|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:53 pm Post subject: Vocab Lists - Actual vs Recom'd for ESOL A1 - C2 Thoughts? |
 |
|
Recently, I've come across 2 different sets of vocabulary lists for Cambridge ESOL exams. I don't teach test prep nor do my students take such exams but I find the vocabulary lists extremely useful as a suggested or recommended (?) guide to active vocabulary and as a means to evaluate courseware appropriacy. Years ago, I located KET and PET (A2, B1) vocabulary lists on Cambridge's website as I was teaching YLs but since switching to adults, I couldn't seem to locate any such lists for B2-C2 other than what test prep books provide which obviously is not a comprehensive list. I do realize that such lists for higher levels are mere guidelines and I should be taking frequency data as well as cultural and learner interests into account too if I'm to recommend vocabulary but these lists do provide a good starting point, for both students and teachers.
The British Council's is in table format conveniently ordered according to word family. The other is based on Cambridge English's actual learner corpus of those who sit their exams int'ly. It not only includes lexis but also specific structures used or known by learners at each level.
I don't know about elsewhere but, as many of you know, here in Asia, many students (the ones that don't deserve to be called learners) waste far too much paper and time writing incidental vocabulary they will neither remember nor be able to use appropriately. They're schooled to confuse such studiousness for learning. They're the ones I struggle to ween from their blank-filling habit when all I want them to do is 'speak in the blanks' of a dialogue with their partner. They know I won't look at their books/handouts.
Instead of courses, I teach lessons to random groupings of mixed level learners ranging from elementary to intermediate and there's often someone not used to unplugging themselves from the text. I could be wrong, but perhaps these tools might help me substantiate my argument that writing words like 'igloo' with the intent of memorizing them is not such a great idea if they want to become fluent in English. Knowing what lexical items are high frequency and what register they are isn't easy so I think these lists serve a real need there.
Thoughtlets, anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 15343
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "Fill in the blanks." Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh ! I hope there is a special place in Hades reserved for whoever it was that came up with that piece of nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 15343
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vocabulary lists ? WTF ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I noticed recently that Cambridge has incorporated CEF level indications into its online ALD. Presumably the latest print edition is the same, and you can hopefully search its CD-ROM version by CEF level. It'd be interesting anyway to compare to the BC's list to see if they exactly overlap.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Fill in the blanks." Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh ! |
*ahem* clozure
Only a precise use of pedagogical term can sanction an excessive dependence.
Please surrender your consultant's credentials. /sarcasm
This is very useful for teachers tasked to evaluate appropriacy and independent learners preparing for IELTS/TOEFL who are curious about derivations and sense meanings and their own "reference" level.
But there is little, if any, controversy that learning words in isolation is with limited value to acquisition. I think the only way to overcome long held expectations about learning habits is to create engaging alternatives.
Which has never ceased to be a cruel mistress in my experience.
And these tools are a means to that end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scot47 wrote: |
| "Fill in the blanks." Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh ! hope there is a special place in Hades reserved for whoever it was that came up with that piece of nonsense. |
Scot47, what infuriates you so about blank-fills? In my lessons, nonsense is good. Ink blobs, abstract art, weird sound effects, and gibberish are all nonsense that can be exploited for their communicative potential.
| buravirgil wrote: |
*ahem* clozure |
Cloze tests are one kind of blank fill, limited only by your imagination as to how they can be used to serve the needs of your class. When I wrote that I was thinking of both those and open-ended sentence prompts that can be turned into pair speaking.
| scot47 wrote: |
| Vocabulary lists ? WTF ? |
No, it's WFF. 
| FH wrote: |
| It'd be interesting anyway to compare to the BC's list to see if they exactly overlap. |
Have you noted the same discrepancy I did? Upon closer inspection, I discovered a lot more inconsistencies (just on the first page) so I've sent them an inquiry. I suspect their data shifted cells on them during a macro edit or when file converting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongShiKong wrote: |
| scot47 wrote: |
| "Fill in the blanks." Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh ! hope there is a special place in Hades reserved for whoever it was that came up with that piece of nonsense. |
Scot47, what infuriates you so about blank-fills? In my lessons, nonsense is good. Ink blobs, abstract art, weird sound effects, and gibberish are all nonsense that can be exploited for their communicative potential.
| buravirgil wrote: |
*ahem* clozure |
Cloze tests are one kind of blank fill, limited only by your imagination as to how they can be used to serve the needs of your class. When I wrote that I was thinking of both those and open-ended sentence prompts that can be turned into pair speaking. |
Okay, you're opening up distinctions only familiar to me from coursework in pragmatics...
Open-ended prompts indicate a taking of turn, while a cloze is as often applied to testing as exercise-- and that's both its charm and weakness. My sarcastic response to Scot47's minimally expressed anguish was both a commiseration and an affirmation-- they tend to be overused. I think it's optimistic to characterize them as limited only by imagination, and I dig that, but it's not been my experience they're applied imaginatively as prescriptively, and the distinctions between learning by cognitive processes and conditioning (pattern matching) become very interesting.
And Scot47's use of nonsense wasn't about the use of nonsense in a classroom, but a cursory condemnation. I'd wager Scot47 has read Carroll and Lennon. I'll invite Scot47 to peruse the thread again for how wordlists, and purposefully using them, merits something more than wtf.
I think what you're doing is fantastic. It's an audit really. Maybe they'll hire you, or maybe you're careening into procedures more nuanced than they appear, more flawed than a for-profit entity would like known, and they'll ignore you. Or maybe I'm wrong about it all. But I'd like to thank you for sharing both your objectives and methods in a truly collegiate spirit. Learning from others such as yourself is one reason I chose teaching as a career. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LSK wrote: |
| Have you noted the same discrepancy I did? Upon closer inspection, I discovered a lot more inconsistencies (just on the first page) so I've sent them an inquiry. I suspect their data shifted cells on them during a macro edit or when file converting. |
Sorry for being lazy and not really checking until now, but yes, there are quite a few discrepancies (I'm not sure there's that consistent a pattern though, or you'll need to go through more than just a page to prove it LOL). I guess as the CEF is more just a multilnational framework than offering any actual language('s) exams itself (right?) that you'll never get a completely "definitive" vocab list like you could for e.g. the HSK exam levels.
Personally the "solution" I incline towards regarding potential teaching is comparing signposts, keywords, overall definitions, and examples in ALDs and "reductive"~"productive" thesauruses like the Language Activator, all with an eye to what is useful and indeed likely necessary if not interesting in face-to-face conversation, versus what the student may more read (wide range of stuff), or "hear" in written-to-be-read-aloud contexts (for example, news reports on TV or radio, documentaries, audio novels, etc etc). Obviously with the former you can contextualize and instantiate the items yourself in your speech (as can the students in turn), but for the latter, I think more passive and paper-based or rote methods may be "best" (more economical), and I don't ultimately see why students beyond the elementary stages can't do it themselves in their own time given all the online and app resources available nowadays.
Regarding comprehensiveness, there are obviously many words outside of the indicated levels (even the WFF's X column) so again it pays to consider what those words really (ultimately) mean and how they're used, if only so one can underline and focus on more basic words (while discarding a lot the "less basic"). Then, beyond the paradigmatic (substitutional) analyses there is the wider, more syntagmatic stuff - collocation, colligation, blah blah blah. (I just know for example that I find stuff like the OCD [lol!] useful for confirming meaning divisions: http://www.ozdic.com/ . Another good resource for helping not only break down n divvy up but also "pull it all together" is the COBUILD Verb Patterns online: http://arts-ccr-002.bham.ac.uk/ccr/patgram/ ). Anyway, this last para here is just for those who might be wondering what there is beyond word lists (but I'm not saying you aren't or are unaware, LSK!) to help at least the teacher.
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 15343
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Too many years watching incompetent ,lazy and untrained colleagues hand out photocopies. Keep the students busy filling in the blanks. Conning the students into thinking they are learning something productive. Learning is not about multiple choice, or about cloze exercises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
santi84
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 1317
Location: under da sea
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I used a cloze exerise this morning  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Learning is about _________ and _________.
a) attendance / performance
b) socioeconomic standing / individual attention
c) innate ability / state policy
d) none of the above / all of the below |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
santi84
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 1317
Location: under da sea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
My current class consists of refugees and immigrants who arrived last month. Most of my students can't even tell me their age or say the date  . They manage to earn money as night custodians or packaging salads in factories, at best. A simple cloze exercise can help them feel a bit more confident, which encourages them on the overall path to learning survival English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| buravirgil wrote: |
| I think what you're doing is fantastic. It's an audit really. Maybe they'll hire you, or maybe you're careening into procedures more nuanced than they appear, more flawed than a for-profit entity would like known, and they'll ignore you. |
Thanks, but I don't expect much. Years ago they ignored me when I pointed out one of their flashcards was no better than those available in China: singular nouns under plural pictures. I ended up making what I couldn't find anywhere: both singular and plural sets of picture-only cards, but with corresponding (separate) word cards visibly distinguishing singularity from plurality, highlighting irregular nouns: | a pig | pigs | a sheep | sheep | a horse | horses | a fish | fish |
| scot47 wrote: |
| Too many years watching incompetent ,lazy and untrained colleagues hand out photocopies. Keep the students busy filling in the blanks. Conning the students into thinking they are learning something productive. Learning is not about multiple choice, or about cloze exercises. |
I know the type you mean. They occasionally impress me with their intelligence, quick wit, charm, and knowledge. You really think it's a lack of training? I'd argue the reverse. I'd say their teaching is more a symptom of being 'schooled' themselves for decades to confuse school 'work' with learning rather than any malicious intent on their part to deliberately thwart real learning. And that's despite any condescending remarks they might make about their students' overall intelligence, admin, working conditions, etc. If it were that bad, they'd leave, wouldn't they? But put them in a class of assertive, inquisitive students or under the direction of someone requiring accountability and see which side is more eager to learn (the strengths and weaknesses of the other and help them overcome them).
Writing about why kids (and I might add, some TEFLers) hate school, Daniel T. Willingham had this to say:
| Quote: |
| Contrary to popular belief, the brain is not designed for thinking. It’s designed to save you from having to think, because the brain is actually not very good at thinking. Thinking is slow and unreliable. Nevertheless, people enjoy mental work if it is successful. People like to solve problems, but not to work on unsolvable problems. If schoolwork is always just a bit too difficult for a student, it should be no surprise that she doesn’t like school much. The cognitive principle that guides this article is: People are naturally curious, but they are not naturally good thinkers; unless the cognitive conditions are right, people will avoid thinking. The implication of this principle is that teachers should reconsider how they encourage their students to think in order to maximize the likelihood that students will get the pleasurable rush that comes from successful thought. |
For the above reasons, I'm not convinced the type of teacher Scott46 refers to (which now includes santi84) is engaged in any malicious behavior to thwart learning. In fact, what evidence is there that the most evil people historically weren't bent on teaching themselves: i.e.: teaching others a 'lesson': education by violence or cruelty? McLuhan went so far as to describe war as education for what technological fruit it bears, everything from the stirrup to the internet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
I guess as the CEF is more just a multilnational framework than offering any actual language('s) exams itself (right?) that you'll never get a completely "definitive" vocab list like you could for e.g. the HSK exam levels. |
But such 'definitive' lists already exist for KET and PET tests presumably based on those A1-C2 level designations. Why would the British Council choose to challenge Cambridge's level designations unless they were in competition? Perhaps someone who knows more about the British Council's relationship with Cambridge can enlighten us.
| You wrote: |
| Regarding comprehensiveness, there are obviously many words outside of the indicated levels (even the WFF's X column)... |
You need to appreciate what the lists represent for both learner corpus-generated lists and Cambridge's own lists from which the WWF is supposedly based on. I have no problems with the WFF's comprehensiveness outside of what I'd mentioned already.
Thanks for the links. Some good stuff there. As for thesauri, instead of putting a class to sleep by showing them lists of words, you may want to dazzle them by getting them to surf their way from one word to a totally unrelated word and have them record their steps on http://www.visualthesaurus.com/
As for linguistic and particulary, vocab resources, if it weren't for the nature of the publishing industry--separate books, separate prices---they'd be as integrated as the features on my smartphone. No need to carry along a separate MP3 player, camera, map, ebook reader, pen, note pad, compass, phone book, or even your wallet. About 10 yrs ago, I emailed Oxford suggesting they get into the e-dictionary market themselves instead of just licensing dictionary content themselves to hardware providers that had obviously no appreciation whatsoever of the actual needs of the language learner. I can't remember if they even responded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I don't put students to sleep with thesauruses etc, only myself.  That is, I mine (verb LOL) such resources in prep, for the students' benefit. Even when students obtain and themselves refer to these resources, it is often only fleetingly and for somewhat trivial things like spelling or general meaning than pinpoint usage let alone overaching quasi-structuralist organization.
IIRC the Visual Thesaurus was quite freezy and kept crashing my browsers the last time I tried to check it out (years ago). I'll give it another go at some point though.
BTW have you read the paper by Sinclair & Renouf entitled 'A lexical syllabus for language learning'? Here: http://www.rdues.bcu.ac.uk/publ/Lexical_Syllabus.pdf . That's another thing that helps pull everything together! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
