Computer Assisted Language Learning Using virtual ...

This article was downloaded by: [UJA University of Jaen] On: 23 October 2014, At: 04:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Assisted Language Learning Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Using virtual learning environments and computer-mediated communication to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers: a quantitative and qualitative study María Luisa Pérez Cañado

a

a

Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, Departamento de Filología Inglesa, Universidad de Jaén , Jaén, Spain Published online: 09 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: María Luisa Pérez Cañado (2010) Using virtual learning environments and computer-mediated communication to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers: a quantitative and qualitative study, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23:2, 129-150, DOI: 10.1080/09588221003666222 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221003666222

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [UJA University of Jaen] at 04:28 23 October 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Computer Assisted Language Learning Vol. 23, No. 2, April 2010, 129–150

Using virtual learning environments and computer-mediated communication to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers: a quantitative and qualitative study Marı´ a Luisa Pe´rez Canãdo*


Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educacioń, Departamento de Filologıá Inglesa, Universidad de Jaeń, Jaeń, Spain

This article reports on a quasi-experimental investigation with a pre-test/post-test control group design carried out in the second semester of the academic year 2006–2007 with Spanish pre-service English teachers at the University of Jaeń in Spain. Its aim was to determine whether the use of virtual learning environments (VLE) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) could improve the teacher trainees’ lexical competence. After outlining the rationale of the initiative, grounded on previous research outcomes and on the novelty of the experience, this article describes the actual project and study. It outlines the semantic fields, lexical aspects, vocabulary learning strategies, and activity types on which the project has focused and goes on to describe the research design and procedure of the investigation. It subsequently presents and discusses the results yielded by the latter. The limitations of the study, together with the lines for future research and the consequences which the project has had, are broached in the final section of the article. Keywords: European Higher Education Area; English language teaching; lexical competence; virtual learning environments; computer-mediated communication; telecollaboration; pre-test/post-test control group design

1.

Introduction

The creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is considerably transforming the conception and nature of teaching at tertiary level across Europe. It presents a unique opportunity to revise and update higher education (HE) methodology (Michavila, 2007) and is spurring on the reformulation of curricula, the revamping of study plans, and the reconfiguration of departments (Pratt et al., 2008). In the language teaching arena, this profound change is being felt intensely, with the EHEA and the new credit system it propounds – the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) – acting as the prime catalysts for reorientation and reform (Pe´rez Canãdo, 2009a). Diverse communique´s and official documents have channeled the

*Email: [email protected] ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online Ó 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09588221003666222 http://www.informaworld.com


130

M.L. Pe´rez Canãdo

European convergence process both at a global (Bergen Communique´, 2005; Berlin Communique´, 2003; Glasgow Declaration, 2005; Graz Declaration, 2003) and local Spanish (CIDUA, 2005; Red CIDUA de la Licenciatura de Filologı´ a Inglesa, 2008) level. These texts offer valuable guidelines to steer the practical realization of the Bologna Process and, within them, information and communication technologies (ICT) are a cornerstone for achieving improvement in language teaching. PennockSpeck (2009, p. 183) underscores this idea: ‘‘Whether we like it or not, the role of ICT is becoming increasingly important. If our university and state universities in general are to remain at the forefront in teaching and research in the future, we have to make sure that we implement ICT as effectively as possible in the new degree and postgraduate degree structures’’. This didactic renewal spurred on by the EHEA, together with the heightened role of new technologies within it, has fuelled the government-financed pedagogical innovation project on which this article reports. Its aim was to use virtual learning environments (VLE) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers at the University of Jaeń in Spain. To this end, an original bank of lexical activities was designed on the basis of recent and popular TV series and sitcoms, set up on a VLE – the ILIAS platform – and exploited through blended learning. Telecollaboration – through the Blackboard platform – also came into play to try to improve the low lexical results which our students had been obtaining in English over the course of the past four academic years (cf. Pe´rez Canãdo, 2008). Cooperative, autonomous, and lifelong learning were all targeted as part of the experience, which used sitcoms, VLE, and CMC to work on English lexical competence. After describing the rationale of the project and presenting the semantic fields, lexical aspects, vocabulary learning strategies, and activity types on which it has focused, this article goes on to describe the research design and procedure of the study. The results are outlined and discussed, together with the most outstanding pedagogical implications and lines for future research which can be derived from the investigation. 2.

Background and rationale: reasons for the project

The initial driving force behind the project was the extremely low lexical achievement of pre-service English teachers at the University of Jaeń over the course of the past four academic years (2003–2004/2006–2007). Of all the linguistic areas involved in the purely instrumental subjects of the degree in English philology – grammar, vocabulary, the four skills, and phonetics – lexical competence was the one which yielded the poorest outcomes, to the extent that a significant worsening in the students’ lexical performance was ascertained between the February and June exams (Pe´rez Canãdo, 2008). The desire to address the lacuna in this particular field, compounded with the new pedagogical options contemplated in the EHEA, facilitated the application of innovative methodologies to teach vocabulary in the project. Indeed, as Michavila (2009, p. 14) has recently highlighted: ‘‘Our time offers an unrivalled opportunity for innovation in language teaching. [. . .] Language teaching is particularly prone to methodological renewal and to the transition from passive learning to active education’’. He specifically alludes to the use of ‘‘virtual technologies’’ as a stateof-the-art pedagogical option within the EHEA. It has certainly been the central


Computer Assisted Language Learning

131

one in our project, though by no means the only innovative approach. Indeed, the experience has allowed the incorporation of some of the latest trends in language teaching (CALL, the Lexical Approach, and cooperative, autonomous, or lifelong learning) and of diverse types of learning modalities (De Miguel Dı´ az et al., 2005, 2006) and groupings (CIDUA, 2005) – from the lockstep, whole class session to the group work seminar – all of which are advocated in the latest literature on the implementation of the ECTS. These varied and student-centred approaches to language learning, so in line with the underlying rationale of the EHEA, have hopefully contributed to enhancing the participants’ motivation, a third crucial reason for conceptualizing this project. As Pe´rez Basanta (2004, p. 28) claims: ‘‘Materials should be designed to meet students’ needs, interests, experiences, and expectations’’. This was precisely our aim when basing the lexical activities on recent sitcoms and TV series, which the students themselves were asked to choose in order to ensure their interest and engagement. This involvement, it was hoped, would result in increased retention and better learning of the problematic linguistic area targeted. Motivation was also boosted by the fact that these sitcoms and series allowed the teaching, not only of words and expressions related to particular lexical fields (e.g. rash or to have a temperature in connection to health), but also of updated ‘‘real English’’ lexical chunks (e.g. to freak someone out; That is so not me!). These ‘‘real English’’ expressions, as we term them, are multi-word items which are currently employed in conversational English by native speakers of the language, and which enhance the native-like quality and fluency of our students’ English when used productively (cf. Pe´rez Canãdo, 2009b). Sitcoms rely more on communication to drive their narrative than, for example, movies, and thus provide numerous instances of this type of useful language. This is yet another powerful reason for our focus on them in the project. However, novelty does not only characterize the focus on ‘‘real English’’ lexical phrases; it runs through the entire experience in itself. Sure enough, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time sitcoms have been used as a basis for vocabulary teaching, set up on a virtual learning environment, and discussed through telecollaboration. The specialized literature documents the beneficial use of different forms of technology to enhance both child and adult vocabulary acquisition. Specifically designed software has been employed for autonomous (Van Aacken, 1996), individualized (Crozer, 1996), or cooperative (Bazeli & Olle, 1995) use with positive results. Collaborative databases (Horst & Cobb, 2001) or CALL tutorials used for explicit vocabulary instruction (Tozcu & Coady, 2004) have equally proved effective in producing significant lexical gains. Interactive multimodal materials have also evinced their utility, especially when following a contextembedded approach (Kang & Dennis, 1995). Concordancing activities have been beneficial for EFL students (Kaur & Hegelheimer, 2005; Somogyi, 1996) and have been shown to promote transfer to free writing. Studies have also demonstrated that incorporating different types of lexical sources and information into CALL programs (online dictionaries, the web as corpus, cloze-builders, hypertext, interactive quizzes) yields favorable outcomes in terms of retention and learning gains (Horst, Cobb, & Nicolae 2005), and vocabulary acquisition and use (Hill, 1998; Pe´rez Canãdo & Dı´ ez Bedmar, 2006). Finally, combining other methods of vocabulary instruction with CALL (Hill, 1998; Johnson, 1997; Laufer & Hill,


132


2000) and integrating the skills with lexical aspects using technology (Higgins & Hess, 1998) has also reinforced vocabulary acquisition. Out of all the studies on the topic, two are particularly close to our own project: those by Pe´rez Basanta (2004) and Al-Jarf (2007). Pe´rez Basanta’s ADELEX (Assessing and Developing Lexical Competence) Project used WebCT to implement a course on the Internet to arrive at adequate levels of lexical competence in English philology students and to promote learner autonomy in the process. A specific module was devoted to vocabulary through films and literary works, but the former were quite dated and reduced in number (Casablanca and Sense and sensibility). More recently, Al-Jarf (2007) has complemented in-class vocabulary instruction with a supplementary online course, where vocabulary websites related to the topic covered in class were added weekly with extra explanations, examples, exercises and quizzes. The outcomes of her study revealed that student achievement considerably improved as a result of the combination of online and in-class vocabulary instruction. However, no original design of material was involved, nor were multimedia elements incorporated into the experience. Thus, the originality and novelty of our project was a final forceful reason for conducting it. 3. Description of the project: course design The starting point involved selecting the specific semantic fields on which the experience would focus. Our pre-service English teachers are expected to master vocabulary related to 12 major topics in their freshman year at university, and we decided to centre on six of these through our project in the second term of the academic year 2006–2007: crime, technology, family, health, food, and turning points: marriage. An episode from some of the students’ favorite TV series was chosen to cover each of these topics (see Table 1). Each episode was watched and exploited through the ILIAS platform roughly every two weeks. The lexical aspects covered in each semantic field and sitcom involved both isolated words and, especially, multi-word items, and were grounded on the theory of what it means to know a word and on the Lexical Approach. According to Richards (1976), Nation (1990), or Schmitt and Meara (1997), knowing a word entails mastering the words which commonly co-occur with it, its limitations of use according to situation and function, the syntactic behavior associated with it, its underlying forms and derivations, its semantic value, and its different meanings. In line with this theory, we focused on collocations, gambits used to express functions,

Table 1.

Series used to work on each semantic field covered.

Topic Crime Technology Family Health Food Turning points: marriage

Sitcom/series CSI Las Vegas Hot properties Family guy House Jamie’s school dinners Friends



133

verbal complementation and prepositions, word formation, word meaning (often through translation), and synonymy and antonymy. Appendix 1 presents this information visually and provides a sample activity for each aspect. In turn, the fact that the lexical aspects worked on were primarily multi-word items reflects our belief in the Lexical Approach (Lewis 1993, 1997a, 1997b, 2000; Nattinger, Jeanette, & DeCarrico, 1992). According to this increasingly acknowledged approximation to language teaching, the lexical chunk (a group of up to eight words) is the ideal unit to be exploited in language learning. The difference between speaking English well and very well lies in the amount of ready-made phrases which we have stored in our mental lexicon, ready to pull out and use. Firmly upholding that our students need to be exposed to such lexical chunks, we included a central focus on them in our project. In addition to the aforementioned collocations and gambits to express functions, we worked on phrasal verbs (e.g. to take after, look after, bring up, or fall out in relation to family), idiomatic expressions (e.g. to give someone a run for their money), and ‘‘real English’’ expressions (e.g. We good to go?, What’s up with you?). In addition to the aforementioned lexical aspects, we sought to promote learner autonomy in the vocabulary acquisition process, so that lexical strategies came to the fore within the project. Autonomous or lifelong learning (Jimeńez & Lamb, 2007; Jimeńez, Lamb, & Vieira, 2007; Mackiewicz, 2002) have a heightened role in the new European credit system, as the onus is now on successful learning rather than on the teaching provided (McLaren et al., 2005). The idea is to equip the students with the tools they need to continue learning vocabulary on their own when confronted with an unfamiliar word or expression outside the classroom setting. To this end, we explicitly introduced an important number of lexical strategies into the exploitation of each sitcom. Semantic mapping and grouping, inferring from context, mnemonic techniques, personalization, elaborating, review, or real-life practice were all integrated into the project, in the hope that, as Sua´rez Suberviola and Varela Meńdez (2002) claim, vocabulary acquisition could be sped up. These semantic fields, vocabulary aspects, and lexical strategies were all implemented via a clear-cut typology of activities on the ILIAS platform. The latter is a web-based environment which allows password authentication and incorporates instant messaging, an online notice board and forum, multimedia course contents, interactive quizzes, private mail, and a student database for class management and performance tracking. The range of activities it allows is quite ample, and, in addition to open questions, we made use of closed activities, including drag and drop, multiple choice gap-filling, multiple correct, and cloze. The learner received immediate feedback for self-correction on these closed questions, an important asset of the platform, while the instructor had access to the performance of the students on each activity and on the test as a whole (see Figure 1). In line with the semantic fields and aspects covered in the blended learning program and in order to guarantee the content validity of the pre- and post-tests, identical types of lexical aspects and activities were employed in both tests. Thus, both tests included questions on collocations, gambits used to express functions, verbal complementation and prepositions, word formation, word meaning through translation, and synonymy and antonymy (see Appendix 2 for some sample test questions).


134


Figure 1.

4.

Student performance on the test as whole.

The study

4.1. Research hypothesis Thus, in line with the foregoing, the investigation was motivated, on the one hand, by the poor results ascertained in the vocabulary acquisition of pre-service teachers at the University of Jaeń in the past four academic years and, on the other, by the new methodological options advocated within the EHEA. The main aim of the study was to test the following hypothesis: the use of VLE and CMC within the ECTS with English philology freshmen (experimental group) develops superior lexical competence than that promoted by the traditional system of credits in English philology plus tourism freshmen (control group). We also sought to complement these quantitative data with a questionnaire which probed the participants’ opinions, attitudes, and motivation as regards the use of these technological options within an ECTS methodology to develop their lexical competence. 4.2. Participants We worked with a total of 74 pre-service English teachers, 20 of whom were in the English philology experimental group and 54 of which were part of the English philology plus tourism control group (see Table 2). At the University of Jaeń, there are, on average, three times as many students in the afore-mentioned double degree, as compared to English philology. This circumstance, which has invariably taken place in

Computer Assisted Language Learning Table 2.

Sample of subjects.

Male Female Total


135

Experimental group

Control group

Total

5 15 20

6 48 54

11 63 74

the five years of co-existence of these degrees, has facilitated the piloting of the ECTS in English philology, as the fewer students in this degree guarantees the applicability of the new methodological options, types of groupings, and learning arrangements favored by the EHEA. However, for the purposes of our study, the divergence in the number of students in each group has not exerted any differential effects, as the homogeneity of both groups in terms of global lexical performance has been ascertained at the outset of the study (see Section 4.6.). 4.3.

Variables

Two basic types of variables were considered in the study: dependent and independent: The dependent variable corresponded to the performance of the students on the test which was specifically designed to measure their achievement before and after the intervention on the lexical aspects outlined in Section 3. In turn, the independent variables involved the development of an intervention program to enhance lexical competence by means of VLE within the ECTS (experimental group), and the teaching of the same vocabulary aspects via the traditional credit system (control group). 4.4.

Procedure

4.4.1. For the teacher Despite the assets which the ILIAS platform presents for assessment, the set-up, monitoring and evaluation of the project were quite time-consuming – yet rewarding – from the instructor’s point of view. The first step after selecting the students’ preferred sitcoms and series was to watch all the episodes necessary to arrive at the perfect one to work on a specific semantic field. Once the five episodes had been chosen, a bank of original material was created for each one, bearing in mind the semantic field in question, as well as the lexical aspects, strategies and activity types mentioned in the previous heading. An average of 15 different activities was designed for the platform, plus an initial ‘‘first listening’’ sheet, which was completed by the students upon watching each episode and which probed general comprehension and elicited opinions on the theme running through it. ‘‘Activity feedback forms’’ on the main aspects learned were also drawn up to be filled in after each episode. Finally, an attitude survey, comprising both Likert-type closed questions and open ones, was designed and validated to gauge the students’ response to the project. The activities were then set up on the ILIAS platform, always based on a clip (from one to four minutes) from the episode in question. The idea was for the student to be able to click on the excerpt (which always included subtitles in English to facilitate comprehension) as many times as necessary in order to complete the


136


specific lexical activities that appeared directly beneath it. A mean of two hours of independent work on the platform per sitcom was the aim. The Blackboard platform was also set up for the telecollaboration exchange (cf. Pe´rez Canãdo & Ware, 2009; Ware & Pe´rez Canãdo, 2007). Each Jaeń freshman was assigned a Dallas tutor with whom (s)he had to accomplish a set of weekly tasks. One of them involved discussing one of the sitcoms watched and concentrating on at least five idiomatic expressions within it (see Table 3). The e-tandems corresponded via the Blackboard platform by clicking on their names and initiating the message exchange, which was always saved for our subsequent supervision (see Figure 2). The possible technical problems which arose with both platforms, together with the doubts which cropped up during the experience, were solved through the ILIAS platform’s forum and message board, via face-to-face tutorials, and by means of final seminars with groups of up to five students. The project accounted for 20% of the final grade. The students’ performance on the VLE activities, their participation in the telecollaboration exchange and the seminars, and their completion of the first listening and activity feedback forms were all taken into account. Table 3.

Rubrics for the telecollaboration task on sitcoms.

Sitcom and idiomatic expressions (9 April–22 April)

Figure 2.

Watch a sitcom which both you and your partner enjoy and ask him/her about (at least) five idiomatic expressions you have heard in it and whose meaning you would like to know. Initiate a discussion on the topic of the episode you have watched. (Link to sitcom) Maximum 10 points/portfolio

Screenshot of the Blackboard platform.



4.4.2.

137

For the student

The students, in turn, after being introduced to the experience, which they welcomed with enthusiasm, received two initial whole group theoretical classes. Here, they were acquainted, in a traditional lockstep manner, with the help of a textbook and additional material, with the vocabulary pertaining to the semantic field under scrutiny. The class was subsequently broken up into two smaller groups and, in a practical session, they were introduced to the sitcoms or series which were going to be used to work on that semantic field. The selected episode was watched in its entirety and feedback was elicited orally from the students. They were then asked to complete the ‘‘first listening’’ questions. After this, they were encouraged to devote an average of two hours of independent study time to carrying out the activities on the ILIAS platform. Since they had previously watched the whole episode, the clips were contextualized and understandable. Finally, in small group face-to-face seminars, teacher and students again came together to comment on the episodes and the outcomes of their exploitation from a lexical viewpoint. Awareness-raising of diverse metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies was also encouraged in the latter. These seminars thus shifted the presentational classroom format (e.g. lecturing and transmitting information) to one of active learning (fostering discussion and debate) (Vaughan, 2007). To further encourage the use of the vocabulary learned and reflection on the lexical aspects gleaned, the students were asked to communicate asynchronously with their Dallas e-tutors through the telecollaboration exchange. Once the whole experience had finished, they completed the attitude survey. Thus, the project has been an instance of blended learning (O’Dowd 2007; Thorne, 2003), as traditional face-to-face interaction and online activity have mutually reinforced each other within it. It would be a case of what Vaughan (2007, p. 82) terms the ‘‘hybrid model’’, as a significant number of learning activities have been moved online and time traditionally spent in the classroom has been reduced, albeit not eliminated. The experience also accommodates Corda and Jager’s (2004, p. 228) ‘‘integrated model’’, as it involves a combination of group discussions, individual assignments, and processing course content, and it is geared at promoting learner autonomy. In turn, the comparison group covered exactly the same semantic fields, lexical aspects, and strategies as the treatment group, employing identical types of activities and the same amount of time to broach each vocabulary topic. However, the methodology used was different, as the control group did not benefit from the blended learning experience. They did not receive extra input through the sitcoms, nor did they focus on the lexical aspects through VLE or telecollaboration, working instead in a strictly in a face-to-face setting, employing paper-based materials (the textbook and additional handouts) in theoretical lockstep classes. 4.5. Statistical methodology Employing the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) program, in its 15.0 version, we essentially worked with the t-test for related and unrelated samples, calculating between- and within-group differences before and after our intervention in order to determine the effects of the treatment.

138


4.6.

M.L. Pe´rez Canãdo Results

The results we obtained were extremely interesting. To begin with, at the outset of the experience, in February 2007, the homogeneity of both groups in terms of global lexical performance was ascertained, as there were no statistically significant differences between both groups on the pre-test (p ¼ 0.784). Thus, the adequate conditions for the development of the study were met. It was nonetheless interesting to note that, on the overwhelming majority of lexical aspects considered on the test and also in the intervention program, the control group obtained higher scores at this initial moment of the investigation (phrasal verbs, prepositions, word formation and meaning, antonymy, functions, and lexical chunks) (see Table 4). However, the situation changed drastically on the post-test (see Figure 3). At this point, the experimental group was the one with the highest scores on absolutely all the lexical subaspects sampled, as well as on the overall test, and, what is more, by Table 4.

Means of both groups on the pre-test.

Lexical aspect Phrasal verbs Verbal complementation and prepositions Word meaning Antonymy Collocations Word formation Gambits used to express functions Lexical chunks Global test

Figure 3.

Maximum score

Mean (experimental group)

Mean (control group)

p (independent t-test)

10 10

1.09 6.7

1.87 7.21

0.319 0.481

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

3.63 4.9 6.72 4.36 5.24 4 5.17

3.87 5.85 5.59 4.85 5.9 5.55 5.33

0.772 0.314 0.064 0.681 0.489 0.084 0.784

Performance of both groups on lexical aspects.



139

statistically significant differences on several subcategories, and often at high confidence levels: e.g. word formation (p ¼ 0.012) and antonymy (p ¼ 0.000) (see Table 5). The results were even more interesting if we consider the t-test for related samples. The experimental group improved its performance on practically all the headings considered (global test, phrasal verbs, word formation and meaning, antonymy, and functions), and by statistically significant differences on phrasal verbs (p ¼ 0.002), antonymy (p ¼ 0.036) and functions (p ¼ 0.003) (see Table 6). However, the control group significantly worsened on the general test (p ¼ 0.000) and on practically all of its lexical categories: collocations (p ¼ 0.006), prepositions (p ¼ 0.002), antonymy (p ¼ 0.000), or lexical chunks (p ¼ 0.000). This is precisely the alarming tendency we had been ascertaining in the subject for the last three years and which motivated this project in the first place. The control group only significantly improved on phrasal verbs (p ¼ 0.000) and functions (p ¼ 0.001) (see Table 7). In terms of the attitudes generated in the student body participating in the VLE/CMC experience, the sample provided extremely positive responses on all the questions of the survey, as mean scores between 4 and 5 (on a five-point Likert

Table 5.

Means of both groups on the post-test.


Maximum score

Mean (experimental group)

Mean (control group)

10 10

4.72 6.55

4.28 5.74

0.705 0.097

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

4 7.27 5.54 6.96 7.87 3.72 5.48

3.84 3.09 4.08 4.92 7.35 1.64 4.45

0.875 0.000** 0.736 0.012* 0.596 0.159 0.083

p (independent t-test)

Note: *p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.01.

Table 6.

Experimental group’s results on the pre- and post-tests.

Lexical aspect Phrasal verbs Verbal complementation and prepositions Word meaning Antonymy Collocations Word formation Gambits used to express functions Lexical chunks Global test Note: *p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.01.

Maximum Mean score (pre-test) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

1.09 6.7 3.63 4.9 6.72 4.36 5.24 4 5.17

Mean p (correlated (post-test) t-test) 4.72 6.55 4 7.27 5.54 6.96 7.87 3.72 5.48

0.002** 0.882 0.640 0.036* 0.075 0.069 0.003** 0.211 0.405


140


scale) were obtained for the closed items considered in the questionnaire (see Figure 4). Sure enough, the trainees considered that the logistical aspects of the project had been clear (Q1), that the different phases had been adequate (Q5), and that the combination of in-class and out-of-class work had enhanced their learning process (Q6). They also felt that learning vocabulary through sitcoms should be included in language classes (Q2), and that participating in this project directly improved their English vocabulary skills (Q3), gave them new insight into American and British culture (Q4), and helped them to become more autonomous in their lexical strategy learning (Q7). The project equally increased their motivation to study English and practice it (Q9), heightened their interest in the English class (Q8), and caused the subject to be more fun (Q10). For all these reasons, the most highly valued item was the desire to participate in another VLE project in the future (Q11). Table 7.

Control group’s means on the pre- and post-tests.


Maximum Mean Mean p (correlated score (pre-test) (post-test) t-test) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Note: **p 5 0.01.

Figure 4.

Mean score of each closed questionnaire item.

1.87 7.21 3.87 5.85 5.59 4.85 5.9 5.55 5.33

4.28 5.74 3.84 3.09 4.08 4.92 7.35 1.64 4.45

0.000** 0.002** 0.933 0.000** 0.006** 0.890 0.001** 0.000** 0.000**


141

This opinion also comes across forcefully in the open questions of the survey, the answers to some of which we reproduce below. As can be observed, although the notable amount of work which the project involved is clearly acknowledged, the participants unanimously claimed that it was interesting, amusing, and successful, that it improved their lexical competence in English, and that it should continue throughout the following academic year since it was ‘‘perfect’’: I think that this project is very interesting and it is a good way to learn new vocabulary and expressions, so it must continue next year.


Yes, I’m totally sure that this is a very good idea! There are a lot of things to do, but I think that sitcoms are one of the most fun and helpful. Yes, I learn a lot with these types of practises because I improve my English at listening, speaking, writing, . . . I think it should be a very fun way of learning vocabulary and I would recommend doing it in the following years. I think this project has succeeded a lot. Sitcoms were a really good way to learn vocabulary of different topics. My advice: Go on this year – it has been perfect. I think this project should be extended for years because you can learn a lot. This project should start at the beginning of the year and see more series.

5.

Discussion

Thus, our data confirm our initial hypothesis: the use of VLE and CMC within the ECTS with English philology freshmen (experimental group) does develop superior lexical competence than that promoted by the traditional system of credits in English philology plus tourism freshmen (control group). Although the experimental group has significantly improved its performance on the vast majority of lexical aspects sampled, the control group has significantly worsened on practically all of them, and what is more, at extremely high confidence levels. Hence, it seems that the use of VLE and CMC to teach vocabulary for a single semester has been sufficient to counter the worrying decline in lexical performance of pre-service English teachers at the University of Jaeń which had been ascertained in previous years and which has once more been confirmed in the control group. Our findings are thus consistent with those of Hughes (2007), who found that blended learning increased retention in at-risk students with low pass rates (similar to ours in the past four years), as compared to traditional in-class teaching. These results also accord with those of other studies which found different forms of technology to improve lexical acquisition (Al-Jarf, 2007; Bazeli & Olle, 1995; Cobb & Horst, 2001; Crozer, 1996; Higgins & Hess, 1998; Hill, 1998; Johnson, 1997; Kang & Dennis, 1995; Kaur & Hegelheimer, 2005; Laufer & Hill, 2000; Pe´rez Canãdo & Dı´ ez Bedmar, 2006; Somogyi, 1996; Tozcu & Coady, 2004; Van Aacken, 1996) (see Section 2). They are equally in line with those investigations which have shown that blended learning increases student performance (Monguet, Fa´bregas, Delgado, Grimońy, & Herrera, 2006; Oakes & Green, 2003) and retention (Harker & Koutsantori, 2005), represents a deeper learning experience (Kupetz & Ziegenmeyer,


142


2005; Motteram, 2006), and improves learning outcomes and success rates (Vaughan, 2007). These outcomes are further reinforced by the positive responses of the trainees on the qualitative questionnaire which was administered at the end of the project to complement the quantitative data. They highly valued the project for its organizational aspects, motivational capacity, and learning potential, something which seems to confirm the success of the experience. This finding is also consistent with the specialized literature on the topic. Positive attitudes towards online vocabulary instruction have been revealed in studies by Al-Jarf (2007), Chen (2004), Felix (2001), Lin (2004), or Stracke (2007). In line with our results, blended learning environments have been found to stimulate participating students (Motteram, 2006), to be more motivating than traditional class-based approaches to language teaching (Hiltz & Turoff, 2005; Leakey & Ranchoux, 2006; Monguet et al., 2006), and to increase the commitment of learners (Harker & Koutsantori, 2005). The fact that it has involved a radically different way of learning vocabulary through VLE and CMC and the students themselves have selected the sitcoms and series they wanted to watch has also contributed to enhancing their motivation. As Rodrı´ guez Martı´ n (2004) points out, teaching vocabulary through films heightens the students’ interests, sparks their enthusiasm, and helps them gain a better understanding of the language used within them. This increased involvement and engagement is of primary importance for lexical acquisition (Gairns & Redman, 1986) and retention (Channell, 1998), the main aim we pursued with the project. In turn, for the teacher, the latter has met the three conditions which, according to Pennock-Speck (2009) must be contemplated when using ICT in language teaching: it has not been excessively time-consuming or expensive, and it has undoubtedly contributed to improving teaching practice. This is the case since it has fostered pedagogical innovation in the HE English class, as it has incorporated some of the latest trends in language teaching (CALL, blended learning, the Lexical Approach, cooperative, autonomous, or lifelong learning), a vast gamut of learning modalities (from small group seminars to individual tutorials or independent study time), and novel teacher and student roles. In this sense, traditional roles have been subverted, and the instructor is no longer an expert transmitter of knowledge while the student is a passive recipient. Rather, the teacher now becomes a monitor, facilitator, and guide in the learning process, whereas the teacher trainee is more active, participative, and independent (something also documented by Danchak & Huguet, 2004). We are thus adequately preparing students for the future by enhancing their autonomy and by equipping them with the necessary competencies they need to successfully join the workforce. As Pennock-Speck (2009, p. 183) puts it: ‘‘It is clear that graduates who are not comfortable with competencies and the internet will find it difficult to fit into the current work market’’. Thus, with this innovation, we are moving towards a new paradigm – from a presentational mode of learning to a more active one; from ‘‘bulimic’’ learning where the students merely regurgitate what they have learned, to critical learning that sticks. We are, as McGonigal (2005) terms it, ‘‘teaching for transformation’’. In this sense, our outcomes run contrary to Blin and Munro (2008) and Laurillard (2007), since our use of VLE has not merely continued traditional



143

modes of teaching; rather, it has been transformational, as it has favored the creation of a vast gamut of original learning activities exploited through a virtual learning environment and reinforced via language-related telecollaboration. Our outcomes support the prediction that e-learning technologies have enabled us as educators to ‘‘do more effectively what [we] are already trying to do’’ (Christensen, Aaron, & Clark, 2002, p. 32), in our case, improve lexical acquisition. They have undoubtedly favored disruptive innovation (in Christensen’s 1997 terms) and have involved a process of substitution of old trends for new online ones (Hiltz & Turoff, 2005). And this is fully in keeping with the underlying philosophy of the EHEA, so that the project has also paved the way towards methodological adaptation to the new credit system. It has helped to take significant steps in moving from the theory of the EHEA to its practical realization, something crucial across Europe at this particular moment (cf. Pe´rez Canãdo, 2009a). 6.

Pedagogical implications and lines for future research

Given the many advantages of the project, it would be desirable to continue working in the directions it has opened up. To begin with, it would undoubtedly be interesting to expand the range of lexical fields, sitcoms, and bank of activities for future applications, even incorporating movies, provided they are recent and continue to meet the students’ interests and expectations. Creating a clip and activity database (as is being done at UC Berkeley with movies in languages such as Russian) would be tremendously useful for language teachers, as they could search and immediately find clips to teach specific linguistic aspects, functions, or cultural questions. Expanding the use of CMC and VLE through series and/or movies to other languages would equally be worthwhile. The idea could also be fruitfully applied to the teaching of other linguistic, pragmatic, or cultural aspects of a foreign language, or even to other fields, such as languages for specific purposes. In this sense, an important spin-off of the project has been its application in the University of Jaeń to the teaching of legal English, through popular series like Shark, Close to home, or Boston legal. Several other lines for future research could also be proposed in connection to the study, in order to overcome its main limitations: . To begin with, it would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study, similar to our investigation, but more prolonged in time, in order to determine if the effects of the intervention are any different. . Adding a delayed post-test would equally be of great value in a longer investigation, as it would enable us to observe if the effects of the intervention are maintained or whether they gradually peter out. . No intervening variables of cognitive or orectic nature were considered in the study, nor were discriminant analyses performed to determine whether the intervention program was the variable truly responsible for the differences discerned. Thus, it would be interesting to consider intervening variables in a similar study in order to investigate the possible modulating effect they exert on university students’ learning of vocabulary through VLE and CMC. Performing further statistical analyses such as discriminant analysis would make this goal attainable.

144



. It would also be necessary to determine whether there is some sort of transfer or interface from what the students have been taught to their spontaneous writing, focused more on meaning and less on form. The success which the project has had has already allowed us to start working on some of these areas. To begin with, it is being developed in the present academic year in all the instrumental English subjects which pre-service teachers take in English philology at our university. It has also been extended from one to both semesters, and to all students in the degrees of English philology (our previous experimental group) and English philology plus tourism (our previous control group). We are also this year considering intervening variables such as gender or performance on the university entrance exam. The bank of materials is equally being expanded through the creation of additional activities focused on new topics. And a final important spin-off of the investigation has been the creation of the international research group ESECS (English Studies in the European Credit System – see www.esecs.eu), which is currently undertaking research into the methodological innovation spurred on by the creation of the EHEA and is creating a thematic network on the topic across Europe. 7. Conclusion Hence, the present article has allowed us to lay out the design, implementation, and results of a project which has used VLE and CMC to improve the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers in Spain. After justifying the necessity and novelty of the pedagogical innovation project, the article has described the actual design and procedure for the realization of the experience, subsequently highlighting its results, assets, and possible future applications. At a time of profound methodological revision within the EHEA, it is particularly valuable that a project of this nature has allowed us to meet some of the fundamental objectives laid out by the Spanish Council for University Coordination (cf. Informe de la Red Interuniversitaria de Innovacioń Docente de las Universidades Andaluzas, 2008, p. 3) when referring to the academic dimension of methodologies in the ECTS. Indeed, the experience has contributed, on the one hand, to the improvement of the learning process and to the level of satisfaction and motivation of our students. And, on the other, it has paved the way towards a new teaching style on the part of the lecturers involved, one where ICT becomes a cornerstone in language teaching. All in all, the project has helped us apply the pedagogical rationale underlying the European convergence process, while at the same time using ICT to update and reinvigorate HE methodology in English language teaching. Acknowledgements The author thanks the members of the ESECS research group for their invaluable contribution to the project.

Notes on contributor Dr Marı´ a Luisa Pe´rez Canãdo is associate professor at the Department of English Philology of the University of Jaén, Spain, where she is also vice dean of the Faculty of


145

Humanities and Education. Her research interests are in applied linguistics, English for specific purposes, and the intercultural component in language teaching. Her work has appeared in a notable number of scholarly journals and edited volumes. She is also author of four books on the interface of second language acquisition and second language teaching, co-author of an instructional method for the teaching of Spanish orthography and written composition in Spain and Mexico, and co-editor of two books and one ELT journal. Dr Pe´rez Canãdo has been serving as a reviewer for ELIA, The Grove and Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, and has taught and lectured in Belgium, Poland, Germany, Ireland, England, Mexico, the USA, and all over Spain. She has recently been granted the Ben Massey Award for the quality of her scholarly contributions regarding issues that make a difference in higher education.


References Al-Jarf, R. (2007). Teaching vocabulary to EFL college students online. CALL-EJ Online, 8, 2. Retrieved from http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/8-2/al-jarf. html Bazeli, M.J., & Olle, R.E. (1995). Using visuals to develop reading vocabulary. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED391519. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and Education, 50, 475–490. Channell, J. (1988). Psycholingustic considerations in the study of L2 vocabulary acquisition. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 83–96). London: Longman. Chen, P. (2004). EFL student learning style preferences and attitudes toward technologyintegrated instruction. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of South Dakota, DAI-A 64/08, 2813. Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, C., Aaron, S., & Clark, W. (2002). Disruption in education. In M. Devlin, R. Larson, & J. Meyerson (Eds.), The Internet and the university: Forum 2001. Forum for the Future of Higher Education and EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from https://www.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/ffpiu013.pdf CIDUA. (2005). Informe sobre la innovacioń de la docencia en las universidades andaluzas. Sevilla: Consejerı´ a de Ecuacioń, Junta de Andalucı´ a. Retrieved from http://www.uca.es/ web/estudios/innovacion/ficheros/informeinnovacinjuntaabril2005.doc Corda, A., & Jager, S. (2004). ELLIPS: Providing web-based language learning for higher education in The Netherlands. ReCALL, 16(1), 225–236. Crozer, N. (1996). Individualized vocabulary instruction on the computer. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED398944. Danchak, M.M., & Huguet, M.P. (2004). Designing for the changing role of the instructor in blended learning. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(3), 200–210. De Miguel Dı´ az, M. (Ed.) (2005). Modalidades de ensenãnza centradas en el desarrollo de competencias. Orientaciones para promover el cambio en el marco del EEES. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo. De Miguel Dı´ az, M. (Ed.) (2006). Metodologıás de ensenãnza y aprendizaje para el desarrollo de competencias. Orientaciones para el profesorado universitario ante el Espacio Europeo de Educacioń Superior. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. European Ministers of Education. (1999). The Bologna declaration. Retrieved from http:// www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION. PDF European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. (2003). Realising the European Higher Education Area. In Communique´ of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.euabe/fileadmin/ user_upload/files/EUA1_documents/OFFDOC_BP_Berlin_communique_final.106674146 8366.pdf


146


European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. (2005). Achieving the goals. In Communique´ of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen. Retrieved May 19–20, 2005 from: http://www.bologna-bergen2005. no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050520_Bergen_Communique.pdf European University Association. (2003). Graz declaration – Forward from Berlin: The role of universities. Retrieved from: http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/EUA1_ documents/COM_PUB_Graz_publication_final.1069326105539.pdf European University Association. (2005). Glasgow declaration – Strong universities for a strong Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/EUA1_ documents/Glasgow_Declaration.1114612714258.pdf Felix, U. (2001). A multivariate analysis of students’ experience of web based learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 21–36. Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harker, M., & Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Can it be as effective? Distance versus blended learning in a web-based EAP programme. ReCALL, 17(2), 197–216. Higgins, N., & Hess, L. (1998). Using electronic books to promote vocabulary development. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED418687. Hill, M. (1998). English vocabulary for Chinese learners: Words in your ear. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED462003. Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M. (2005). Education goes digital. The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 59–64. Horst, M., & Cobb, T. (2001). Growing academic vocabulary with a collaborative online database. In B. Morrison, D. Gardner, K. Keobke, & M. Spratt (Eds.), ELT perspectives on IT and multimedia (pp. 189–225). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Nicolae, A. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive on-line database. Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), 90–110. Hughes, G. (2007). Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349–363. Jimeńez, R.M., & Lamb, T. (2007). Issues in pedagogy for autonomy in modern languages education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jimeńez, R.M., Lamb, T., & Vieira, F. (2007). Pedagogy for autonomy in language education in Europe. Towards a framework for learner and teacher development. Dublin: Authentik. Johnson, D. (1997). The effect of computer-assisted instruction on the vocabulary knowledge of college freshmen. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 13(2), 31–44. Kang, S., & Dennis, J.R. (1995). The effects of computer-enhanced vocabulary lessons on achievement of ESL grade school children. Computers in the Schools, 11(3), 25–35. Kaur, J., & Hegelheimer, V. (2005). ESL students’ use of concordance in the transfer of academic word knowledge: An exploratory study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 287–310. Kupetz, R., & Ziegenmeyer, B. (2006). Flexible learning activities fostering autonomy in teaching training. ReCALL, 18(1), 63–82. Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do l2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning and Technology, 3(2), 58–76. Laurillard, D. (2007). Preface. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routlege. Leakey, J., & Ranchoux, A. (2006). BLINGUA. A blended language learning approach for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(4–5), 357–372. Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (1997a). Pedagogical implications of the Lexical Approach. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition. A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 255– 270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, M. (1997b). Implementing the lexical approach. Putting theory into practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation. Further developments in the Lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.



147

Lin, Y.A. (2004). An assessment of the international students’ attitudes toward technologybased learning: English as a second language (ESL) implication. PhD Dissertation, Mississippi State University (Dissertation Abstracts International), 65/02, 478. Mackiewicz, W. (2002). Lifelong foreign language learning. Paper presented at the European Seminar on Foreign Language Learning Needs in Education Systems, Valencia, Spain, May 5–7. Retrieved from http://www.fu-berlin.de/elc/docs/Mackiewicz-Valencia. pdf McGonigal, K. (2005). Teaching for transformation. Speaking of Teaching, 14(2). Retrieved from: http://ctl.stanford.edu/Newsletter/ McLaren, N., Madrid, D., & Bueno, E. (Eds.) (2005). TEFL in secondary education. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. Michavila, F. (2007). Conferencia plenaria. Paper presented at the II Jornadas de Trabajo sobre Experiencias Piloto en la Universidades Andaluzas, Granada, Spain, 30– 31 October. Michavila, F. (2009). Preface. In M.L. Pe´rez Canãdo (Ed.), English Language Teaching in the European Credit Transfer System: Facing the challenge (pp. 9–16). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Monguet, J.M., Fa´bregas, J.J., Delgado, D., Grimońy, F., & Herrera, M. (2006). Efecto del blended learning sobre el rendimiento y la motivacioń de los estudiantes. Interciencia, 31(3), 190–196. Motteram, G. (2006). ‘Blended’ education and the transformation of teachers: A long-term case study in postgraduate UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 17–30. Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Nattinger, J.R., & Jeanette, S.D. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oakes, K., & Green, D. (2003). E-learning. TD, October 17–19, 2003. O’Dowd, R. (2007). Foreign language education and the rise of on-line communication: A review of promises and realties. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 17–40). Exeter: Multilingual Matters. Pennock-Speck, B. (2009). European convergence and the role of ICT in English studies at the Universitat de Vale`ncia: Lessons learned and prospects for the future. In M.L. Pe´rez Canãdo (Ed.), English language teaching in the European credit transfer system: Facing the challenge (pp. 169–185). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Pe´rez Basanta, C. (2004). Pedagogic aspects of the design and content of an online course for the development of lexical competence. ADELEX. ReCALL, 16(1), 20–40. Pe´rez Canãdo, M.L. (2008). La innovacioń docente en el EEES: El caso de la ensenãnza del ingle´s. Paper presented at the Congreso Internacional: Comunicacioń, Calidad, Interculturalidad y Prospectiva en Educacioń, Leoń, Spain, May 6–9. Pe´rez Canãdo, M.L. (2009a). Introduction and overview. In M.L. Pe´rez Canãdo (Ed.), English language teaching in the European Credit Transfer System: Facing the challenge (pp. 17– 31). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Pe´rez Canãdo, M.L. (2009b). Reengineering English language teaching: Making the shift towards ‘real’ English. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 3–10. Pe´rez Canãdo, M.L. & Dı´ ez Bedmar, M.B. (2006). Data-driven learning and awarenessraising: An effective tandem to improve grammar in written composition? IJET: International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 1(1), 1–11. Pe´rez Canãdo, M.L. & Ware, P.D. (2009). Why CMC and VLE are especially suited to the ECTS: The case of telecollaboration in English studies. In M.L. Pe´rez Canãdo (Ed.), English language teaching in the European Credit Transfer System: Facing the challenge (pp. 111–150). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Pratt, M.L., Geisler, M., Kramsch, C., McGinnis, S., Patrikis, P., Ryding, K., & Saussy, H. (2008). Transforming college and university foreign language departments. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 287–292. Red CIDUA de la Licenciatura de Filologı´ a Inglesa. (2008). Informe de la Red Interuniversitaria de Innovacioń Docente de las Universidades Andaluzas. Ma´laga: Universidad de Ma´laga. Richards, J.E. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77–89.


148


Rodrı´ guez Martı´ n, M.E. (2004). Useful websites for teaching English through films: How to use them in classroom activities. In ELT 2003: Teachers do it in the classroom. Granada: GRETA. Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 17–36. Somogyi, E. (1996). Using the concordancer in vocabulary development for the Cambridge advanced English (CAE) course. On-CALL, 10(2), 29–35. Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 57–78. Sua´rez Suberviola, E., & Varela Meńdez, R. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition strategies. Didaćtica (Lengua y Literatura), 14, 233–250. Thorne, S. (2003). Artefacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Tozcu, A., & Coady, J. (2004). Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also benefits reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(5), 473–495. Van Aacken, S. (1996). The efficacy of CALL in Kanji learning. On-CALL, 10(2), 2–14. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-learning, 6(1), 81–94. Ware, P.D., & Pe´rez Canãdo, M.L. (2007). Grammar and feedback: turning to language form in telecollaboration. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 107–126). Exeter: Multilingual Matters.

Appendix 1: Lexical aspects covered in the project and sample activities 1. Collocations (Words commonly associated with it) Which two verbs which collocate with ‘‘test’’ are used in this excerpt? (Take / Have) [HOUSE] 2. Gambits used to express functions (Limitations of use according to situation and function) Phoebe tries to tell an anecdote about a cab driver, but she’s constantly interrupted by Joey, Monica, and Chandler. What two expressions does she use to get back to the topic? – Anyway, – So, Now add three more such expressions which we have seen in class. – In any case, – To get back to what I was saying, – Where was I? [FRIENDS] 3. Verbal complementation and prepositions (Syntactic behavior associated with it) Prepositions are very important in expressions related to marriage. Can you fill in the following gaps with the correct preposition? A list is provided to help you. (1) to propose TO someone (2) to fall IN love (3) love AT fist sight (4) to get married TO someone (5) to give the bride AWAY (6) to get engaged TO someone (7) to get divorced FROM someone [FRIENDS]


149

4. Word formation (Underlying forms and derivations) Please fill in the following table with the correct form of the words provided in brackets. All of them are related to health and most are mentioned in this excerpt.

NOUN

VERB

ADJECTIVE

blood treatable shivery


breathless

[HOUSE] 5. Word meaning (Semantic value) Fill in the gaps with the three idiomatic expressions which appear in this excerpt. What do you think they mean? Rachel to Dave: I’m going to need to TAKE A RAINCHECK. Monica to Rachel: I just ran into Dave and he told me you BLEW HIM OFF! Monica to Rachel: You listen to me! Now I’m CALLING THE SHOTS! [FRIENDS] 6. Synonymy and antonymy (Knowing its different meanings) Fill in the gaps below with the antonyms of the words provided, all of them mentioned in this clip. . Healthy: . Cheap: . Inspired: . Disgusting: . Useful: . Grumpy: [JAMIE’S SCHOOL DINNERS]

Appendix 2: Sample questions included in the pre- and post-tests. 1. Collocations: Complete the sentences with the correct COLLOCATIONS. __________ open __________ new __________ asleep __________ clear 2. Gambits used to express functions: FUNCTIONS. Cite three expressions to . . . Give advice: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

150


3. Verbal complementation and prepositions: PREPOSITIONS. Fill in the gaps with the appropriate preposition. She got married__________ Harry last year. He died __________ a heart attack. She’s very proud __________ everything she’s achieved. This area is well-known __________ its restaurants and night clubs. How much he earns depends __________ how many hours he works. 4. Word formation: WORD FORMATION. Please fill in the following table with the correct form of the words provided.


NOUN

VERB

ADJECTIVE

adopt breathless blood 5. Synonymy and antonymy: Provide an ANTONYM for each of the following lexical items: Sick , ____________________ Miserable , ____________________