The Effectiveness of Focused Instruction of Formulaic Sequences in Augmenting L2 Learners’ Academic Writing Skills: A Quantitative Research Study

AlHassan, Lina

doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10221

Cited by 12 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 82 publications

(474 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These bundles are unevenly distributed in categories and subcategories of VBDUs which have particular communicative purposes. I borrow Nations' original framework of word knowledge (Nation, 2001), refer to the pedagogical activities suggested in previous studies (AlHassan & Wood, 2015;Cortes, 2006;Jones & Haywood, 2004;Lee & Swales, 2006;Weber, 2001;Mizumoto et al, 2017), and propose activities for learning lexical bundles and VBDUs in Table 8.1. The activities in Table 8.1 are designed to increase learners' knowledge of the use of lexical bundles, internal discourse structure of the engineering textbooks, and the connections between lexical bundles and VBDUs.…”

Section: Pedagogical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cortes (2006) encouraged students to apply their knowledge of lexical bundles to correct inappropriate use of lexical bundles in their own writing. Alhassan & Wood (2015) reported focused instruction of formulaic sequences allowed L2 learners to integrate these sequences in academic writing and enhanced qualities of their writing. Mizumoto et al (2017) developed practical writing support tools that combined rhetorical moves with lexical bundles to assist ESL learners with their writing in applied linguistics.…”

Section: Pedagogical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Learners can draw on these referential bundles to construct the physical world (Hyland, 2008;Durrant, 2015) in their writing in the discipline of engineering. Previous studies reported that both explicit and implicit exposure to formulaic sequences helped L2 learners acquire formulaic language in spoken and written English and enhance their communication capabilities (AlHassan & Wood, 2015;Crossley & Salsbury, 2011;Li & Schmitt, 2009, Schmitt, Dörnyei, Adolphs, & Durrow, 2004. Explicit instruction of formulaic language in EAP courses provides learners the opportunity to link formulaic language with discourse functions (AlHassan & Wood, 2015;Li & Schmitt, 2009;Schmitt et al, 2004).…”

Section: Pedagogical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies reported that both explicit and implicit exposure to formulaic sequences helped L2 learners acquire formulaic language in spoken and written English and enhance their communication capabilities (AlHassan & Wood, 2015;Crossley & Salsbury, 2011;Li & Schmitt, 2009, Schmitt, Dörnyei, Adolphs, & Durrow, 2004. Explicit instruction of formulaic language in EAP courses provides learners the opportunity to link formulaic language with discourse functions (AlHassan & Wood, 2015;Li & Schmitt, 2009;Schmitt et al, 2004). Implicit exposure to the use of formulaic sequences includes intensive readings and interactions with peers and native speakers (Crossley & Salsbury, 2011;Li & Schmitt, 2009).…”

Section: Pedagogical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lexical Bundles in Vocabulary-based Discourse Units: A Corpus-based Study of First Year Core Engineering Textbooks

Chen¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study analyzes the use of lexical bundles in first year core engineering textbooks, identifies vocabulary-based discourse units (VBDUs) in the textbooks, and further explores the connections between lexical bundles and the VBDUs. A first year core engineering textbook corpus (FCETC) of 995,672 running words was compiled with materials drawn from seven textbooks required for first-year engineering undergraduates at a Canadian university. A total of 95 lexical bundles were identified in the FCETC.Grammatical structure analysis of these bundles indicates that lexical bundles in the core engineering textbooks are more often phrasal than clausal. There are three functional categories of lexical bundles in the FCETC: referential bundles, discourse organizers, and stance bundles. The use of lexical bundles in the FCETC allows authors to take on the role of experts who precisely present and explain foundational knowledge and concepts in a professional way. These bundles also enable the authors to act as facilitators who make the content accessible for readers and involve them in the learning processes. The comparison of the use of lexical bundles in first year core engineering textbooks, electrical engineering introductory textbooks, university teaching, and university textbooks highlights the use of lexical bundles in these registers and suggests that disciplinary specificity and genres impact the use of lexical bundles in the four registers.The findings also support that vocabulary use is discipline bound in academic registers. A total of 665 VBDUs were identified in 14 chapters randomly selected from the FCETC.There are five main types of VBDUs, including explaining VBDUs, presenting VBDUs, solving VBDUs, introducing VBDUs, and bridging VBDUs. The findings of this analysis of VBDUs demonstrate that the authors of the engineering textbooks play dual roles of ii experts and facilitators but tilt more towards the role of facilitators. The author/reader relationships of the core engineering textbooks affect the structuring and negotiation of knowledge in these textbooks. The chapters in the engineering textbooks consist of sequences of VBDUs with various communicative purposes. Single or multiple VBDUs construct four types of macro-processes for knowledge construction, which suggest that academic textbooks do not only focus on concepts and theories but also the procedures and steps that learners need to follow to appropriately approach the theories and understand problem-solving operations. Further exploration of the relationships between lexical bundles and VBDUs shows that the communicative purposes of VBDUs determine the distribution of lexical bundles in these discourse units while the use of lexical bundles varies in categories and subcategories of VBDUs and helps achieve the communicative purposes of these discourse units. These bundles provide referential information on specific topics, indicate consideration for readers, and express authoritative stances in these VBDUs. This study contributes to the st...

show abstract

Section: Pedagogical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pedagogical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pedagogical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pedagogical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lexical Bundles in Vocabulary-based Discourse Units: A Corpus-based Study of First Year Core Engineering Textbooks

Chen¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier research has highlighted the fact that both spoken and written discourse consists of a large proportion of multi-word units (Adolphs, 2006;Al Hassan & Wood, 2015;Erman & Warren, 2000;Nation & Webb, 2011;Schmitt, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Corpus-Based Investigation of Academic Vocabulary and Phrasal Verbs in Academic Spoken English

Aldohon¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic spoken language is capturing the attention of many vocabulary researchers in recent years (Rodgers & Webb, 2016;Thompson, 2005). In turn, research has focused on assessing word lists to promote second language learners' comprehension of academic speech (Dang & Webb, 2014). The present thesis is comprised of two corpus-based studies investigating academic spoken discourse. The first study examined (1) the vocabulary demands of spoken academic English and (2) the coverage of Coxhead's (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) in spoken Academic English. Transcripts of 62 lectures and 7 seminars form the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) were collected and analyzed. The findings suggested that coupled with proper nouns and marginal words, knowledge of the most frequent 3,000 or 7,000 word families is needed to reach 95.55% and 98.03% coverage respectively of the combined lectures and seminars corpus. The AWL provided 3.68% coverage of the combined seminars and lectures corpus. The second study compared the lexical coverage of Garnier and Schmitt's (2015) phrasal verb list (PHaVE List) with the most frequent 150 AWL lemmatized verbs in academic spokenEnglish. The analysis was carried out on a 2,431,351 running-word corpus created from the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) and the MICASE corpora. The finding indicated that the PHaVE List accounted for slightly higher coverage figures than the AWL in the study corpus. Pedagogical implications were made for English for academic purposes teachers, learners and material designers.ii

show abstract

Exploring multiple constraints on second language development of English polysemous phrasal verbs

Zhang

Wen

2019

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined Chinese speakers’ knowledge of English polysemous phrasal verbs (PVs) and factors that may constrain the development of PVs. The intermediate and advanced learners judged the acceptability of 100 senses of 50 PVs. Results indicate that both the intermediate and the advanced learners tended to favor the high-frequency senses (51.2%∼67.2%) of PVs but disfavor the low-frequency senses (32.9%∼46.3%) of PVs. PV frequency, semantic transparency, and time spent reading books and watching films/TV could predict the advanced learners’ mastery of the high-frequency senses, while PV frequency and preemption could predict their mastery of the low-frequency senses. Semantic transparency, PV frequency, and preemption could predict the intermediate learners’ knowledge of the high-frequency senses, while semantic transparency, frequency of high-frequency senses, and preemption could predict their acceptance of the low-frequency senses. No reliable relationship was detected among the learners’ PV knowledge, entrenchment, time spent in second language immersion, listening to music, and communicating with others for the two groups.

show abstract

The Effectiveness of Focused Instruction of Formulaic Sequences in Augmenting L2 Learners’ Academic Writing Skills: A Quantitative Research Study

Cited by 12 publications

References 82 publications

Lexical Bundles in Vocabulary-based Discourse Units: A Corpus-based Study of First Year Core Engineering Textbooks

Lexical Bundles in Vocabulary-based Discourse Units: A Corpus-based Study of First Year Core Engineering Textbooks

A Corpus-Based Investigation of Academic Vocabulary and Phrasal Verbs in Academic Spoken English

Exploring multiple constraints on second language development of English polysemous phrasal verbs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About