Inferencing Strategies

Almost all literature on inferencing strategies distinguishes between strategies centered on the unfamiliar word itself and strategies that are contextually based.  When referring to the word based strategies, Hamada (2009) used the term local strategies.  In contrast, the phrase global strategies was used to describe the contextually based inferencing strategies.  However, these terms only represent the broadest definition of inferencing strategies.

From their study on the role of linguistic knowledge, Kaivanpanah and Alavi (2008) identified seven different inferencing strategies.  The first strategy they found was sentence level grammatical knowledge, which involves looking for relationships between words to determine meaning.  This strategy would fall under Hamada’s idea of local strategies, where the focus is more on the word than contextual clues within the text.  Word morphology and considering class membership was another strategy, and this involved deconstructing word parts and examining the meaning of each part.  The third strategy Kaivanpanah and Alavi found was analyzing the compound words into their constituents.  This strategy is similar to the second in that it involves deconstructing words and examining the meaning of each part. Both of these strategies would be classified as a local strategy.  The next strategy identified was sentence level semantic clues which is a local strategy, but one that is more sophisticated and shows a deeper word knowledge than the previously mentioned strategies.  The next strategy involving discourse/text most resembles Hamada’s global strategies as it attempts to look beyond the word, or even the sentence, level for clues to determine the meaning.  The last two strategies Kaivanpanah and Alavi identified were homonymy/phonetic similiarity and collocation.  The former compares words that sound similar in the second language and the latter uses knowledge of how words are usually paired together to infer meaning.

Nassaji (2006) identifies similar strategies but categorizes these strategies into three types: identifying, evaluating, and monitoring.  Under the category identifying, there are three subtypes, two of which overlap with the Kaivanpanah and Alavi (2008) findings.  The first is word analysis, and this aligns with word morphology and considering class membership, as well as analyzing the compound words into their constituents.  The second is word-form analogy, and it overlaps with phonetic similarity.  The final subtype of the identifying category is repeating, where the learning attempts to infer the meaning of a word by repeating it or any of the words near the unfamiliar word.  Evaluating is the second type and it has two subtypes: verifying and self-inquiry.  Monitoring is Nassaji’s final type, which he defines as, “the learner shows a conscious awareness of the problem by judging its ease or difficulty” (p. 392).

While inferencing strategies are often known by different names, the underlying concept remains the same.  Learners can utilize the type of strategies that Hamada (2009) identified as local strategies, where an attempt is made to infer the meaning of a word by analyzing the unfamiliar word with a narrow focus on the word itself, and global strategies that encourage the learner to utilize their knowledge of the outside world and their understanding of the text for clues as to meaning of the unfamiliar word.

Inferencing Effectiveness

In order for inferencing to be a valid option for learning new words in L2 reading, it needs to be effective.  This paper will now turn to examining the effectiveness of inferencing in L2 reading.

In Hamada’s (2009) study of the development of L2 word meaning inferences, over a period of four weeks, she studied five English learners and their ability to infer word meanings in weekly readings.  For each participant at the end of the study, Hamada reported a mean success rate range of 50% to 32% and that multiple strategies were used when attempting to infer word meaning.  There is no indication whether these figures take into account the number of words the participants guessed correctly and partially correctly, or if only correct guesses were included.  Regardless, these results suggest that inferencing may not be very effective, though Hamada offers implications for the classroom, which will be addressed later in this paper.  Although Nassaji (2006) distinguished between lexically skilled and lexically less skilled participants in his study of the connection between depth of knowledge and inferencing strategies, even the lexically skilled participants had a similar success rate to the participants in the Hamada (2009) study.

However, there are many factors that can affect the success of inferencing.  Kaivanpanah and Alavi (2008), Hamada (2009), and Nassaji (2006) argue that the level of language proficiency plays a role in inferencing effectiveness.  As previously mentioned, Nassaji (2006) made a distinction between learners who were lexically skilled and those who were lexically less skilled.  He accomplished this by sorting the participants according to their scores on a depth of vocabulary knowledge test.  After the participants were assigned to the lexically skilled or lexically less skilled group, they were tested on their inferencing skills.  The lexically skilled group outperformed the lexically less skilled group.

Nassaji (2006) found that the lexically less skilled participants used more local strategies than the lexically skilled participants, but even when the lexically skilled participants used local strategies, they were more effective than their less skilled coparticipants.  Kaivanpanah and Alavi (2008) had similar findings in their study with higher proficiency participants using more global strategies and lesser proficient participants using local strategies.  Hamada’s (2009) results echoed this by finding that high proficiency learners used more contextual clues, and that many participants in her study shifted from using local strategies to global ones.  She further added that these contextual clues were more closely related to successful inference of unknown words.

Walters’ (2006) findings indicate that with those who have been trained in inferencing strategies, the learners’ level of proficiency does not play a large role in inferencing effectiveness.  She adds to that by saying it is possible that learners at various proficiency levels may respond differently to inferencing training.  This could imply that lower proficiency language learners benefit more from inferencing strategy training than more proficient learners.  Hamada (2009) alluded to something similar in her study postulating that there may be a threshold of strategy use, and that success depends more on how the inferencing strategies are utilized.

Implications for the classroom

The Walters (2006) study perhaps offers the best data for classroom instruction.  That is, her findings suggest that strategy training as well as teaching learners to use context clues can aid in inferencing success for learners of most levels of proficiency.  She further goes on to say that more practice helps the learner to use his inferencing strategies more effectively.  Hamada (2009) likewise stressed the importance of effective strategy use.  Knowing at what time to use what strategy may even be more important than knowing the different inferencing strategies.  This effective strategy use may further be an integral part of classroom instruction and interaction if there is indeed a threshold of strategy use.

Kaivanpanah and Alavi (2008) stress that more grammar instruction is needed to raise linguistic knowledge because greater linguistic knowledge translates to more effective inferencing.  They further warn teachers to pay attention during the text selection process, as texts that lack enough viable context clues increase the likelihood a learner’s ability to infer the meaning of a new word will be severely limited or, in the worst case, fail.  Kaivanpanah and Alavi conclude their study by stressing the relative inaccuracy of inferencing and that learners must also be taught how to check their inferences.

In his study, Nassaji (2006) demonstrated that lexically skilled learners were more effective inferencers due to their greater depth of vocabulary knowledge.  These findings indicated that a greater focus on developing word knowledge needs to be implemented rather than simply increasing the size of a learner’s vocabulary.

Conclusion

Inferencing holds a special place in second language reading due to the vast number of words that are unknown to the L2 learner.  The ability of an L2 reader to effectively handle an unfamiliar word can affect not only reading comprehension, but also how the reader approaches unfamiliar words within a text in the future.  To promote success in L2 reading, it is therefore critical that teachers be acquainted with inferencing strategies as well as how they can be utilized by learners to aid better reading comprehension.

References

Hamada, M. (2009). Development of L2 word-meaning inference while reading. System, 447-460.

Kaivanpanah, S., & Alavi, S. M. (2008). The role of linguistic knowledge in word-meaning inferencing. System, 172-195.

Nassaji, H. (2006). The Relationships Between Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge and L2 Learners’ Lexical Inferencing Strategy Use and Success. The Modern Language Journal, 387-401.

Walters, J. (2006). Methods of Teaching Inferring Meaning from Context. Regional Language Centre Journal, 176-190.

Sparks et al (2006) studied a group of students’ literacy skills beginning in elementary school through high school.  He and his colleagues found that there was a positive correlation between L1 literacy skills and L2 literacy skills.  That is, students with high literacy skills in their L1 were significantly more likely to develop high literacy skills in their L2.  This shows that the transfer of literacy skills from one language to another can be helpful for students, especially when those literacy skills are strong and have already been established before learning a second language.  However, Sparks and his colleagues looked at native English speakers learning one of three foreign languages (German, French and Spanish) all of which use the Roman alphabet.  As such, the students were not required to learn a new alphabet or script.  This is something of a limitation for the study, as it difficult to say whether the transfer of literacy skills happened because there is a true transfer of literacy skills from an L1 to an L2 or if literacy skills can be transferred when the two languages share a common alphabet and therefore only require learners to assign new phonemic values to letters with which they are already familiar.

Even if we only take this study to mean that there exists a transfer of literacy skills between languages that share a common alphabet or script rather than a broad transfer of literacy skills regardless of language attributes this still proves to be a valid observation for L2 learners and teachers alike.  For those teaching in a foreign language context, such as the students from the Sparks et al (2006) study, problems with the development of L2 literacy may be best addressed by working on bolstering the student’s L1 literacy skills.  Indeed, it may be that more literacy events regardless of the language (the L1 or L2) a student participates in, the more likely that student will be to increase his or her literacy skills in either language.

Durgunoğlu (2002) was on a similar track, and found that students who lag in or have trouble with the development of L2 literacy may not always have a learning disability; rather, it may simply indicate the the learner does not have a strong set of L1 skills, including literacy skills, from which to transfer to the L2.  For teachers with a heterogenous group of L2 readers or writers, this would be important to take into consideration, as a lack of development of literacy should not be automatically be written off as a lack of ability, intelligence or even as an indication of a learning disability.  Instead, it would be worthwhile for teachers to investigate such a learner’s knowledge and skill set in his or her native language before reaching a conclusion as to the cause of the student’s difficulty.  Durgunoğlu also feels that it is necessary to continually check students’ proficiency in the target language as well as the development of literacy skills (p. 202).  This underscores a fundamental philosophy in language teaching not just about knowing one’s students, but also to provide on-going assessment.  Durgunoğlu’s (2002) study is especially relevant to students and teachers in a second language environment, where immigrant students may not have had a chance to develop literacy skills in their L1 before beginning instruction in the L2.  For teachers, a lack of L1 literacy skills, and therefore difficulty with L2 literacy may require them to teach students literacy skills as opposed to L2 literacy skills.

Shwartz, Leikin, and Share (2005) look at a group of L1 Russian L2 Hebrew children.  In some ways, this study controls for the usage of a similar alphabet/script that Sparks et al (2006) did not, as Russian and Hebrew have different alphabets.  Their study showed that children who were literate in both the L1 and L2 (as opposed to their bilingual/monoliterate and monolingual peers) had more success with meta-linguistic tasks.  While this does not address the transfer of literacy skills, it does present the teacher with a valid reason for testing literacy in both the L2 and L1, as the finding that the presence of literacy skills in both languages aids learners in other language related tasks could assist teachers in profiling their students and pinpointing exactly what type of instruction their students need.  It further indicates that teaching literacy in the L1 may also prove to be beneficial for L2 instruction.

However, as Bell (1995) chronicles her journey in becoming literate in Chinese, she indicates that being literate in her L1 (English) was actually more of an obstacle than a help.  She points to the differences in culture and how they view literacy as the issue.  While this is obviously an auto-biographical study that doesn’t necessarily allow for the ability to generalize the study’s findings, it still brings up a point that needs to be considered in the discussion of literacy transfer.  And that is: how does one define literacy?  Not surprisingly, each culture has its own definition.  For many cultures, the definition is similar enough that the literacy skills a learner possesses in his or her L1 can simply transferred to the target language without changing the learner’s own literacy definition.

But what happens when two cultures have definitions of literacy that are very different?  Bell (1995) frequently struggled with the Chinese characters as she attempted to develop literacy skills in the language.  She spent her time questioning her instructor about Chinese characters, attempting to break the process down into parts and then analyzing those parts.  This approach, while useful and successful in learning how to read and write in English, was contrary to the Chinese way of thinking; that is, English literacy is analytic, whereas Chinese is more holistic (Bell, 1995).  Furthermore, when Bell began learning the Chinese characters, she started with the easier to produce ones, regardless of their perceived “usefulness.”  This again was contrary to Bell’s way of learning (Bell, 1995).

From this, it becomes apparent that the transfer of literacy skills is only useful when both the native and target language definitions of literacy are similar.  There are a few implications for teachers to be pulled from this observation.  First, for those who teacher a group of students that are from multiple countries, it would be worthwhile to become educated on the literacy practices and background, as identifying certain commonalities or differences can assist one in pinpointing possible trouble spots as well as show the teacher where an emphasis may not be needed.  That is, if certain areas of literacy are similar, such as the writing rhetoric, then less instruction time could be used because the student or students could simply transfer their L1 skills to the L2.  Secondly, if such definitions of literacy are vastly different, such as those of English and Chinese, it would behoove teachers to be aware of this, and realize that their students may need more work and instruction time to teach them the skills and strategies necessary to have to develop said literacy skills in the L2.  Thirdly, it is worth assessing literacy in the L1 if a student presents difficulties in developing L2 literacy.  Even if the definitions of literacy are different across the two cultures and languages, a strong L1 literacy background suggests a basis for academic skill.  That is, if a learner present strong L1 literacy skills, it is likely they are accustomed to instruction and possess the ability to learn and acquire the skills necessary for L2 literacy.  Finally, it would be worthwhile to continually assess the literacy skills and proficiency of students in their L2.  This is important for teachers because it can help them to catch students who may be struggling, and it may also allow them to diagnose, so to speak, the reasons for the struggle.

In sum, the transfer of literacy skills is mainly beneficial to learners who have a native language and target language which define literacy in a similar manner.  For those whose native and target language define literacy differently, the transfer of literacy skills can be more harmful than helpful.  It is because of this that teachers should make the effort to learn about their students and their students’ literacy backgrounds.

References

Bell, J. S. (1995). The Relationship Between L1 and L2 Literacy: Some Complicating Factors. TESOL Quarterly , 687-704.

Durgunoğlu, A. (2002). Cross-linguistic Transfer in Literacy Development and Implications for Language Learners. Annals of Dyslexia , 189-204.

Shwartz, M., Leikin, M., & Share, D. (2005). Bi-literate bilingualism versus mono-literate bilingualism. Written Language and Literacy , 179-206.

Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-Term Crosslinguistic Transfer of Skills From L1 to L2. Language Learning , 203-243.

Peer Response and Writing

Under the proper circumstances (these to be addressed later in the discussion of implications for teaching), peer response has been shown to enhance the L2 writing process.  Min (2006) studied the effect of trained peer review and found that this was useful in improving overall writing.  It is important to place the emphasis on trained in trained peer review, as Min also compared how much peer feedback was incorporated into students’ revisions, and found that amount of peer feedback that was used in future revisions was far less before training (42%) than after (77%) (p. 128).  In addition, the peer feedback that was used in revisions helped to improve the quality of the paper approximately 72% of the time (p. 130).   This suggests that peer feedback can have a positive influence on the revision process and final product.

Lin and Chien (2009) studied the effectiveness of peer response and found that the ability to collaborate with fellow students increased their motivation and inspiration.  Such collaboration, especially at the beginning of the writing process, may not be quantifiable in terms of the number of comments on a paper, but rather help the student and his or her peer(s) to develop and strengthen their ideas and organization before they ever begin writing their first draft.

Both of these studies (Lin & Chien, 2009; Min, 2006) were done in an EFL environment. Yang et al (2006) also studied the effects of peer response in an EFL environment.  This is important to note, as in the Yang et al study, they were in particular focusing on whether peer feedback could be introduced into the classroom where the traditional school culture reveres teacher feedback and places little value on the feedback of peers.  They found that despite this reliance on teacher feedback in the Chinese EFL environment, peer response could still be instituted and be successful.  If this is possible for EFL environments where the dominant culture does not place importance on peer response, then it is likely that peer response could also be successfully introduced into the ESL environments where the dominant culture does place importance on peer response.  Indeed, Lundstrom and Baker (2009) conducted their study in an ESL environment, and although they studied whether giving or receiving feedback was better for writing, they found that when peer review was instituted, both givers and receivers made gains in their writing ability.  This shows that peer response can be used in EFL and ESL contexts, regardless of the students’ cultural orientation toward peer feedback.

Peer Response and Writers

Next, we turn to the effect of peer response on the development of L2 writers.  This is important to consider, as one of the main purposes of L2 composition, besides improving the quality of English writing, should be to develop self-sufficient writers.  That is, L2 students need to be able to write well in addition to having the capacity to edit and think critically about their own compositions.

Lundstrom and Baker (2009) found that when peer response was instituted in an ESL composition course, especially for students, regardless of their beginner or intermediate level status, who were in their first semester abroad, the students’ writing ability increased significantly when they were only required to give feedback, opposed to their fellow students who only received the feedback.  And although the students who gave feedback and those who received it both improved their writing skills, the students that gave feedback far outperformed their peers (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009).  If students who were required to give feedback to their peers significantly outperformed their peers in later writing abilities, this strongly suggests that something within the process of giving feedback enables students to think critically about writing, which is a skill they can then apply to their own writing.

Yang et al (2006) found that peer feedback, while not always incorporated into later drafts, promotes better self-editing skills.  So while students may not agree with the suggestions that their peer has given about their paper, what these students may not realize is that to accept or reject what a peer has suggested means that one must think critically about his paper, what he is trying to say, as well as how the proposed change would benefit or damage his meaning before making a decision on how to revise. This lack of realization about the benefits of peer response (i.e. the development of self-editing skills) may lead students to view peer response in a negative light (Yang et al, 2006).  However, not incorporating peer feedback into later revision does not always mean that this feedback was unhelpful.  Furthermore, the study (Yang et al, 2006) found that students who received only teacher feedback relied heavily on this, often times without questioning what the teacher wrote.  Even though the students who received peer feedback still preferred teacher feedback, they relied less on this, instead demonstrating more autonomous writing skills.

Implications for Teaching L2 Composition

In all of these studies, (Yang et al, 2006; Min 2006; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Lin & Chien, 2009) the students were trained in peer response.  Min (2006) in particular studied peer response and whether training was important.  Overwhelmingly, she found that trained peer response was necessary for the students.  Furthermore, she stressed that students need to be trained as well as held accountable for their feedback (Min, 2006).

A valid reason for training and holding students accountable for their feedback is brought up by the Yang et al (2006) study, which made a distinction between feedback that was usable and feedback that was not.  An example of usable feedback would be, “Your thesis statement should be located at the beginning of the paper instead of the end so that readers can easily identify your position,” as opposed to unusable feedback, an example of which would be, “Excellent and clear thesis statement!”  Let to their own devices, students are much more likely to leave comments similar to the latter, when this is not beneficial for either the feedback giver or receiver.

In addition, Lin and Chien (2009) found that after eight weeks of trained peer response, students believed that peer feedback was less traumatic than teacher feedback, and although they still preferred teacher feedback for learning, they also felt more comfortable with receiving peer feedback.  This is an interesting and somewhat conflicting finding, though perhaps it simply implies that peer feedback can only take students so far in their writing; using peer response in the L2 composition course is not a substitute for teacher feedback.  Rather, it should be used as a supplement to teacher feedback as well as promoting better writing and developing critical thinking and self-editing skills.

Conclusion

The negative views that many students hold regarding peer response should not discourage teachers from implementing peer response in their L2 composition courses.  With that said, teachers must also be sure to train and hold their students accountable for the feedback they give in order for the peer response process to be effective and positive for L2 students.  The writing of L2 students shows improvement after peer response has been instituted in the classroom.  Peer response has also shown to help students to become more effective in their self-editing skills.  After all, the goal for teachers of L2 composition courses, in addition to helping L2 students develop their writing skills in the target language, should be to develop autonomous writers who can function just as well on their own as they would in the classroom. 

References

Lin, G. H., & Chien, P. C. (2009). An Investigation into the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology , 3, 79-87.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing (18), 30-43.

Min, H.-T. (2006). The effectiveness of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing (15), 118-141.

Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing (15), 179-200.

The academic word list created by Coxhead was designed to pool together a list a word families that non-native learners of English would likely encounter in academic texts; these are word families that are not subject-specific enough to be found across multiple areas of research, and these were also word families there were not included in the General Service List (GSL), a list that compiled the 2,000 most frequent word families in the English language (Coxhead, 2000).  Examples of these words include: analyze, approach and assess (Coxhead, 2000, p. 232).  As one can easily see, these are words that are likely to appear in texts within most, if not all, academic subjects.  It is this list that is used by many English programs that are intended to prepare non-native speakers of English for university life in an English speaking country, such as the many Intensive English Programs found throughout countries who native language is English.

But to what extent is the AWL actually useful to students?  Is it useful to all students, or a specific set of students?  Coxhead makes a few key assumptions in creating the AWL.  By not including words from the GSL (Coxhead, 2000), she presumes that students who might use the AWL are already familiar with the GSL.  But as Martinez et al (2009) points out, there are such situations where non-native English speakers learn English as they need it; specifically, there are students in Latin America who learn English solely in order to read and do basic research in English, and these students may not know the words on the GSL.  This further reiterates the necessity for teachers to know their students, as well as developing course goals and objectives that will best serve students.  If students, such as those to which Martinez et al (2009) refers, are not familiar with the GSL, then teaching them the AWL may not be as useful as one might hope.  Instead, these students, with their limited exposure to English, may need extra vocabulary to supplement the AWL so that they are introduced to the vocabulary that will aid them in doing research in English.  Durrant (2009) similarly argued that even if students were familiar with word families from the GSL, they may not be familiar with the usage of these words within the context of academic texts (p. 164).  He also found that a majority of the words on a collocation list he created from a collection of research articles were from the GSL, which further indicates that if students are not familiar with the GSL, or if they are familiar with the word family from the GSL, but not the specific use, these word usages will also have to be addressed when teaching academic vocabulary.

In addition, Coxhead (2000) expects that her AWL, when combined with the GSL, will cover approximately 86% of academic texts, with the AWL itself covering 10% (p. 222).  However, the study done by Martinez et al (2009) regarding agriculture found that the GSL plus the AWL only accounted for approximately 77% (p. 188), a figure that is much lower than the 86% figure given by Coxhead (2000). Hancioğlu et al (2008) found, along the same lines as Martinez et al., that the AWL coverage of academic texts varies according to the subject area.  While not a large difference at 13.8% to 16.1% coverage (Hancioğlu et al, 2008, p. 471), this still suggests that some academic areas are covered better than others.  Does this suggest a bias in the AWL, or does this simply mean that certain academic areas have more specialized terminology than others?

If certain academic areas do have more specialized terminology than others, this could imply a couple different things.  First, it has the possibility to call into question the advantages for teaching the AWL.  It may not be a catch all vocabulary list for students who are looking to learn word families to assist them in reading academic texts.  Much like Vongpumivitch et al (2009) suggests, it may be better to expose students not just to the AWL, but also word lists specific to the academic area they wish to pursue.  However, this would be an option best suited for a classroom where all the students are in the same field; in a classroom where there are students who plan to study in different fields (e.g. engineering, linguistics, and agriculture) it would become more difficult for the teacher to supplement the AWL with subject-specific word lists for each academic discipline represented in the class.  Secondly, and to take the first implication further, if certain academic areas do have more specialized terminology, it could be argued that word lists specific to each academic discipline would better suit ESL or EFL students, and that these lists could also include word families from the AWL that are most relevant to the academic discipline in question.  And if there is indeed a bias in the AWL, the latter implication may be a solution in addressing that bias.  Nevertheless, teachers who are contemplating exposing their students to the AWL must weigh these implications against their course goals and objectives by asking questions such as: (1) are my students from a single academic discipline?  (2) Would teaching the AWL best prepare them for studying their academic discipline? (3) Will they need to know word families from the AWL for other reasons? (4) Will they be exposed to more specialized vocabulary in the future?

Durrant (2009) argues that one shortcoming of Coxhead’s AWL is a lack of collocations.  This is further highlighted by Hancioğlu et al (2008) who says, “knowing any word in depth involves knowing other words” (p. 460, emphasis in original).  That is, it is simply not enough to know words from the AWL – a learner must also know the words that go with those words from the AWL in order to achieve maximum reading comprehension.  Durrant (2009) found that the majority of the collocations across five different subject areas were grammatical collocations.  He maintains that these grammatical collocations are important to learners, as they can indicate certain patterns within academic writing (p. 163).  Again, such information would be valuable to teachers of learners of foreign languages.  If one of the course goals were, for example, “Students will read and comprehend research articles in their chosen field,” then it might be useful to teach collocations in addition to the AWL, and perhaps even the GSL.  However, if a course goal were, “Students will know 80% of Coxhead’s AWL,” collocations may not be necessary to teach.

Although Coxhead’s Academic Word List was created to assist English language learners in their ability to read academic texts, this list is not without its detractors.  It has been criticized for its exclusion of words from the GSL (Martinez et al, 2009; Durrant, 2009), its coverage of words in academic texts (Hancioğlu et al, 2008; Martinex et al, 2009; Vongpumivitch et al, 2009), and  its exclusion of collocations (Durrant, 2009).  This does not necessarily mean that the AWL should not be taught in classrooms.  It does, however, provide teachers of second or foreign languages with a viable example as to why knowing their students, their students’ needs as well as how certain tools (e.g. the AWL) can assist them in achieving their course goals is extremely important.  In order to be successful in teaching, one must not only stay informed, but also be able to weigh the pros and cons of a specific tool or activity against the ultimate goals and objectives of a course in order to make a decision as to whether the tool or activity should be utilized in the language classroom.

References

Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly , 213-238.

Durrant, P. (2009). Investigating the viability of a collocation list for students of English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes , 157-169.

Hancioğlu, N., Neufeld, S., & Eldridge, J. (2008). Through the looking glass and into the land of lexico-grammar. English for Specific Purposes , 459-479.

Martinez, I. A., Beck, S. C., & Panza, C. B. (2009). Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes , 183-198.

Vongpumivitch, V., Ju-yu, H., & Yu-Chia, C. (2009). Frequency analysis of the words in the Academic Word List (AWL) and non-AWL content words in applied linguistics research papers. English for Specific Purposes , 33-41.