Learning Vocabulary in Activities

STUART WEBB
LALS, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

This chapter examines vocabulary learning activities and aims to shed light on
what teachers need to consider when designing, selecting, and modifying
activities. It looks at questions like: Which words should be learned in
activities? To what degree are words likely to be learned in activities? Does
the activity make efficient use of learning time? Which features of activities
contribute to learning? How effective is an activity likely to be? A list of
criteria for examining activities is described and two activities are evaluated
and then modified to increase their potential for vocabulary learning.

There are many different vocabulary learning activities. Many focus attention on linking form
and meaning, some aim at learning the forms of words, and others focus attention on how
words are used. The range of activities allows teachers the choice of using a variety of
techniques to teach vocabulary. Teachers need to evaluate activities and select the ones that
are appropriate for their learning context. They should select activities according to the
following criteria:
1. The vocabulary to be learned.
2. The aspect or aspects of vocabulary knowledge that may be learned.
3. Task time.
4. The relative effectiveness of the activity.

The following sections will look at each of these factors. The discussion is oriented towards
using activities with adult learners. However, many of the points are also relevant with
younger learners.

WHICH WORDS ARE LIKELY TO BE LEARNED THOUGH COMPLETING THE

ACTIVITY AND WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THESE WORDS TO THE
LEARNERS?

The most important feature of a vocabulary learning activity is the vocabulary learning goal.
One way to evaluate the vocabulary learning goal would be to count how many words are
likely to be learned through completing the activity. This is significant because we want our
students to learn as many words as possible. However, the number of words learned can be a
Learning Vocabulary in Activities

function of how long the activity takes, as well as the degree to which the words are learned.
What is more important than how many words are learned is which words are learned. There
is little meaning in completing an activity if the target words have little value to the learners.
Different words have different values to learners. For example, the words believe, complete,
and near are of greater value to learners than clarify, eliminate, and intermediate, and all of
those words are of greater value than attain, emigrate, and potent. In the previous sentence,
the first three words were high frequency words, the second set of three words were academic
words, and the final set of three words were lower frequency words. Word frequency and the
needs of the learners are the best indicators of the relative value of words.
There are approximately 2000 high frequency word families. The high frequency words will
be encountered and used most often in language so these words have the greatest value to
learners and should be taught. Language learners in an English as a second language context
will encounter high frequency words in spoken and written discourse, inside and outside of
the classroom, in dialogue with native speakers, in television programs and movies, and on
the radio every day. Lower frequency words will be encountered or needed for speaking and
writing less often. For example, the most frequent 1000 word families make up 75.5% of the
words in newspapers and 84.3% of the words in conversation (Nation, 2001), 85.11% of the
words in television programs (Webb & Rodgers, 2009a), and 86.52% of the words in movies
(Webb & Rodgers, 2009b). In contrast, the most frequent 6001st to7000th most frequent
words families account for 0.28% of the words in conversation (Nation, 2006), 0.32% of the
words in television programs (Webb & Rodgers, 2009a), and 0.25% of the words in movies
(Webb & Rodgers, 2009b). These figures reveal that the high frequency words will be
encountered and used in language often; knowing these words is central to comprehension of
spoken and written discourse and is necessary to effectively communicate in speech and
writing. In contrast, the lower frequency words will not be encountered or needed nearly as
often so their value is much lower to learners. While lower frequency words still have value,
with limited time for vocabulary learning in the classroom lower frequency words do not
merit attention in activities unless they represent a particular need for learners.

Teachers need to be aware of the relative value of words and focus on teaching the most
useful words in activities. This means that teachers need to know which words are high
frequency words and which words are not. This may be done intuitively but it is not as easy
as it sounds. Alderson (2007) found that there was considerable variation between
judgements of the frequency of words between individuals and reported that highly educated
native speaker intuitions are often not accurate. A more reliable method of judging frequency
is using lists of high frequency words derived from corpus data. The best known words lists
are West’s (1953) General Service List at the 1000 and 2000 levels, Nation’s (2004) 14 1000-
word lists, and Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL). Teachers and institutions
may use these lists to help sequence vocabulary learning from the first 1000 words to the
second 1000 words. Focusing on learning words in the lists in that order provides the

2
 Stuart Webb

greatest benefits for comprehension and use. Emphasis on learning high frequency words in
activities does not mean that low frequency words should never be taught. Sometimes there
will be a need for learners to know lower frequency words; however, teachers should deal
with these words quickly and provide the maximum amount of time for teaching words of
greater value.

After frequency the next criterion for selecting words is learner need. Adult learners often
have specific vocabulary learning needs such as learning for academic purposes, business,
and living or travelling in a second language context. The items in Coxhead’s (2000) AWL
are most useful for learners who already know the high frequency words and plan to study at
university in an English speaking country. The AWL was derived according to the frequency
and range of use of words in academic written text outside of the high frequency words.
Technical word lists for specific professional situations may be lacking. Ideally lists will be
created through the frequency and range of occurrence of words in a corpus derived from
topic-related materials. However, if teachers have the background knowledge, they may
intuitively create their own lists by analysing the materials that the learners will be using in
their profession.

If we plan the vocabulary that we teach to learners around word frequency then we need to
know the extent to which our students know words at different levels of frequency. The most
useful test for determining this is the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT: Nation, 1983, 1990;
Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham, 2001). The VLT provides an accurate and reliable measure of
the most frequent 2000, 3000, 5000, 10000, and academic vocabulary. It is not necessary to
administer all sections of the test. If students have a relatively small vocabulary size then
giving them just the 2000 level section of the test is sufficient. The VLT should be
administered to students at the start of a course to help teachers effectively plan the words to
teach during the course.

VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE

Another factor that can be used to evaluate language learning activities is vocabulary
knowledge. Nation (2001) provided the most comprehensive description of vocabulary
knowledge. He demonstrated that vocabulary knowledge could be broken down into nine
different aspects of knowledge and each of these could be broken down further into receptive
and productive knowledge. This means that to learn words there needs to be some focus on
developing both receptive and productive knowledge, and there also needs to be emphasis on
learning the different aspects of knowledge that make up form, meaning, and use. Different
vocabulary learning activities focus attention on different aspects of knowledge. This means
that it is likely to take a number of encounters with a word in a number of different activities
to fully learn a word.

3
Learning Vocabulary in Activities

Teachers should consider which aspects of vocabulary knowledge such as written form, form
and meaning, and collocation might be learned through completing an activity. Although
activities may contribute to multiple aspects of knowledge, most activities have a central
focus on one aspect of form, meaning, and use. For example, the central focus of a crossword
puzzle is written form. To achieve the primary learning goal, you need to correctly spell the
target words. Crossword puzzles also often contribute to form and meaning when the clues
are in the form of definitions or translations. Although it is possible to modify the clues in
crosswords so that they also contribute to knowledge of grammatical functions and
collocation, these aspects typically receive little attention. In contrast learning words in
concordances has a central focus on collocation and grammatical functions with a smaller
focus on written form and meaning.

TIME ON TASK: HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO DO THE ACTIVITY?

The third factor that should be used in evaluation of activities is time on task because there is
limited time to teach vocabulary and some activities take longer than others. Teachers need to
consider whether the knowledge gained through completing the activity justifies the amount
of time taken. In other words, does the activity contribute to worthwhile gains in vocabulary
knowledge in a reasonable amount of time. For example, a demanding crossword puzzle with
20 items may take 20 minutes to finish while learning a set of 20 word cards may take half
that time. If an activity takes longer that does not mean that it should be discarded; the
learning gains from the extra time may be considerable. However, it is important to question
whether longer activities result in superior learning. In the above example, we need to
consider whether the extra 10 minutes necessary for the crossword will result in greater
learning than what else we might achieve in that time such as learning from word cards for 10
minutes and another 10 minute activity. The justification for longer activities may be that a
greater a number of words will be learned, greater depth of vocabulary knowledge will be
gained, or that words will be retained longer. If activities that take longer result in the same
vocabulary learning gains as shorter activities then that time is not being used effectively.

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE ACTIVITIES?

There are two methods of evaluating the relative effectiveness of vocabulary learning
activities, Involvement Load and Technique Feature Analysis. Laufer and Hulstijn’s (2001)
involvement load hypothesis is the more established method. It involves looking at the degree
to which three factors (need, search, and evaluation) are present in the activity. Nation and
Webb’s (in press) technique feature analysis is more complex but highlights key features that
contribute to the effectiveness of activities in a way that teachers may be able to relate to.
Technique feature analysis involves 18 questions grouped according to psychological
conditions that contribute to vocabulary learning. The answer to each question is scored as 0

4
 Stuart Webb

or 1 with the total score indicating the relative value of that activity. The highest score
possible is 18. The questions are shown below.
Criteria Score
Motivation
Is there a clear vocabulary learning goal?
Does the activity motivate learning?
Do the learners select the words?
Noticing
Does the activity focus attention on the target words?
Does the activity raise awareness of new vocabulary learning?
Does the activity involve negotiation?
Retrieval
Does the activity involve retrieval of the word?
Is it productive retrieval?
Is it recall?
Are there multiple retrievals of each word?
Is there spacing between retrievals?
Generation
Does the activity involve generative use?
Is it productive?
Is there a marked change that involves the use of other words?
Retention
Does the activity ensure successful linking of form and meaning?
Does the activity involve instantiation?
Does the activity involve imaging?
Does the activity avoid interference?
Maximum score 18
(Adapted from Nation & Webb, in press)

To become familiar with how technique feature analysis works, let us look at each question
briefly and then look at how a number of activities score on each question.

Motivation

Is there a clear vocabulary learning goal?

Students are more likely to achieve the learning goal if they are aware of what the learning
goal is. A lack of awareness may lead to misplaced focus and smaller learning gains.
Activities that have a clear vocabulary learning goal such as learning with concordances,
cloze activities, and word parts tables would all get 1 point under this criterion.
Does the activity motivate learning?

5
Learning Vocabulary in Activities

When evaluating activities it is important to consider the extent to which the activity might
motivate learners. Although empirical studies are lacking, Dornyei (1994) suggests that tasks
and materials have the potential to motivate learning. This is clearly apparent in some
vocabulary learning activities such as crosswords, and riddles which are typically done for
pleasure and to a lesser degree in activities such as multiple-choice questions, true/false
questions, and cloze activities that present a challenge to learners. Activities such as word
cards and the keyword technique that raise awareness of successful learning are also likely to
motivate learning and get a point under this criterion.
Do the learners select the words?
Self selection of words may have a positive influence on learning because students have
indicated that these words are considered beneficial. This is also reflected in the need
component of Laufer and Hultsijn’s (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis.

Noticing

Does the activity focus attention on the target words?

There are often different ways to do activities and what teachers expect their students to do is
not always what occurs. One way to increase the potential for vocabulary learning in
activities is to focus attention on the target words.
Does the activity raise awareness of new vocabulary learning?
Designing activities to focus attention on target word does not ensure that vocabulary
learning will occur. Some activities may fulfil a testing function rather than a learning
function. In other activities, words may be ignored, considered irrelevant, or students may
feel that there is nothing new learned through completing the activity. When students focus
attention on words and find something new, their processing of that information contributes
to learning. New learning may result from seeing or using words in original sentences, being
aware when knowledge is strengthened, and seeing an improvement in performance.
Does the activity involve negotiation?
Research indicates that when learners negotiate the meanings of words encountered in a text,
these words are more likely to be learned than non-negotiated items (Newton, 1995). The
words that are negotiated will likely depend on their relevance to the activity. If it is not
necessary to know the target words in an activity or the words are not present in the activity,
learners are less likely to negotiate their meanings. Teachers can design activities so that the
target vocabulary is presented in places critical to completing the activity such as in the
instructions.

Retrieval

Does the activity involve retrieval of the word?

6
 Stuart Webb

It is well established that successfully retrieving a word is likely to facilitate the learning of
that word (Baddeley, 1990). When learners see a word in a text or hear a word in speech,
they need to retrieve its meaning. Similarly, when learners need to convey information in
speech or writing they need to retrieve the L2 forms of words. It is important to note that if
both the L2 word and the meaning are given together then there is no retrieval because there
is nothing to retrieve.

Is it productive retrieval?
Retrieval may occur in two ways. First, if a L2 word is encountered in a text or heard in
speech, the meaning of that word needs to be retrieved. This type of retrieval is called
receptive retrieval. Second, if learners want to convey a particular meaning in L2 speech or
writing then they need to retrieve the L2 word to convey that meaning. This is called
productive retrieval. It is easier to see a L2 word and retrieve its L1 meaning (receptive
retrieval) than to see the L1 meaning and retrieve the L2 form (productive retrieval) so
productive retrieval gets a point under this criterion.
Is it recall?
We can also differentiate between the different ways in which words are retrieved. For
example, words or meanings can be recognized from a number of choices in an activity such
as in multiple choice questions. When there are different choices and you have to recognize
which one is correct this is called recognition. If there are no choices and you need to retrieve
the word or meaning from memory, this is called recall. Recall is more demanding than
recognition so it gets a point.
Are there multiple retrievals of each word?
Learning is enhanced the more that the word is successfully retrieved. Each successful
retrieval strengthens the link between L2 form and L1 meaning making it easier to retrieve
the word from memory. This has been reflected in research on word cards showing
impressive learning gains in short periods through repeated retrievals (W. Webb, 1963) as
well as in studies of incidental learning (S.Webb, 2007).
Is there spacing of retrievals?
Research has also shown that it is better to space retrievals over time rather than to mass
retrievals together (Baddeley, 1990; Dempster, 1987; Hulstijn, 2001). This is called the
spacing effect on learning. Interestingly the superiority of spacing is also reflected in the
superiority of repeated study sessions versus cramming (Kornell, 2009).

Generation

Does the activity involve generative use?

7
Learning Vocabulary in Activities

Generative use occurs when a word is encountered or used in a new way. Typically
generative use relates to context but it can also be reflected at the word level when words are
used with different derivations and inflections. Encountering or using a word in an original
context gets a point under this criterion. Encountering or using different derivations of the
word would also get a point.
Is it productive?
Generation can be receptive or productive. Receptive generative use is when words are
encountered in a new way. Productive generative use is when words are used in new ways.
Productive generative use is more demanding because it requires learners to not only
understand the forms and meanings of words but also to know how to use the words to be
successful.
Is there a marked change in the context that involves the use of other words?
There can be different degrees of generation in activities. Research has shown that a greater
degree of generation can have a positive effect on vocabulary learning (Joe, 1998). There
should be an aim to having students use words in original ways. This will deepen and
strengthen knowledge of words. Consider the following sentences:
Original: He analysed the paper.
No generation: He analysed the paper.
Minimal generation: He was analysing the paper. He analysed the essay.
Reasonable generation: He tried hard to analyse and figure out the paper.
High generation: The paper was confusing and concentration and analysis were
necessary.

When the degree of generation is constrained by the structure of the activity such as in role
plays and rewording sentences the degree of generation would be low. In sentence production
activities the degree of generation would be high. This criterion is only used for productive
generative use.

Retention
Does the activity ensure successful linking of form and meaning?
Many activities focus on strengthening the link between form and meaning. However, in
many cases linking form and meaning depends on successful recognition or recall of the item.
If errors occur then there will be a negative effect on learning rather than a positive effect.
Providing learners with both form and meaning at the start of an activity ensures a very high
degree of success if learners do try to retrieve the word during later stages of the activity.
Successful retrievals strengthen the link between form and meaning (Baddeley, 1990) so
ensuring a high degree of success has merit. The one disadvantage of providing both form
and meaning is that learners may not try to retrieve either form or meaning when necessary
but rather check the information given. If form and meaning are given, teachers should try to

8
 Stuart Webb

encourage students to familiarize themselves with the information at the beginning of the
activity and then focus on retrieving the items when needed rather than checking the details.

Does the activity involve instantiation?

Instantiation refers to process of remembering through association with particular contexts.
The association between the word and the context helps retrieval of the word. This can occur
with genuine communication where the context of the encounter with the word helps the
person retrieve the word. In particular, the visual memory of the situation can have a strong
effect on aiding retrieval. Instantiation may also occur with written context where the
memory of the sentence in which the word was encountered helps cue recall.
Does the activity involve imaging?
Imaging is the process of using visualization as a cue to recall. The best known example of
imaging is the keyword technique. The keyword technique involves linking a new L2 word
with a known L1 word (the keyword) that has a similar spoken form and then creating a
mental image of the meanings of the two words linked together. For example, if you were
trying to learn the Japanese word sakana (fish), the word soccer might be used as the
keyword. You might then create the image of a fish playing soccer as the mental image
which helps you to remember sakana.
Does the activity avoid interference?
Initially learning words with related meanings together can have a negative effect on learning
(Higa, 1963; Erten & Tekin, 2008). This is because learners may cross-associate the meaning
of one word for another word with a related meaning. Interference is particularly strong with
synonyms and opposites but it also occurs with words from the same lexical set such as fruits,
colours, and days of the week. One example, of interference is when learning left and right
together. Even though the lexical set is only two items, the L2 form of right may get confused
with L1 meaning of left. Nation (2000) found that learning words in lexical sets could
increase learning time by as much as 100%. Teaching materials often present new words in
semantic sets making it more difficult to learn the words. To increase learning, teachers need
to carefully plan vocabulary learning and avoid teaching semantically related words together.

EVALUATING TWO ACTIVITIES

Let’s look at two activities using all of the above criteria to evaluate them and then modify
them to increase their learning potential. The first activity involves matching words and their
meanings. The learners’ task is to draw a line from each word to its definition. An example is
shown below.
carrot a round red vegetable
tomato a long orange vegetable
cucumber a long green vegetable

9
Learning Vocabulary in Activities

The first criterion for evaluating activities was the words. In this example, learning carrot,
tomato, and cucumber may fill a need for learners in an ESL context because they may need
to deal with these words in daily interactions. The words in the definitions are all high
frequency words so the meanings should also be understood. The second criterion for
evaluating an activity is vocabulary knowledge. Here the focus is on strengthening the link
between form and meaning. The third criterion is time on task. Matching words and their
meanings is a relatively quick task with a clear focus on the words. The fourth criterion is
using technique feature analysis to evaluate the learning potential of the activity. This is
summarized below.
Criteria Score
Motivation
Is there a clear vocabulary learning goal? 1
Does the activity motivate learning? 1
Do the learners select the words? 0
Noticing
Does the activity focus attention on the target words? 1
Does the activity raise awareness of new vocabulary learning? 1
Does the activity involve negotiation? 0
Retrieval
Does the activity involve retrieval of the word? 1
Is it productive retrieval? 0
Is it recall? 0
Are there multiple retrievals of each word? 0
Is there spacing between retrievals? 0
Generation
Does the activity involve generative use? 0
Is it productive? 0
Is there a marked change that involves the use of other words? 0
Retention
Does the activity ensure successful linking of form and meaning? 0
Does the activity involve instantiation? 0
Does the activity involve imaging? 0
Does the activity avoid interference? 0
Total score 5

The table shows that the activity provides 5 positive features and one negative feature
(interference). The fact that it only has a score of 5 does not mean that it is not worthwhile.
Because it is a relatively quick activity, it might be possible to use it together with another

10
 Stuart Webb

activity to supplement learning. However, it is still useful to consider how we can increase
learning potential. The first thing that should be done is to modify the words to avoid
interference. Selecting words that are less likely to be confused with each other will lead to
superior learning. A better set of words that might relate to the topic would be carrot, market,
and cost. Another way that we might increase learning potential would be to provide
sentences that the words may appear in together with the definitions. This would add
receptive generation as a feature of the task. The modified task would now receive a score of
7 and might look like this:

carrot The money you need to buy something. My lunch _____ five
dollars.
market An orange vegetable. I grow _____ in my garden.
cost A place that you can buy things. I buy my vegetables at the _____
every week on Sunday morning.

Let’s now evaluate a sentence production activity. In this activity, learners are given a
number of words together with their meanings. They are asked to write each word in an
original sentence. The information given to the learners might look like the following:
Objective (goal or aim)
______________________________________________________
Prohibit (not allowed)
______________________________________________________
Participate (to take part in something)
_______________________________________________________

Criteria Score
Motivation
Is there a clear vocabulary learning goal? 1
Does the activity motivate learning? 0
Do the learners select the words? 0
Noticing
Does the activity focus attention on the target words? 1
Does the activity raise awareness of new vocabulary learning? 1
Does the activity involve negotiation? 0
Retrieval
Does the activity involve retrieval of the word? 0
Is it productive retrieval? 0
Is it recall? 0
Are there multiple retrievals of each word? 0

11
Learning Vocabulary in Activities

Is there spacing between retrievals? 0

Generation
Does the activity involve generative use? 1
Is it productive? 1
Is there a marked change that involves the use of other words? 1
Retention
Does the activity ensure successful linking of form and meaning? 1
Does the activity involve instantiation? 0
Does the activity involve imaging? 0
Does the activity avoid interference? 1
Total score 8

The sentence production activity meets many criteria for effective vocabulary learning. The
target words are academic vocabulary. The activity contributes to multiple aspects of
vocabulary knowledge with focus on form, meaning, and use, and writing individual
sentences should not require a great deal of time for learners who know the high frequency
words. One way in which it might be improved would be to add one or two examples of each
word used in context. This would not add to the technique feature analysis score because it
already receives points for generation, but it may contribute to vocabulary knowledge. The
examples may also help the learners to complete the task and save class time for further
learning. If multiple sentences were provided for each item, it would be useful to have a
marked change in the way the words were used. Examples could be sampled from a
concordancer. The modified activity might be presented as follows:

Objective (goal or aim)

My objective is to have a high score on the test next week.
The main objective was to succeed in his business.
________________________________________________________________
Prohibit (not allowed)
Smoking is prohibited in the classroom.
The government has the power to prohibit the sale of these goods.
________________________________________________________________
Participate (to take part in something)
I always try to participate in discussions in class.
Over 100 people participated in the planning of the event.
________________________________________________________________

12
 Stuart Webb

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, preparing vocabulary learning activities involves important decisions

regarding which words to teach, how vocabulary knowledge will be enhanced, whether the
activity makes efficient use of learning time, and whether the activity includes features that
contribute to learning. The teacher’s job is to consider these factors so that activities provide
the greatest learning potential. Activities may often be a useful starting point for learning
words but to develop comprehensive knowledge of vocabulary there should be other
components of a vocabulary learning program. Nation’s (2001, 2008) four strands provides a
useful plan for vocabulary development. Activities belong to only one of the strands, the
language-focused learning strand. Following up activities with opportunites to encounter and
use words in original contexts and testing progress in vocabulary learning are also important
for developing vocabulary knowledge.

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A. (1990). Human Memory. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238.
Dempster, F. N. (1987). Effects of variable encoding and spaced presentation on vocabulary
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 162-170.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 78, 273-284.
Erten, I. H., & Tekin, M. (2008). Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words
in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36, 407-422.
Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 170-175.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: a
reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition
and Second Language Instruction (258-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental
vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357-377.
Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than
cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297-1317.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The
construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5(1), 12-25.

13
Learning Vocabulary in Activities

Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: dangers and guidelines. TESOL
Journal, 9(2), 6-10.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2004). A study of the most frequent word families in the British National
Corpus. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language:
Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 3–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59-82.
Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Boston, MA:
Heinle.
Newton, J. (1995). Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: a case study.
Second Language Research, 11, 159-177.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of
two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88.
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied
Linguistics, 28, 46-65.
Webb, S. & Rodgers, M. P. H. (2009a). The lexical coverage of movies. Applied
Linguistics, 30, 407-427.
Webb, S. & Rodgers, M. P. H. (2009b). The vocabulary demands of television programs.
Language Learning, 59, 2, 335-366.
Webb, W. B. (1962). The effects of prolonged learning on learning. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 173-182.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.

14