’abbord …………. d’abord (first of all)*east ………….. est (is)

11

*utilisé(2x) ………….. utiliser (to use)* étudiantin(e2x)..……….. vie estudiantine (student life) *difficle …………….. difficile (difficult) *university(3x) …………….University of Education*Prix ………………prix (price)/ (lorry fare)*establissement ………….. établissement( establishment) *réglieuse …………… religieuse (religious) par rapport*a …………… à (to) vie*réligieuse …………… vie religieuse (religious life) *assistant(2x) …………… assistent pl.(participate)

Confused Words*cultivent des cultures ……. *cultivate farming*baignade ………*swimming/ bathing*Au connaitre ……….au contraire (contrary to)*son …… on (one(self)*est ………. et (and)*d’enseignant interéssant …. of interesting teacher *vie de l’économique …. vie économique (economique life)*vie d’emetionelle …… vie émotionnelle (emotional life)

Anglicisme*En addition (non existent) …… in addition*Dans Winneba/à Winneba …… in Winneba*villes autour/villes voisines ..… nearby towns* A conclure/pour conclure ……. to conclude*activities/ …….. activités

Non Standard vocabulary*les terres de Winnebna …...… the lands of Winneba* Si il /s’il ……. if he/it*prix /frais (de transport) ……. transport fare *et louer/à louer ……… to rent*En plus+ (que) ……… in addition

In fact, the above erroneous use of vocabulary do not include the overwhelming numbers of grammatical and concordance errors that we do not intend treating as vocabulary errors. 4.4 FindingsObviously, the vocabulary stock of First Year students learning French as a foreign language in the Department of French Education, University of Education is very limited. Such a situation does augur well for the learning of the target language; the students are not able to communicate effectively both in oral and written expressions, this give credence to the assertion by McCarthy (1992: 50) “without words to express a wider range of meanings, communication in L2/FL just cannot happen in any meaningful way". The analysis of our data amply demonstrated that the students lack both normal and academic vocabulary to express themselves meaningfully. None

12

of the students provided an essay with a length of 100 words and one of them produced a composition of 25 words, That is, 2.6 % of the words771 words that can possibly feature in the composition exercise.

It has also been noted an overwhelming proportion of the words that were used by the students out are simple everyday words, especially grammatical words (morphemes) that are responsible for organising sentences. These words fall within the domain of normal vocabulary. Majority of the lexical items used also fall in the domain of normal vocabulary. Clearly, they lack academic vocabulary, that is, domain specific technical words that can help them express themselves effectively with appropriate words.

Unfortunately, a large proportion of the words in the written productions of the students were erroneously used. It means that even the limited vocabulary the students know was not put to correct use, because we found a lot of errors of vocabulary usage like Wrong Word forms, Confused Words and Non Standard Vocabulary in addition to anglicisme and a host of concordance and other grammatical errors.

5.1 RecommendationIn view of the fact that students of the department are being trained to teach the French language in the Junior and Senior High Schools in Ghana, it is imperative to take the issue of vocabulary acquisition by our students very seriously, if not they cannot become effective in the task for which they are being trained. Vocabulary instruction should be consciously designed and integrated into the curriculum for adequate attention to be given vocabulary development by the students to solve the acute inadequate vocabulary of the students.

5.2 ConclusionPresently, there is no form of vocabulary instruction integrated into the curriculum of the Department of French Education at the University of Education, Winneba, while attention is given to Essay Writing, Comprehension and Summary and Textual Analysis both featuring in two different semesters each. Paradoxically, the students need functional vocabulary, which they obviously don’t have, to successfully go through the aforementioned courses. In view of the fact that lack of vocabulary knowledge can also affect the development of other language skills; leading to problems: incorrect use of words, lack of awareness of more appropriate words academic research reports (….) (Dowse & Howie, 2013); lack of vocabulary among our students can affect their general performance negatively. It therefore goes without saying that efforts are geared towards addressing this pertinent issue of vocabulary acquisition by the students to forestall their failure to attain their goal of becoming effective graduate teachers.

Refences

Asgari, A., Perdana, S., Perdana, T.S., Kambagan, S. (2011). The Type of Vocabulary used byESL Students in Putra Malaysia. In English Language Learning, Vol 4. No. 2, pp. 84 – 90

Cory Roush 2015

13

www.coryroush.com/s/Cory-Roush-2015N.pdf

Dowse, C .& Howie, S. (2013). Promoting Academic Research with South African mastersstudents in the field of Education. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds), Educational DesignResearch- Part B: Illustrative Cases (pp.851 – 879) Enschede: SLO

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: moving from theory to practice. New York:Cambridge University Press.

By   DataWORKS Curriculum (2014) Classroom Strategyhttps://dataworks-ed.com/blog/2014/07/vocabulary-development-part-1-types-of-vocabulary/ (16/01/2019: 10.00 am.)

Nagy, W, Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91 – 108

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press

Read, J. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 146 - 161

Stoffelsma L. (2014). Improving the academic English reading proficiency of first-year studentsin Ghana: an educational design research approach. S-Hertogenbosch: Uitgeverij BOXPress.

14