Vocabulary in EFL Textbook: An Analysis of

Abstract

Teaching and learning vocabulary is one the most significant components in textbooks. It is helpful for textbook users if textbooks can be investigated to evaluate how lexical components are represented, and how they comply with the conditions necessary for vocabulary uptake.

Full text

1
VOCABULARY IN EFL TEXTBOOK:
AN ANALYSIS OF “LIFE A2-B1” COURSEBOOK USED
FOR VIETNAMESE TERTIARY STUDENTS
Cao Thi Hong Phuong
Hanoi National University of Education, Vietnam.
Cao, T.H.P. (2018). Vocabulary in EFL Textbook: An Analysis of “Life A2-B1”
Coursebook Used for Vietnamese Tertiary Students. Proceedings of the 7th
Vietnamese Young Researchers Conference in Education at Hanoi National
University of Education, Vietnam (section 3, 548-556). Hanoi National University
of Education Publishing House.
Abstract
Teaching and learning vocabulary is one the most significant components in textbooks.
It is helpful for textbook users if textbooks can be investigated to evaluate how lexical
components are represented, and how they comply with the conditions necessary for
vocabulary uptake. The current study aims to analyze the dimensions involved in the
vocabulary activities included in the English course book used for the Vietnamese
undergraduates, who study academic English at tertiary education. In this study,
vocabulary glossary from the coursebook series entitled “Life A2-B1” was analyzed
using the vocabulary programme “VocabProfile” (Cobb, 2009). Also, the vocabulary
framework by Nation (2013) and Webb & Nation (2017) was adopted to evaluate the
vocabulary activities represented in the coursebook. The findings show that although the
vocabulary items presented in the book mostly equip learners with incidental vocabulary
learning, they still need further improvements to create optimal learning opportunities for
vocabulary retention. The study also suggests that the role of language teachers in EFL
contexts, where students have little access to English beyond the classroom doors, has
become more crucial to encourage learners to become autonomous vocabulary learners,
who take responsibility for their vocabulary learning both in a teacher-led classroom and
during their language learning journey.
Keywords: Vocabulary teaching and learning; Vocabulary Uptake, Analysis of Lexical
Dimensions; Vocabulary Learning Strategies

2
1. Introduction
Textbooks are an essential tool to develop the lexical competence of L2 learners. The
language input contained in textbooks and the representation of dimensions in vocabulary
activities may have various impacts on learners’ language acquisition and development.
Webb and Nation (2017) stated that certain learning conditions need to be established for
vocabulary learning to occur. These conditions are put into practice in specific learning
activities to give rise to opportunities for vocabulary learning. This paper first analyses
and evaluates the vocabulary components and activities of the textbook entitled “Life A2-
B1” (Hughes, Stephenson & Dummett, 2012), which is specifically designed for
Vietnamese undergraduate students of a CEFR (Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages) A2 to B1 level. It is followed by a discussion of potential
improvements to the way vocabulary is approached in the textbook.
2. Background of the Students
The targeted students are first-year undergraduates from a state-run University of
Education, majoring in natural science subjects such as chemistry and physics. The
students’ ages range from 19 to 21 years. Most of the students are at A2 and B1 according
to the university placement test results. In other words, each class may consist of 30
mixed-ability students from A2 CEFR onwards. They are motivated to learn English to
pass the exams and to discover the world of science with their interest in reading scientific
documents in English, but they are reluctant to speak English with their peers. The
students share the same L1 (Vietnamese) and have access to the Internet. However, they
do not have much exposure to English outside the classrooms. The vocabulary size tests
by the targeted students indicate that most of them would acquire from 3000 to 4000
words, which means that they have sufficient control of the necessary high-frequency
vocabulary. As they are studying natural science subjects, they may have specialist areas
of interests that they would like to pursue such as technology, chemistry, and physics.
3. Previous Studies
There have been few studies investigating how vocabulary dimensions are portrayed in
textbooks. Cobb (1995) analyzed the vocabulary coverage of three commercial textbooks
to evaluate whether or not they satisfied the needs of learners who took the Cambridge
PET proficiency test. The findings showed that none of the textbooks systematically
covered high-frequency words. The author then concluded that this coursebook series
failed to provide learners with the essential vocabulary required to pass the PET test.
Eldridge and Neufeld (2009) analyzed the coursebook series entitled “Success” and found

3
that it comprises of only 70 percent of the first 2,000 words. This indicates that this
textbook series lacked focus on these high-frequency vocabularies.
More recently, a study by Matsuoka and Hirsh (2010) focused on the vocabulary load of
the coursebook called “New Headway Student’s Book Upper-Intermediate.” The authors
also evaluated vocabulary learning opportunities which the coursebook provides. Using
the computer program range to analyze the vocabulary items, the findings showed that
95.5% of the words belong to Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL). The
authors also concluded that the coursebook provided learners with a useful opportunity
to sharpen their knowledge of some vocabulary from the AWL due to the frequency of
their occurrence in the book.
Another vocabulary study by O’Loughlin (2012), evaluated vocabulary input from three
levels of the commercial coursebook series entitled “New English File.” Adopting lexical
program VocabProfile (Cobb, 2009), the results indicate that learners who complete three
coursebook series will be exposed to fewer than the first 1,500 most frequent words in
English. This study also suggests significant pedagogical implications for learners,
teachers and materials writers in order to maximize students’ vocabulary learning.
Until recently, there has been no published research on the evaluation of textbooks used
specifically for tertiary learners regarding vocabulary dimensions in the context of
Vietnam. Therefore, this study was conducted to fill the gap in the literature.
4. Research Questions
The study aims to address the research question: How is the vocabulary presented in the
coursebook “Life A2-B1” that facilitate learners’ opportunities for vocabulary learning?
This question is addressed by the following sub-questions.
Sub-question 1: How does the vocabulary list presented in the coursebook afford
students’ vocabulary learning opportunities?
Sub-question 2: How do vocabulary items and vocabulary activities presented in the
coursebook afford students’ vocabulary learning opportunities?
5. Methodology
5.1.Materials

4
The course book series “Life A2- B1”, was selected for analysis and the several reasons.
First, the authors claimed that “Life A2- B1” is a “practical, competency-based syllabus
which helps learners in their development of grammar, vocabulary, functions,
pronunciation, and skills through appropriate communicative tasks” (Course Overview)
and it aligns with itself with the A2 CEFR level. Second, the Ministry of Education of
Vietnam has approved to use this National Geographic Learning’s Life series as the
English textbooks across 16 universities nationwide since 2015. However, since then,
there has been no evaluation of this textbook series regarding vocabulary’s
appropriateness and effectiveness that facilitate vocabulary learning opportunities.
Overall, the 12-unit book is thematically organized including a wide variety of themes
such as leisure activities and modes of transport. Vocabulary activities are presented both
in isolation and embedded in skill lessons, which will be discussed in the following
sections. Each unit is structured in nine different focuses, one of which is devoted to
vocabulary presented according to themes. There are three banks of materials, including
the Communication Activities, the Grammar Summary, and the Audio scripts and a
Glossary.
5.2. Methods
The VocabProfile (Cobb, 2009), which is a data-based vocabulary website
https://www.lextutor.ca/ was used to run the vocabulary list to evaluate its levels of
frequency, families, and types that a targeted learner will be exposed to. Also, a holistic
evaluation based on the vocabulary framework proposed by Nation (2013) and Webb &
Nation (2017) was adopted to analyze how the vocabulary activities are represented
throughout the coursebook. In summary, this study adopted both qualitative and
quantitative methods to analyze different vocabulary dimensions represented in the
coursebook in order to evaluate how they are approached to facilitate learners’
opportunities for vocabulary uptake.
5.3. The Analysis
5.3.1. How does the vocabulary list presented in the coursebook afford students’
vocabulary learning opportunities?
As can be shown in Table 1, glossary (word lists) includes 1217 words (lemmas),
containing keywords, most of which are defined as the high-utility vocabulary, with
approximately 55% of the words belonging to K2 level. From the output of this glossary,
there is approximately 10% coverage from the Academic word list (AWL). As earlier

5
stated, the students need exposure to academic vocabulary items to succeed in their
academic study, with only 10 percent coverage of AWL provided by the glossary, the
targeted learners would not have sufficient exposure to required vocabulary learning to
meet their academic learning needs. The output from Table 1 also shows that there is
approximately 34 % from off-list words (OLWs), which may belong to technical items
or words unrelated to academic needs. This output coverage of OLWs indicates that some
of the vocabulary items may act as a barrier for students’ learning (Nation, 2013) if there
are no explicit vocabulary teaching supported by the course instructors.
Table 1. Percentage of the glossary (Results from VocabProfile)
Families
Types
Tokens
Percent
K1 Words (1-1000):
336
382
418
34.35%
Function:
...
...
(25)
(2.05%)
Content:
...
...
(393)
(32.29%)
K2 Words (1001-2000):
230
250
260
21.36%
1k+2k
...
...
(55.71%)
AWL Words:
116
132
134
11.01%
Off-List Words:
?
403
405
33.28%
682+?
1167
1217
100%
However, these word lists are useful for learners because they provide a shortcut to the
improvement in performance of all four skills, thus, learning a significant proportion of
the words that are likely to be encountered can increase the potential for comprehension.
Therefore, the word list may provide a gateway for the targeted learners to develop
vocabulary knowledge, and in turn improve the possibility of understanding and using
the target language (Webb & Nation, 2017).
Overall, the quantitative analysis of the glossary reveals that although the glossary can be
supported learners as they can increase the frequencies of encounters, it does not equip
learners with HFWs of K3 level or it contains a high proportion of LFWs and a low
percentage of AWLs as shown in Table 1.

6
5.3.2. How do vocabulary items and vocabulary activities presented in the
coursebook afford students’ vocabulary learning opportunities?
Vocabulary knowledge has been considered as an essential component of language
fluency (Laufer & Nation, 2001; Read, 2000). To be more specific, explicit and incidental
vocabulary learning activities are both significant for vocabulary acquisition. Regarding
lexical acquisition, the textbook may provide explicit or incidental opportunities for
learners depending on various kinds of activities included. A strong point of this textbook
is that the vocabulary activities sequence systematically through the four skills of reading,
listening, speaking and writing, which, according to Webb & Nation (2017), can help
develop both receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. While receptive
vocabulary knowledge can enable learners to recognize and understand the words they
encounter, productive one can support them to use the words more efficiently. In this part,
the paper discusses several examples of vocabulary items and activities taken from
different units to evaluate the opportunities that learners can be afforded to learn various
vocabulary dimensions.
a. Examples of how vocabulary is presented in skill sections.
This part discusses some examples of vocabulary activities embedded in skill sections
which can facilitate students’ explicit or incidental vocabulary learning. On the one hand,
explicit vocabulary learning can be the central attention of activities in which learners
draw their attention to specific words or phrases with different strategies. Such activities
may be presented with the following instructions: Look at the pictures. Match the people
(1-8) with the medical problems. Complete the comments from different people about how
to use the Internet with these phrasal verbs and verbs (Page 17, unit 1, writing skill). On
the other hand, incidental vocabulary learning is also prompted by activities in which
students are engaged in language use, such as speaking, listening, reading or writing.
These activities may be introduced with the followings: Listen to the radio interview with
David McLain, an explorer, and journalist. Answer the questions. Are the sentences
below true or false? (Page 45, Unit 4, Listening Section).
These examples indicate that the systematic representation of vocabulary, as previously
mentioned, through the four skills in the coursebook can facilitate learners’ both receptive
and productive vocabulary knowledge. This means that a close inspection of the activities
in “Life A2-B1” is revealed to facilitate both incidental and deliberate vocabulary
learning. In other words, vocabulary learning opportunities can be found in all four skills.
This, to some extent, is in line with the principle of a well-balanced programme proposed

7
by Nation (2007). It is noteworthy to state that the vocabulary activities in this textbook
provide learners with opportunities for both incidental and deliberate learning through the
four strands, which Webb & Nation (2017, p.78) mentioned “1) meaning-focused input,
2) meaning focused output, 3) language-focused learning, and 4) fluency development”.
Specific vocabulary activities indicate that vocabulary is taught and practiced via both
materials for language skills development and in its own right in the review vocabulary
section. Thus, vocabulary is both introduced in meaningful contexts and form-focused
activities.
One typical vocabulary feature in most of the reading texts from the textbook is the use
of gloss with highlighted color. As it can be seen from one example from the reading text
(page 75), the words with a higher occurrence in frequency such as “tribe, nomadic,
warrior, ritual, sunrise and elder” were chosen to be glossed the definitions through L2.
Glosses not only help readers to read quickly with the word definitions provided for them
(Webb and Nation, 2008), but they also draw students’ attention to the words being
glossed and reduce linguistic abstruseness (Jung, 2016). To be more specific, the use of
gloss can facilitate incidental learning of both forms and meanings of the glossed items,
because learners seem to consider a gloss not as means of learning a word, but as a support
to comprehend the text (Bowles, 2004). This is also aligned with de Ridder’s (2002)
study, which states that noticing can occur when glossed words are highlighted, since
highlighting increases the chance that the gloss will be looking at. In short, the use of
gloss with the highlight is likely to encourage vocabulary learning.
b. Examples of how vocabulary is presented in the vocabulary section
In the vocabulary section, vocabulary is practiced most frequently via word building
exercises, spelling, and pronunciation of the vocabulary items and gap-fill. Among the
different aspects of vocabulary knowledge mentioned in Nation (2013), it seems that
vocabulary focus in this textbook is put on forms, meaning and use. However, more
emphasis seems to be put on form and meaning rather than on use in most activities.
Scrutiny to the vocabulary section represented in the book map of the coursebook as well
as individual examples of vocabulary items and activities will be discussed in further
details in the following section.
Table 2: How vocabulary is presented and treated in the vocabulary section
Units
Vocabulary Theme
Types of Vocabulary Items and Activities

8
Unit 1:
Leisure activities do, go or
play
Word building:
Verb+Noun Collocations
Unit 2:
Sports venues and
equipment
Competition words
Individual words related to the theme
Compound Nouns
Unit: 3
Modes of transport
Nouns and Verbs related to the modes of
transport
Word Building activities
Unit: 4
Personal qualities
Prepostions and time expressions
Unit: 5
Materials and household
items
Phrasal Verbs
Unit: 6
Life events
Polysemy
Unit: 7
Jobs
Word building: Suffixes
Phrasal Verbs
Unit: 8
The Internet
Word building: Verb prefixes
Unit: 9
Education
Phrasal verbs
Unit: 10
holidays
Word building: Dependent prepositions
Unit: 11
Archeology
Word building: word roots
Unit: 12
Nature
Noun collocations
Table 2 presents the vocabulary items which have been treated mostly in form-focused
activities. It seems that when students are given the chances to be exposed to forms and
meanings of the vocabulary items rather than to use them. This according to Nation’s
framework of nine aspects of vocabulary knowledge, the targeted learners can have
“implicit learning involving noticing” regarding forms and “strong explicit learning”
regarding meaning. (Nation, 2013, p. 61). These types of learning opportunities are likely
to occur in the forms of receptive vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, learners are more
likely to “know” the vocabulary items rather than using them. A further discussion of
examples of types of vocabulary items and vocabulary activities taken from the
coursebook will be provided in this section.
Collocations

9
Considering an example of activity 1d referring to vocabulary items of medical problems,
which introduce the new words collocation such as “a runny nose and stomach ache” in
semantic sets. Although sets of semantically related words take longer to memorize than
sets of differently related words (Erten & Tekin, 2008), this activity is likely to give rise
to vocabulary learning opportunities. Receptive vocabulary knowledge is facilitated by
recognizing and understanding the meaning of these collocations. Productive retrieval is
encouraged when the students are asked to practice the conversation using the
collocations of medical problems and give advice. This activity might be considered as
meaning-focused output through speaking mentioned in Newton (2013), which promotes
incidental vocabulary learning.
Polysemy
Another example of activity 5c which presents the polysemous word of “take.” This
polysemy addresses four meaning such as (1) transport: take a taxi; (2) daily routine:
take a walk, take a shower; (3) length of time and: take a few days and (4) idiom: take
time to do something. This indicates that the textbook writers are aware of polysemy,
which has different meanings. In this activity, learners are required to match the
expressions from the reading text to the correct definition; then they are asked to complete
the sentences using the given phrases. This polysemy is taught and practiced in
decontextualized activities, which may provide learners with a chance to copy and repeat
the word. Nevertheless, it is unlikely for the word to be retrieved since the word is not
used productively in speaking or writing activities. According to involvement load
hypothesis mentioned in Zou (2017), the cloze exercises accord less involvement load
than productive tasks such as the writing tasks. The author implied that cloze exercises
did not create any context that is associated with different target words. In other words,
these excises merely draw learners attention to notice the vocabulary items rather than
the creative use of these lexical items.
Multiword Units
That the multiword items are given attention in the textbook can be found in exercises
4,5,6 (page 61). Learners are asked to choose the correct percentage; then they have a
chance to work in pairs to discuss the portion of their money spent on housing, food and
so on. They also have to present the pie chart using the multiword items such as “just over
half, about a quarter, nearly half and four-fifths.” It seems that learners have
opportunities to negotiate with each other when they are discussing the percentage of their

10
spendings in different sectors. Thus, these activities are useful for the multiwords to be
retrieved and produced in a new context, which means that incidental vocabulary learning
opportunities may be likely to occur (Nation, 2013). These multiword units are also re-
encountered in the review activities (exercises 5,6,7 and 8, page 68), when learners do
matching exercises between the percentages from the articles with the definitions (using
the same multiword units). Students also participate in productive activities of speaking
and writing. These activities are congruent with Schmitt & Carter’s (2000) study, which
provides learners with an increase in repetition with the same material without increasing
the number of different words, thus creates useful conditions for incidental vocabulary
learning (Webb & Nation, 2017) and lower the lexical load required of the learners.
Phrasal Verbs
One more example I would look at is exercise 4,5,6,7 (page 110), which address the
presentation of phrasal verbs: “take away; give up; get together; die out; write down;
pass on; pick up; and set up.” First, students find eight phrasal verbs in the articles, then
match them with their meanings, after that they listen to the recordings focusing on the
pronunciation of these phrasal verbs and then they complete the sentences about learning
and studying, using the correct form of the phrasal verbs mentioned earlier. Finally,
learners have an opportunity to work in pairs to ask, answer questions in exercise 6 and
give their opinions. This activity seems to encourage the repetition of these phrasal verbs
because the same number of phrasal verbs is focused on in each step of exercises. It,
therefore, may create opportunities for retrieval (Webb & Nation, 2017). Since this
activity includes both receptive and productive skills, the retrieval can be both receptive
and productive. This activity also provides various encounters and opportunities for use.
Thus, it is likely that learners can also notice the form of the language used in reading and
listening as well as the meaning of the phrasal verbs.
6. Summary and Discussions
Overall, the analysis reveals that the representation of both glossary and vocabulary units
shows their strength and weaknesses. The strong points of vocabulary treatment across
the coursebook lie in the fact that they allow learners to be exposed to receptive
vocabulary use, which involves learners to perceive, notice and comprehend the forms of
vocabulary through vocabulary exercises or skills such as listening or reading to retrieve
the meanings of the vocabulary items. However, the coursebook also shows its limitation
in the representation of the glossary regarding the treatment to AWLs and OWLs as well
as in the skill and vocabulary sections. It must be added that the proportion of explicit or

11
incidental vocabulary activities, to some extent, is systematically paid attention to through
the four skills. Undoubtedly, attention to form and meaning in this coursebook is essential
to be prepared and supported for learners’ future experience with the vocabulary items in
use (Nation, 2013), there have been few chances when learners produce the vocabulary
in spoken or written forms. It can be concluded that this textbook does not provide
learners sufficient exposure to the productive use of vocabulary or it does not fully satisfy
learners’ academic needs as CEFR A2-B1 learners.
In order to maximize more opportunities for the vocabulary uptake, pedagogical
implications will be discussed in the following section to maximize the effectiveness of
vocabulary teaching and learning in EFL settings.
7. Potential Improvements
The mentioned above are the discussions of the evaluation of the vocabulary components
and activities in “Life A2-B1”. In this section, the author proposes and attempts to justify
a modification of some vocabulary activities to make them better in line with the aims
and underlying rationales for vocabulary learning opportunities for the targeted learners.
In the Vietnamese EFL context, where the targeted learners have little access to English
beyond the classroom doors, it is more crucial to help them increase the vocabulary size
through classroom learning activities.
7.1.Analyzing the vocabulary Items via VocabProfile
Previously mentioned, the learners have specialist natural science areas that they wish
to pursue, meaning that they have an immediate need to learn technical words and words
belonging to the low-frequency level. First, I would analyze the glossary lists by using
http://www.lextutor.ca, since the results would allow teachers to get better informed of
the challenges as well as opportunities the students may encounter with the HFWs,
technical words, and LFWs. I would have students focus on learning the HFWs that are
unknown to them. More importantly, lower-frequency, topic-related and technical
words, for example, “summit, ecosystem, biodiversity, dehydrate, toxic, excavate and
sulfur dioxide,” which are from the reading texts of unit 8, 9 and 12, would be glossed
in L1 so that the students would spend more time on them. Chun & Payne (2004)
suggested that lookups in L1 are useful resources for learners who need them. Learners
would involve several meetings of the glossed items such as seeing them in the texts,
reencountering them in the glosses and looking back at them in the reading text to see
how meanings given in the gloss fits the context.

12
Moreover, as Webb & Nation (2017) and Nation (2013) argued, the technical and LFWs
are unlikely needed and remembered once a unit has been completed. Therefore, the
glossing of such types of words would provide a better chance for the technical words
as well as LFWs to be encountered in the materials will be learned. Thus, the L1 glossing
of specific technical words and LFWs, which students are in need to learn, seems to be
an essential strategy, because it draws students’ attention to those words, and thus may
encourage learning.
7.2. Providing more Input Activities
Secondly, as mentioned previously, the students relatively lack opportunities to learn
with meaning-focused input and meaning-focused output beyond the classroom.
Therefore, I need to ensure that, as suggested in Webb & Nation (2017), more input
would be provided for the students as well as more opportunities for the students to use
their developing knowledge of vocabulary in the classroom. Thus, their knowledge of
taught words seems to expand, as these words are encountered many times. For
example, the way the polysemous word “take” in activity 5c discussed earlier would be
approached differently. After completing a cloze exercise, students would be asked to
use this polysemy in speaking activity such as an interview between a reporter and
David De Rothschild (from the article) about Plastiki. Teachers would also ask them to
prepare eight questions using the “take,” and the information in the reading text such as
“How long did the journey take?”. By maximizing the use of this polysemy, the target
learners can have more chances to repeat and retrieve the word, meaning that productive
use of the targeted language can provide excellent opportunities for the incidental
vocabulary learning.
7.3. Vocabulary Training Strategies
Another modification I would recommend is the treatment of multiword units in the
textbook. Although Boers et al. (2017) suggested that textbook writers should consider
exercises that present the multiword expressions as holistic units as opposed to asking
learners to re-assemble broken-up groups or supply missing parts, the multiword units
in this textbook provide learners with different broken-up pieces. Teachers would
further offer students with the language-focused learning opportunities to learn these
multi-words items. Nation (2013) stated that the deliberate focus on multiword items is
useful because it results in both receptive and productive knowledge of these items.
Among the five main focuses for intentional learning mentioned in Nation (2013), rote
earning would be one of many suitable strategies for the targeted students because of

13
their similar learning styles and strategies. I would also suggest the use of the cards with
L1-L2 pairs for the students to work with their peers. The justifications of the adoption
of deliberate focus on multiword items can be found in Sonbul & Schmitt (2013), which
argued that there be substantial evidence for the development of explicit knowledge in
deliberate focus on two-item multiword units. In short, the intentional teaching of
multiword such as the ones mentioned above is useful for the students, as most learning
opportunities for multiword units seem to occur through both receptive and productive
use (Nation, 2013).
7.4. Designing Additional Activities
Mentioned earlier, some of the students are at B1 CEFR. Therefore, some vocabulary
activities may not be suitable for them. The researcher would consider designing
additional activities for a higher ability students. Specifically, the teacher would include
different independent activities allowing students to work at their levels. Writing
activities and flashcards can be designed for those who are at the A2 CEFR level. For
those who are at B1 CEFR level, teachers would engage students in the spoken journal,
as suggested in Webb & Nation (2017), where some students can record themselves
rather than write. In other words, the students can use the words that they have known
and the vocabulary they have recently learned to develop their productive vocabulary
knowledge. Teacher’s role is to move around to provide support when it is necessary.
The teacher would also be aware of the time and workload, which may act as constraints
for teachers to design a sufficient number of resources for students at varying levels.
Thus, teachers would cooperate with colleagues, who teach the same textbook, so that
the activities and tasks can be developed and pooled among those who are involved in
the programme.
Consequently, in a short time, there would be enough to cater for a range of proficiency
levels. Thus, creating different activities that allow students to work at their level may
improve the potential for effective and efficient vocabulary in the large classes
The above discussions are several different aspects that teachers need to consider to
support students so that they can make meaningful progress in lexical development. The
teacher should also consider other strategies to facilitate the lexical development for the
students because direct teaching is only allocated in a limited time (Nation, 2008). Thus,
teachers’ job is to encourage their students to enhance their knowledge of partially

14
known words further and to become more independent vocabulary learners so that they
can make better progress in the classroom and beyond (Webb & Nation, 2017).
8. Conclusion
The paper has analyzed and evaluated the vocabulary components and activities of the
textbook entitled “Life A2-B1” (Hughes, Stephenson & Dummett, 2012), it has also
provided some suggestions for potential improvements to the way vocabulary is
approached in the textbook. As stated by Nation (2013), curriculum design should be
considered as a continuing process, with adaptations and improvements being adjusted
even while the course is being introduced. As language teachers in EFL context, where
students have little access to English beyond the classroom doors, the role of teachers has
become more crucial to encourage learners to become autonomous vocabulary learners,
who take responsibility for their vocabulary learning both in a teacher-led class and during
their language learning journey.
References:
Boers, F., Dang, T. C. T., & Strong, B. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of phrase-
focused exercises: A partial replication of Boers, Demecheleer, Coxhead, and Webb
(2014). Language Teaching Research, 21(3), 362–380.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816651464
Bowles, M. A. (2004). L2 Glossing: To CALL or Not to CALL. Hispania, 87(3), 541.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20063060
Chun, D. M., & Payne, J. S. (2004). What makes students click: Working memory and
look-up behavior. System, 32(4), 481-503.
Cobb, T. (1995). Imported tests: Analysing the task. TESOL (Arabia). Al-Ain, United
Arab Emirates, March.
Cobb, T. (2009) Web VocabProfile. Available at: http://www.lextutor. ca/vp
De Ridder, I. (2002). Visible or invisible links: Does the highlighting of hyperlinks
affect incidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process?
Language Learning & Technology, 6(1) 123-46
Eldridge, J., & Neufeld, S. (2009). The graded reader is dead, long live the electronic
reader. Reading, 9(2), 224-244.
Erten, İ. H., & Tekin, M. (2008). Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new
words in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36(3), 407-422.
Jung, J. (2016). Effects of glosses on the learning of L2 grammar and vocabulary.
Language Teaching Research, 20(1), 92–112.

15
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815571151
Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (2001). Passive Vocabulary Size and Speed of Meaning
Recognition. EUROSLA Yearbook 1, 7-28.
Matsuoka, W., & Hirsh, D. (2010). Vocabulary Learning through Reading: Does an
ELT Course Book Provide Good Opportunities? Reading in a foreign
language, 22(1), 56-70.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (Second Edition).
New York: CUP.
Nation, P. (2007). The Four Strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
1(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt039.0
Newton, J. (2013). Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks.
Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 164–187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812460814
O’Loughlin, R. (2012). Tuning in to vocabulary frequency in coursebooks. RELC
Journal, 43(2), 255-269.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: CUP.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The lexical advantages of narrow reading for second
language learners. Tesol Journal, 9(1), 4-9.
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Explicit and Implicit Lexical Knowledge: Acquisition
of Collocations Under Different Input Conditions: Explicit and Implicit Lexical
Knowledge. Language Learning, 63(1), 121–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9922.2012.00730.x
Webb, S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Evaluating the vocabulary load of written
text. TESOLANZ Journal, 16, 1-10.
Webb, S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2017). How Vocabulary is Learnt. Oxford Handbooks for
language teachers. Oxford: OUP.
Zou, D. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition through cloze exercises, sentence-writing, and
composition-writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load
hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 54–75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816652418

16