UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL PEDRO RUIZ GALLO

FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS HISTÓRICO SOCIALES

Y EDUCACIÓN
Unidad de Postgrado de Ciencias Histórico Sociales y
Educación

PROGRAMA DE MAESTRÍA EN DIDÁCTICA DEL IDIOMA

INGLÉS

THESIS

DIDACTIC MATERIAL “ENGLISH FOR FUN” BASED ON LEXICAL

APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE LEARNING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AMONG THE LEVEL I STUDENTS OF THE LANGUAGE CENTRE OF CESAR
VALLEJO UNIVERSITY – 2015.

SUBMITTED TO GET THE MASTER’S DEGREE IN EDUCATION SCIENCES

WITH MENTION IN DIDACTICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

BY:
Demis Rafael Andonayre Quevedo

LAMBAYEQUE – PERU
2017
DIDACTIC MATERIAL “ENGLISH FOR FUN” BASED ON LEXICAL
APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE LEARNING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AMONG THE LEVEL I STUDENTS OF THE LANGUAGE CENTRE OF CESAR
VALLEJO UNIVERSITY – 2015.

___________________________________
DEMIS RAFAEL ANDONAYRE QUEVEDO
AUTHOR

_________________________________
DR. DORIS NANCY DIAZ VALLEJOS
THESIS ADVISER

Presented to the Post Grade School of Pedro Ruiz Gallo National University in
order to get THE MASTER’S DEGREE IN EDUCATION SCIENCES WITH
MENTION IN DIDACTICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

THESIS APPROVED AND CERTIFIED BY:

_______________________________________
M.SC. MARÍA DEL PILAR FERNÁNDEZ CELIS
CHAIRMAN

_______________________________ _____________________________
M.SC. GLORIA PUICON CRUZALEGUI M.SC. MILAGROS CABEZAS MARTÍNEZ
1ST INTERNAL EXAMINER 2ND INTERNAL EXAMINER

Lambayeque, July – 2017

 DEDICATION

The current Thesis is dedicated to my mother, who has been a constant source
of support and encouragement during the challenges of my university life. I am
truly thankful for having her in my life. She has always loved me unconditionally
and whose good example of behavior has taught me to work hard on things I long
to achieve.

Demis Rafael Andonayre Quevedo

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would firstly like to thank my thesis advisor Dr. Doris Nancy Díaz Vallejos,
professor at Pedro Ruiz Gallo University. She consistently allowed this paper to
be my own work, but steered me in the right direction whenever she thought I
needed it.

I would also like to acknowledge Faculty of Education “Pedro Ruiz Gallo” through
the members of the jury, as the second readers of this thesis, I am gratefully
indebted to their very valuable comments on this thesis.

The author
 INDEX
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................. 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................ 4

RESUMEN .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 9

Chapter I: .............................................................................................................. 13

ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMATIC EDUCATIONAL REALITY OF “PEDRO RUIZ

GALLO-LANGUAGE CENTRE” ............................................................................. 13

1.1 Location and Historical Background of Cesar Vallejo Language

Centre. ................................................................................................................. 14

1.2. How the Problem Arises ............................................................................ 16

English in the Globalization Era ...................................................................................... 16

Importance of English as a Second Language .................................................................. 17
Teaching English as a Second Language .......................................................................... 18

1.3. How the Problem States and Its Characteristics .................................... 27

Chapter II: ............................................................................................................. 30

THEORETICAL - CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................... 30

2.1 Background of the research problem: ....................................................................... 31

2.2. THEORETICAL BASIS ................................................................................................. 33
2.2.1. COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPROACH ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.1.1. COOPERATIVE LEARNING OVERVIEW .........Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.1.2. COOPERATIVE LEARNING METHODS ...........Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.1.3. COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM ..... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
 2.2.1.4. COOPERATIVE LEARNING BEYOND THE CLASSROOMError! Bookmark
not defined.
2.2.1.5. COOPERATIVE LEARNING AS A MOTIVATIONAL SET..Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.2. SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY BY VYGOTSKY ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.2.1 LEV VYGOTSKY .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.2.2 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3 READING COMPREHENSION SKILL .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3.1. TEACHING READING SKILL...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3.2. WHAT READING INVOLVES? ............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3.3. AIMS OF TEACHING READING .........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3.4. SUB-SKILLS OF READING .................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3.5. STAGES IN LEARNING TO READ. ....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter III:.................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

RESULTS AND ....................................................................................................... 53

DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH .......................................................................... 53

3.1 ANALYSIS OF DATA: ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1.1 ANALYSIS OF THE PRE-TEST .................................................................................... 54

3.1.2 ANALYSIS OF THE POST-TEST:................................................................................. 58
3.1.3 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRE-TEST AND THE POST-TEST: Error! Bookmark not
defined.

3.2 THEORETICAL DIDACTIC PROPOSAL ..................................................... 63

3.2.1 THEORETICAL MODEL ............................................................................................ 63

3.2.2 PROBLEMATIC SITUATION ..................................................................................... 64
3.2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE DIDACTIC PROPOSAL ............................................................ 64
3.2.4 PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 65
3.2.5 DIDACTIC PROPOSAL STRUCTURE........................................................................... 66
CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

LINKOGRAPHY ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANNEXES ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

 ABSTRACT

Research starts from the deficiencies detected during the process of

Teaching - Learning among the students of level 1 that take the course of English
as a second language at University César Vallejo Language Center. It was
detected that they have difficulties to learn English; in addition students do not
use appropriate vocabulary to maintain a basic conversation in the English
language; impacting their performance for the learning of that language.

The main objective of the research was established as follows:

General: Design and implement a "English is fun" didactic material based on the
lexical approach that contributes to raise English language learning among the
level 1 students at César Vallejo University Language Center.

The working hypothesis was defined as follows: If a didactic material

based on the lexical approach is applied, it will be possible to increase the level
of English language learning among the level 1 students at César Vallejo
University Language Center.

The theoretical didactic material was the lexical approach support by Lewis and
the lexical categories that seek to enhance the abilities of the English language
learning from the appropriate use of the material mentioned above.

Keywords: lexical approach, English language, English language learning,

didactic material.
 RESUMEN

La investigación parte de las deficiencias detectadas durante el proceso de

Enseñanza - Aprendizaje de los estudiantes del nivel 1 que llevan el curso de
inglés como segunda lengua en el Centro de Idiomas de la Universidad César
Vallejo. Se pudo detectar que tienen dificultades para el aprendizaje del idioma
inglés, además los estudiantes no usan el vocabulario apropiado para mantener
una conversación básica en el idioma inglés; repercutiendo su desempeño para
el aprendizaje de dicho idioma.

El objetivo central de la investigación quedó establecido de la siguiente

manera: General: Diseñar y aplicar una material didáctico “English is fun” basado
en el enfoque léxico que contribuya a elevar el aprendizaje del idioma inglés en
los estudiantes del nivel 1del Centro de Idiomas de la Universidad César Vallejo.

La hipótesis de trabajo quedó definida de la siguiente manera: Si se

aplica un material didáctico sustentado en el enfoque léxico se logrará elevar el
nivel de aprendizaje del idioma inglés en los estudiantes del nivel 1 del Centro
de Idiomas de la Universidad César Vallejo.

El material didáctico elaborado tuvo como soporte teórico el enfoque

léxico por Lewis y las categorías léxicas que buscan potenciar las habilidades
del aprendizaje del idioma inglés a partir del uso apropiado del material antes
mencionado.

Palabras claves: enfoque léxico, idioma inglés, el aprendizaje del idioma inglés,
material didáctico.
 INTRODUCTION

The learning of the English language is becoming more and more popular in our
country because it is a requirement not only for universities but also for a
professional development. Providing students with suitable didactic material that
will help them to learn the English language in a more meaningful way is a good
choice. In other words, these materials will help students develop their English
language skills.

The use of didactic materials based on Lexical Approach and according to the
student’s reality is a good way to help students understand and use the language
in real situations because they learn something that they will use in the future and
they will feel motivated.

On the other hand, teachers can create these kind of materials based on their
students’ needs. If they do that, they will definitely help them understand the
language in an easy way.

English may not be the most spoken language in the world, but it is the official
language in a large number of countries. It is estimated that the number of people
in the world that use in English to communicate on a regular basis is 2 billion.

English is also the dominant business language and it has become almost a
necessity for people to speak English if they want to enter a global workforce,
research from all over the world shows that cross-border business
communication is most often conducted in English. Its importance in the global
market place therefore cannot be understated, learning English really can change
people’s life.

In brief, we cannot deny the importance of English language in this modern world.
This language helps us to express thinking and feelings, to talk, to exchange
views, and to contract between person and person wherever we live.
Furthermore, in the world that English is considered as the main language,
English is now taking an important part in the chance to get a job. Hence, we can
predict that English language will continue to develop and bring us more
advantages in the near future; and, maybe someday, English will be the only one
language in the world.

According to the British Council, approximately 375 million people speak English
as a native language and other 375 million speak it as a second language and
about 750 million more people speak English as a foreign language. English
currently is the most often taught language as a second language around the
world.
As English language is one of the most powerful and well-known languages in
the whole world, many countries have adopted it as their second or foreign
language used in education, government, politics, trade, and external dealings
and relations. Peru, as part of the globe, has also given English its status as a
foreign language taught at schools and academic institutions, and even as a
requirement to get a degree for professional development.

The purpose to have prepared didactic material based on lexical approach is

because this topic involves students learn the language with all its skills. To make
this effective, learners were exposed to a series of didactic material to form
potential users of the English language.

This thesis focuses on didactic material based on lexical approach and was made
to prove how effective they are while learners enjoy learning the English
language. The positive results of this research include race relation
improvements, academic achievements and personal development growth.

The principal cause of problems with learning English is the use of effective
didactic material in the classroom. Therefore, the researchers propose the
application of this to improve the learning of the English language.

The present work is focused on achieving the following general goal:

The main goal of this study is to design and apply a didactic material “English for
fun” based on lexical approach to improve the learning of the English language
among the level I students of the Language Centre of Cesar Vallejo University.
It also achieves the next specific goals:
- To elaborate adequate tools to use and find out the level of the learning of the
English language among the level I students of the Language Centre of Cesar
Vallejo.

- To design and implement a didactic material “English for fun” based on the
lexical approach to improve the learning of the English language among the level
I students of the Language Centre of Cesar Vallejo University.

- To assess the level of the English language learning among the level I students
after applying the didactic material “English for fun” through the post - test.

This research helps other teachers whose students do not meet English learning
standards by providing several didactic material in all the skills of the English
language.

If a didactic material based on lexical approach are applied on students, they will
improve the learning of the English language so that this will be a great chance
to become successful English learner for life.

The present research is divided into three chapters:

On chapter 1, Analysis of the Problematic Educational Reality of the “Language

Centre of César Vallejo University”, the problematic aspect of the object of study
is being cored, the location where the research was carried out, how the problem
arises out, its characteristics and a description of the methodology that was used
to put into practice this research.

On chapter 2, The Theoretical Framework of this research, is based on relevant

sources of background literature like approaches, theories and studies that
support the application of strategies based on cooperative learning for better
reading comprehension.
On chapter 3, Results and discussion, it is the practical part of this work and it is
based on the findings of the surveys, the pre-test and the post-test that have been
applied on the students during this research. The Theoretical Proposal is also
included.

Finally, conclusions and recommendations are being provided to make ideas

clear for those ones who commit to read and revise this research.
 Chapter I:
ANALYSIS OF THE LEARNING OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN THE
STUDENTS OF LEVEL I AT “CESAR
VALLEJO UNIVERSITY-
LANGUAGE CENTRE”
In this chapter, some international, national and local views of the problematic
educational reality are duly presented in order to end up at the “Language Centre
of Cesar Vallejo University”, focusing on the lack of learning of the English
language in students of level 1. To conclude with the methodology that was used
in this research.

1.1 Location and Historical Background of “Cesar Vallejo University”

Language Centre.

Peru is located on South America's Central Pacific coast. The world's twentieth-
largest nation, it borders Bolivia, Brazil, and Chile to the east and south, and
Colombia and Ecuador to the north. Lima, the capital, is located on the central
coast.

Chiclayo is located in the north west of the country. In this city , studying English
is being a great success. Some families invest money in after school activities
and private tutoring for their children in English such as language institutes or so-
called language centres. English is compulsory at every university and
community college in the country. High marks in English guarantee acceptance
to higher schools of learning and better paying jobs.

English has a high status for students to get into universities. Parents believe that
the English language is a good investment for their future.

The preparation for International Exams is an indicator of academic success on

each applicant.

The Language Centre of Cesar Vallejo University” divides the study of the English
Language by levels such as Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced and
Conversation. Students according to their proficiency receive 10 hours of English
instructions on weekdays and 7 hours at the weekends.
The students of level 1 from the Language Centre of Cesar Vallejo University
have never been exposed to a systematic training in the use of didactic material
to be taught the English language.

In this time of constant changes where distances have been shortened,

communications have accelerated and technological innovations are on the
agenda, it is observed within these continuous processes that verbal
communication requires knowledge of other languages and other cultures .

That is why the great concern of the Language Center of Cesar Vallejo University
since its inception, has been to develop the communicative, linguistic and
research skills, to make students who are capable to be skilled English users.

Cesar Vallejo University in Chiclayo is a reknown place to study different careers

and to get a place students must apply a knowledge and General Cultural
admission examination. This event is held twice a year in order to cover one
semestre which is the regular term. Cesar Vallejo University has a varierty of
careers and applicants have the chance to choose from according their interest,
vocation and firm decision.

The Language Centre of Cesar Vallejo University is a specialized and

internationally certified production center, whose purpose is the teaching of
languages face-to-face, virtual and blended modality, where students develop
their 4 learning skills (Listening, speaking , Reading and Writing) effectively.

Mission: To be leaders in the teaching of languages in our country, promoting the

cultural exchange, obtaining that our students can get access to better work and
educational opportunities at international level.

Vision: We are a reknown institution in the use of English for Communication

through Foreign language teaching, with teachers with high level of enhance of
the English Language who always train continuously both pedagogically and
academically of foreign languages in face-to-face interaction.
1.2. How the Problem Arises

1.2.1. International Context

The Importance of English Language has globally accepted. English may not be
the most spoken language in the world, but it is the official language in a large
number of countries. In all aspects of international life – trade, science,
diplomacy, education and travel – the common language is English and has been
for decades. Communication helps to spread knowledge and information among
people. It is no doubt that communication plays a vital role in human life. It does
not only help to facilitate the process of sharing information and knowledge, but
also helps people to develop relationships with others.

Globalization refers to the expanding connectivity, integration, and

interdependence of economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and
ecological spheres beyond local activities. People know well about the
importance of English in a globalized society. That is why this language is taught
as a basic fact everywhere. Speaking internationally means to prosper in this
world by using English.

When using the language, people express thoughts, emotions, actions etc. There
are many languages in this world and people do not speak all the languages at
the same time. English is the most commonly spoken international language and
thus if it is learnt, it can bring people closer, it can make business and negotiations
easier, and it can help people communicate with others of all cultures across the
globe. English is a passport for better careers, better payments, advanced
knowledge, and for communication with the entire world.

English in the Globalization Era

In the last few decades, English is spoken by more people around the world than
any other language. As global communication expands throughout the world, so
does the need for a global language. In many parts of the world English has been
required not only for mastery at universities in aspects of language knowledge,
but also as a language of science and technology. It means that English is used
to communicate and interact in science and technology.

English is also used to cooperating in the world of business with entrepreneurs

from various countries. Job opportunities for someone who mastered the English
language is wide open to work in companies, private organizations or government
agencies, also be able to get an important position in that company or institution.
It is complicated for someone to gain the considerable job without skills of
English.

English will become the contributing factor of success emerging a new generation
of workers both academic and job. In this era of globalization, it is important to
learn how to speak English or other foreign languages. Another claim that if
without mastery of English language is good, a country will not advance.

Importance of English as a Second Language

Learning a second language helps communicate across cultures and conduct

businesses in lands somebody may never have previously considered viable
enterprises. It also helps address customers in the language that they understand
best and in which they are most comfortable communicating. Additionally, the
importance of learning a second language is emphasized when we see the
diversity of earth’s cultures and the amazing diversity of people that make up our
global community.

That said, there is another reason supporting the importance of learning a second
language. Scientific studies have shown that learning a second language
improves brain function and stimulates creativity. When you know a new
language, you start to see connections that have never seen before because
every language approaches the world in a slightly different way. As a result, the
opportunity to understand the world from the perspective of another culture and
gain a greater appreciation of human society. As a consequence, the importance
of learning a second language is again reinforced. You become not just equipped
to communicate across cultures but empowered to understand others’ points of
view.
The world is an increasingly globalized place where individuals communicate
among and between multiple cultures each day. Today, an individual has a
quickly access to a vast information from a variety of world cultures at the touch
of a button. For those who are immersed in the English speaking world, the
access to this information is much easier and better understood than those ones
who are not interested in being part of this group. That is one reason why learning
English as a second language has become so popular. In fact, English is now the
world’s most widely spoken second language.

As a result, there has never been a greater demand for classes to learn English
as a second language. English is the gateway to a world of knowledge,
commerce, and culture. Learning English gives a student access to the world in
a way that other languages do not.

There is a variety of ways to learn English as a second language, including

computer programs, audio tapes, classes, and immersion. Picking the right
method makes students gain insight and self-understanding.
ESL programs also allow students to be among others who appreciate their native
language and culture. ESL programs also allow students to meet and form
friendships with other non-native speakers from different cultures, promoting
racial tolerance and multiculturalism

Teaching English as a Second Language

Teaching English as a second language is an important task that produces

powerful and personal rewards. First, there is the feeling of pride that as
a teacher you have made a difference in the life of a student. Second, it is the
contribution you have made the international community by adding a new speaker
of the language. Teaching English as a second language is a noble calling,
empowering students to take their places in the global community and become
active participants in the global conversation.
Today’s English language learners are a diverse collection of immigrants,
businesspeople, students, and artists who share a dedication to the English
language and a love of learning. Teaching English as a second language is an
honor and a privilege, one that we as educators share with all of those who strive
to give student the tools they need to take on new enterprises and reach for their
dreams. The gift of a second language is a window onto a new world, bringing
into focus a wealth of conversation, information, and understanding that would
otherwise be forever closed to the students who seek to learn a new language.
We therefore look forward every day to giving our students the tools to succeed
in all their dreams.

The idea of learning English to the non-native English speaker or speaker from a
foreign country can create a great deal of both havoc and potential inspiration
and means for success in a person’s life. Specifically, it takes a lot of courage,
dedication and a positive attitude to create a positive personal space for English
learning. Attitude factors aside, the work that is involved in learning English is
great, and without at least a sense of what will happen at the end of the long road
of studying English, the learner could potentially grow frustrated and give up the
effort to learn English.

In addition, the potential student of English learning may well be greeted by

dissidence among family and friends, where it is encouraged to go along with the
norm and study in one’s home country in one’s native language. But, if one has
the determination and personality that can be described as an “English learning
attitude” one should take the task of learning English very seriously and ignore
those who wish for another path for the person. Or better, explain to loved ones
the importance of learning English is to success in the global economy, or in going
to school in an English-speaking country. These are all valid reasons for learning
English and the “English speaking attitude” – one that encompasses courage,
dedication, intelligence and a desire to change one’s life circumstance, will only
grow as the decisions needed to reach the ultimate goal, of English language
mastery, are accomplished.
 1.2.2. European, Asian and Latin American Context

Reading is one of the four necessary important language skills for those learning
English as a second or foreign language, for academic success and for
professional development.
Reading is the corner-stone of a child’s success and consequently through life.
Reading is a basic life skill and the lack of reading comprehension affects
students’ academic growth.

If reading came naturally, teaching reading would be a much easier job.

Apparently students are expected to pick up reading skills automatically. As we
know, people would learn to read as they learn to speak but people do not learn
to read just from being exposed to books.

Reading must be taught explicitly and systematically, one small step at a time.
Reading is an important part of every language and a learner should not leave it
behind.

In fact, learning to read is seen as one of the most important attainments of the
first years of formal education.

Proficiency in reading literacy is not only one of the principal goals when learning
a new language, but it is also one of the principal means of learning. The ability
to read is more than a fundamental tool for exercising the right to education which
is enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights (article 26).

In the first years of the 20th century, there were names for methods of teaching
reading: alphabetic, phonetic, phonic, look-and-say, word, sentence, each with
its own supporters and its own variety of uses. But issues of reading pedagogy
are minimized in many parts of the world.

In Korea, for instance, educators worry about reading pedagogy; Korean has
been heavily influenced by Chinese. The significant differences between Korean
and English, particularly in sentence structure and morphology (word structure),
make it hard for most Korean ESL students to acquire English. The Korean
alphabet is called Hangul. Hangul can be written horizontally or vertically, with
the horizontal, Latin style much more favoured. Koreans are exposed in their daily
lives to the Latin script and therefore have no particular difficulties with the English
language.

In Japan, there seems to be conflicting views over how the Japanese view the
English language. On one side, it appears that there is much interest in acquiring
a working knowledge of the English language, in order to participate in the global
economy and international community.

Japanese students experience great difficulty in studying English, due to

fundamental differences in grammar and syntax, as well as important differences
in pronunciation. Japanese word order, the frequent omission of subjects in
Japanese, the absence of articles, the functional absence of plural forms
represent substantial problems using English effectively. Indeed, the Japanese
have tended to score comparatively poorly on international tests of English. An
additional factor has been the use of English in daily life for "decorative" or
"design" rather than functional purposes; as a way of appearing "smart,
sophisticated and modern".

In Europe, children are starting to learn foreign languages at an increasingly early

age in Europe, with most students beginning when they are 6-9 years old.
Reading is one of their priorities according to a report published by the European
Commission. A majority of countries or regions have lowered the starting age for
compulsory language learning in the past 15 years. The Key Data on Teaching
Languages at School in Europe 2012 report confirms that English is by far the
most taught foreign language in nearly all European countries, with French,
Spanish, German and Russian following far behind.

In the US and the UK, on the other hand, the initial teaching of reading is a major
source of concern and the focusing of attention from many directions. In the US,
high school and Language Institute teachers commit the bulk of their serious
teaching time to reading; many of the comprehensive reform plans prescribe a
90 to 150 minutes literacy block.
In Latin America, for instance, students are spending more time in school than
ever before, but they are not acquiring the skills needed for success in their
learning. Students are not learning much. The percentage of students who cannot
read by the end of basic education is alarming. The continent has made progress
in achieving quantitative but not qualitative education goals.

The literature provides plenty of explanations, ranging from student’s

socioeconomic conditions to inefficiencies in the use of the available resources
in the classroom, as well as weaknesses of the education systems. Many
students do not know how to read even a single word by third grade and this
affects their achievement throughout their education. Some researchers say that
improving the quality of education systems requires a systemic approach rather
than relying on any single education reform, but we all know that all the
governments around Latin America are seeking constantly to improve quality of
reading.

1.2.3. Peruvian Context

The English Language and its Importance in Peru

The third-largest country in South America, Peru is home to varied habitats that
provide a wealth of biodiversity. The 19th and early 20th centuries were
characterized by immigration, and groups or Peruvians of with Chinese and
Japanese descent remain influential today. In the 1980s, the trend turned more
towards emigration, reflecting the effects of an economic crisis and political
conflict between the state and guerrilla groups. Improved economic conditions
have stemmed the outflow, but while the poverty rate has dropped substantially
over the last decade, over a quarter of the population remains economically
vulnerable.

Foreign investors are showing increasing interest in Peru’s mineral wealth, and
the country’s efforts to boost English levels reflect its goal of expanding and
internationalizing the economy further. The government has recently become
much more engaged with teaching English in schools and has committed to
improving English teacher training and providing innovative teaching methods
and materials in partnership with foreign governments, universities and
international organisations. Historically, language learning has been complex,
reflecting the need to address the language requirements of large minorities that
speak indigenous languages. These groups have generally been given lower
status and have faced barriers to education due to the lack of education
opportunities in the mother tongue. Anecdotal evidence suggests that attitudes
towards English among minority communities have been, and to some extent
remain, ambivalent.

English language policy

Peru’s linguistic history is complicated. In the first Peruvian constitution in 1823,

Spanish was named as the official language in spite of the fact that various
indigenous languages were the main means of communication for most
Peruvians. To address this, the government has created various policies to
protect these languages and preserve Peru’s history and culture and has
developed an inclusive mind-set. As such, English has largely been treated as
any other academic subject. In the 1950s and 1960s, English was taught in
schools in coastal areas, but after the 1968 coup, English language teaching was
actively restricted by the government. In the 1990s, an agreement was signed
with the British government to assist with general and English language
education. This partnership is being revived again today.

As such, while Peru has put in place strategies and isolated programmes to target
English language learning, it has not followed a cohesive and sequential plan of
action.

In July 2014, President Humala announced that bilingual education in Spanish

and English was a priority and set the goal for Peru to achieve bilingualism by
2021.This policy was already in place in the military and should now filter through
to the public school network. In 2015, the government almost doubled the
education budget, and this is expected to affect English language teaching across
the country. While the National English Plan is still in development, some of its
goals have been announced. MINEDU has created a team to work on the plan,
which already includes guidelines on how English should be taught in secondary
schools and may soon include the same for primary schools. MINEDU is updating
its website with the standards and details of other goals as they are defined. So
far, the two main directions are increasing the numbers English teaching hours
and improving the skills of English teachers.

The government is focusing on teaching and learning in public schools from pre-
primary to secondary level and on the practical use of English in business,
commerce and tourism. The initial aim is to raise the total number of teaching
hours to 45 per week for 350,000 students in 1,000 secondary schools, including
raising English-language education from two hours per week to five. MINEDU
has realised that under the current system of two hours per week, considering
large class sizes and teachers who are often unprepared and overworked,
students are not learning English or achieving set goals.

The government is also investing in the infrastructure of these schools, for

example, by installing language labs. A plan to pilot English language learning in
primary schools is also being formed. By 2021, all of Peru’s 8,500 public
secondary schools should have a 45-hour teaching week, and schools outside of
the 1,000 selected institutions will be able to access lesson support, such as
flashcards and syllabuses, as well as teacher training support in the meantime.

By increasing the number of overall and English language teaching hours,

MINEDU anticipates a shortage of 2,300 English teachers in 2015 and 2,000
annually in the coming years. Currently, 70 per cent of English lessons are taught
by teachers who are not qualified to teach English. Goals for teacher
development include attracting more qualified candidates by increasing salaries
and offering incentives such as scholarships, camps and contests. Teachers
have already been sent to the US and the UK on scholarships to study English
and teaching methodologies. While these opportunities are promoted on the
MINEDU website, a lack of accessibility and marketing means that not all
teachers know that such opportunities exist.

English has been recognised as an international language of business and a

means of benefitting Peruvian businesses and development. As such, MINEDU
is working with other ministries, such as the Ministry of Commerce and Tourism,
the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Transport and Communications, to
develop a national policy on English. This policy will focus on the impact of
English on commerce and tourism and will guide English teaching in basic public
education.

MINEDU is also developing international partnerships in English language

learning and is collaborating with the embassies of Australia, Canada, the US
and the UK, among others. MINEDU signed a memorandum of understanding
(MoU) in late 2014 with the UK. This MoU outlined technical assistance for Peru
with its English language programme, including multiple sources of assistance
for both English language teaching and teacher training. The UK has also
pledged to help reform Peruvian policies and curriculums and has set significant
targets for 2015, the first two of which have already been achieved:

• Sending 150 Peruvian English teachers to the UK for professional development.

• Training 400 teachers in summer schools led by 20 teachers from the UK.

• Providing 200 British teachers to teach in Peru, with plans to increase this
number to 1,000.

• Helping with curriculums and methods.

• Increasing student mobility between Peru and the UK, with the possible goal of
doubling current mobility figures

While the president has called for bilingualism with an emphasis on English, the
language is not compulsory. Reflecting its concern for the preservation and
protection of indigenous populations and their languages, complementary
programs exist and are being created to provide for communities that are already
bilingual, speaking Spanish alongside their native tongue. For example, the
Amazon Plan, also known as the Jungle Plan, aims for teaching in the native
tongue or Spanish as well as the attainment of basic numeracy and literacy skills.
English is mandatory in secondary school for the 15 per cent of the population
that lives in the Amazon, which covers almost 60 per cent of the country;
however, education access and quality concerns mean that acquiring basic skills
is the priority for these students.
English teacher training

A British Council survey on the teaching of English in primary schools worldwide

found that it was acceptable for English teachers in Peru to have no formal
teaching qualifications in the language and that knowing English was considered
sufficient to teach the language. Acceptable qualifications included being a native
or similarly competent English speaker, being a qualified primary school teacher
who has taken a pre-service specialist course in teaching English and being a
university graduate in English language or literature with no formal teaching
qualifications.

The English language teaching profession is not popular, and drop-out rates from
five-year programmes at ISPs are high. It is common for teachers to attend
college in the morning and either work or study for another programme in the
afternoon. Successful qualifying teachers may still lack the required skills: a
diagnostic test of English teachers revealed weaknesses in both language and
pedagogy. Teachers that are fully committed to the professional often choose to
work in the private sector, reflecting a lack of incentives in the public system.

Support for English teacher training is one of the main objectives of the current
reforms. MINEDU aims to produce teachers that are more rounded - in terms of
not only pedagogies but also blended learning models and student support - by
training them in psychology and alternative teaching and learning methods. This
includes training teachers to focus more on speaking and listening alongside
grammar. The reforms mean that English teachers will receive professional
development through online tutoring, summer schools and PRONABEC - the
continuing education and scholarship arm of MINEDU - which offers scholarships
to study English and pedagogical methods for English language teaching in
English-speaking countries.

Partnerships with universities in the UK and the US have already resulted in

Peruvian teachers studying abroad. This support is vital for English teachers, who
have previously not had access to programmes through MINEDU or workshops
through teacher associations such as IATEFL and PERU-TESOL.
 1.2.4. Local Context

The research project took place at Cesar Vallejo Language Centre located in
Chiclayo; student population consists of approximately 1000 students.
At the Language Centre of Cesar Vallejo University, students need efficient
reading skills to comprehend reading materials from various sources related to
their studies at university and the careers they are all pursuing even for their
professional development and reach standards of this globalized world.

1.3. How the Problem States and its Characteristics.

The researcher realized that the students of Level I from the Language Centre of
Cesar Vallejo University poorly used their skills to communicate by using the
English language.

Consequently, these students do not reflect accurate comprehension of topics,

they provide incomplete answers to questions, their answers are hardly
understood and they commit spelling and grammar errors when they have to deal
with the use of the English language.

However, the researcher thinks that this problem can be solved if a didactic
material is applied to improve this issue. Furthermore, this research pretends to
encourage and lead teachers to use this material based on lexical approach in
the process of learning the English language.

The concern of teachers is to have ideal classrooms in which all students learn
how to work cooperatively with others by sharing experiences and focus all their
energy on a single goal which comes to a phrase: The more efforts they put on,
the more achievements they reach, by competing for fun and enjoyment because
in an environment full of joy and enthusiasm, students are motivated to learn
more and obtain beneficial and positive outcomes at the same time they can work
autonomously on their own.
 1.4 Methodology
1.4.1. Sampling Population:

The sampling population consisted of 30 students between 18-23 years old of the
level I on the weekend shift from 8:00 am to 2:00 pm who presented difficulties
with learning the English language. Apart from that, these students pursued
different careers at Cesar Vallejo University. They were represented in the
following chart:

Level Boys Girls Total

INTERMEDIATE 20 10 30

Total 30

Source: The chart above was provided by the English teachers (taken from the
Evaluation Attendance List – 2015 of level I) at Cesar Vallejo University Language
Centre.

To carry out this correlational project, it was necessary to apply the following
methodology:

The bibliographic method was used to collect scientific information regarding to

the use of Lexical Approach to improve the learning of the English language. Also,
the qualitative and quantitative methods were taken into account in to collect data
from students through a pre-test and then a post-test respectively.

The first step was the collection of bibliographic information related to lexical
approach to improve the learning of the English language. The sources used to
collect information included books, websites, and articles.

The next step was to create a pre-test in order to sound out and find out the level
of their English as well as to know what kind of didactic material they would be
able to have with the application of lexical approach.

This pre-test was applied on 30 students of level I. It included activities based on

Lexical Approach to be worked individually and it was carried out on March 06th,
2015.
The following stage was the creation of a didactic material based on Lexical
Approach especially for students of level I to improve the learning of the English
language during the months of March, May and June in 2015.

After three months of the application of the lesson plans and the didactic material,
a post-test was applied to find out if the use of the didactic material based on
Lexical Approach was a good means to accomplish the purpose of this research.
The post-test was applied on June 28th, 2015.
 Chapter II:
THEORETICAL - CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK OF A DIDACTIC
MATERIAL BASED ON LEXICAL
APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE
LEARNING OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
2.1 Background of the research problem:

Language has traditionally been divided into grammar and vocabulary. Crudely,
the former consisted of elements of the generative system of the language and
the latter was the stock of fixed no generative 'words'. Recently, this analysis has
been challenged and shown to be seriously misguided from both strictly linguistic
and pedagogical points of view (Lewis, 1993; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Willis,
1990).

a) In the published research project, “The applied lexical approach in order to

reduce the interlinguistic mistakes” (Romero B, 2012), had the objective to
carry out a field research on how to implement the lexical approach principles to
the teaching of Spanish as a foreign language in order to prove whether those
principles manage to reduce the number of mistakes due to the influence of
students’ mother tongue. To do so, she discussed about the nature of mistakes,
as well as the principle of idiomaticity. She tried to define what chunks were and
she provided tools to work on the students’ lexical awareness and collocational
competence. Criticism regarding the lexical approach was also discussed.
Furthermore, the methodology was explained and the results were analyzed. She
ended by discussing those results and considering some future research
directions.

In my personal opinion, this research focuses on helping students to avoid

making mistakes when using the Spanish language. I think it is an effective
research because the results of this project was amazing.

b) Lopez C. (2011) explored “The Lexical approach in the ELE manuals”. The
purpose of this study was to analyze how and to what extent the lexical approach
was applied to teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL). To do so, she
examined the latest contributions to the SFL vocabulary teaching in the lexical
approach field. Her goal was to understand the role the lexical component plays
by analyzing five books from different publishers. She also focused on the variety
of lexical units, the relationship between vocabulary and grammar, the typology
of vocabulary activities, the relationship between vocabulary and skills, the
vocabulary learning strategies and the variety of teaching resources.

This analysis enabled me to realize the importance given to the lexical component
so that learners achieve communicative competence. The analysis also
highlights some differences amongst the books, such as varied approaches to
dealing with collocations or the variety of learning strategies.

c) In the study of “The Lexical approach applied to the teaching of intonation

in Spanish.” (Travalia C., 2007). This study helped students to change their
attitude towards learning a language. It was based on the lexical approach in
order to teach intonation in the learning of Spanish. According to this study, it is
not only the use of vocabulary of a language important but also the indirect form
of its grammatical rules. Many authors suggested teaching the natural intonation
and the correct use of a language are the main components of a young learner
in order to acquire it.

In my point of view, this study helped students to improve their intonation in the
Spanish language and as we know, the use of vocabulary plays an important role
in the teaching and learning process of a second language.

d) The study of “The influence of lexical approach in the fluency and

accuracy of the English language among the students of Andres Bello
University.” (Martins G., 2007), determined that the application of lexical
approach in this group of students of this university had very great results in terms
of fluency and accuracy of vocabulary. The purpose of this study was to increase
student’s fluency and accuracy so that the data showed an enormous
improvement.

I think this kind of research showed us one more time the impact on using the
lexical approach in order to teach a second language, has a very effective way to
master a language.
2.2. THEORETICAL BASIS

3.2 LEXICAL APPROACH TO SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

3.2.1 Introduction to the Lexical Approach

A few decades ago, there was a predominant view in the linguistic circles that
vocabulary was subservient to grammar. Linguists at that time strongly supported
the dichotomy of grammar and vocabulary and they preferred to lay emphasis on
the structures of language rather than the words. Also, they were of the view that
acquisition of a language is dependent on the mastery of grammatical rules of
the language and vocabulary is of secondary importance. But during the 1990’s
there was an increased interest in vocabulary teaching and learning. The book
Teaching and Learning Vocabulary (1990) by Paul Nation provided useful
insights into vocabulary acquisition and it extended guidance on classroom
pedagogy. At the same time, the advent of corpus linguistics and the COBUILD
project of John Sinclair (1987) gave new impetus to theories on language
acquisition. Sinclair’s book Corpus, Concordance, Collocation (1991) and other
corpus based studies shed new lights on how language works and this led to a
new understanding and description of language. Also, these studies revealed the
widespread occurrence of multi-word units or lexical chunks in native speakers’
language. The studies then put forward a theory that is almost contrary to
Chomsky theory of language which holds that native speakers have a capacity of
creating and interpreting unique sentences which they have never heard or
produced previously. Moreover, Chomsky theory believed that:

Linguistic competence consists solely in the ability to deploy an

innate rule- governed sentence-making capacity. (Thornbury,
1998:8)

But with the advent of corpus based analyses, many linguists departed from the
Chomsky view to uphold the new theory of language.

With the publication of the book The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a
Way Forward in 1993, there was a shift from the traditional approaches to a lexis
based approach which holds that:
 The building blocks of language learning and communication are
not grammar, function, notions, or some other unit of planning and
teaching but lexis, that is, word and word combinations. (Richards
& Rodgers 2001:132)

To quote Lewis, this approach focuses on developing learner’s proficiency with

lexis, or word and word combinations.(1993:95). He substantiates this view in the
book Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting theory into Practice, and states:

Fluency is based on acquisition of a large store of fixed and semi-fixed

prefabricated items, which are available as the foundation for any linguistic
novelty or creativity. (1997:15)

He holds that native speakers store chunks in their mental lexicon to retrieve and
use them in their language. Also, he states that the ability to chunk language
successfully is central to an understanding of how language works. For this
reason, Lewis suggests that language teaching should include the teaching of
lexical phrases or chunks. In fact, he advocates that lexical phrases in any
language offer more communicative and expressive power than grammatical
structures. He further stresses that without chunking acquisition, comprehension
and production of the language will be limited and slowed down. Thornbury
substantiates this view and holds that chunking serves two purposes at early
stages of language learning:

 It enables language learners to have chunks of the language available for

immediate use.

 It also provides the learner with data to hold in reserve for subsequent analysis.
(1998:8)

3.2.2 Principles of the Lexical Approach

Though this approach became popular in the1990’s, there are many

researchers who are not clear of the principles of this approach and how it is
practised. It is apt here to list out the principles as enumerated by Lewis (1993:vi-
vii) which most advocates of lexical approaches adhere to. It would also be apt
here to examine all these principles in detail:

1. Language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar

The main tenet of lexical approach is its emphasis on lexis. According to

Lewis language is made of lexical elements besides grammar. He feels that
emphasis should be laid on structures made of word, clusters of words or lexical
chunks rather than grammatical structures. Substantiating this view Thornbury
writes:

Lewis challenges the traditional view that language competence consists

of having a foundation of grammatical structures into which we slot
individual words. Instead, we store a huge assortment of memorized
words, phrases and collocations, along with their associated ‘grammar’.
The approach concentrates on developing learner’s proficiency with lexis,
or words and word combinations. (2002:114)

2. The grammar/vocabulary dichotomy is invalid: much language consists of

multi-word ‘chunks’:

Lewis is of the view that vocabulary cannot be differentiated from grammar.

Nattinger and De Carrico consider a lexical phrase or a chunk as a lexico-
grammatical unit which exists somewhere between the traditional poles of lexicon
and syntax (1992:36). Lewis advocates that every word has its own grammar and
it is not suggestable to create a distinction between vocabulary and grammar.
Instead of viewing language as simply words and grammar, he suggests that
language be viewed as consisting of multi-word chunks. He states that language
acquisition is faster when it is learnt in chunks rather than in isolated individual
words.

3. A central element of language teaching is raising students’ awareness of, and

developing their ability to ‘chunk’ language successfully:
 Lewis holds that noticing lexical chunks in the language is a pre
requirement for learning language. He argues that increased awareness helps in
converting input to intake. Added to consciousness-raising, he feels that
importance should be given to developing in learner the ability to chunk the
language. According to him:

The central idea to efficient acquisition and effective communication

is chunking. Unless you chunk a text correctly, it is almost
impossible to read with understanding, and unless you speak
appropriate chunks, you place a serious barrier to understanding
between yourself and your listeners. (Lewis 1997:58)

4. Collocation is integrated as an organising principle within syllabuses:

Collocation is central to the lexical approach because the way words

combine in collocations is fundamental to all language use. Lewis stresses on the
importance of learning the patterns of collocations because much of the spoken
and written language comprises them. Hill says that we need to add the concept
of collocational competence to our thinking as it aids us in avoiding errors in our
language. Thus, proficiency in a language is greater when there is a focus on
collocations (2000:48). As Oxford Collocations Dictionary puts it:

No piece of natural spoken or written English is totally free of

collocation. For the student, choosing the right collocation will make
his speech and writing sound much more natural, 13 more native
speaker-like, even when basic intelligibility does not seem to be at
issue. A student who talks about ‘strong rain’ may make himself
understood, but possibly not without provoking a smile or a
correction, which may or may not matter. He will certainly be marked
down for it in an exam. (2009:V)

5. Evidence from computational linguistics and discourse analysis influences

syllabus content and sequence:

Advances in computer-based studies of language, such as corpus linguistics

have provided huge databases of language corpora. In particular, COBUILD
project provided an accurate description of English language and laid a
foundation for lexical syllabus. Willis& Willis (1989) made an attempt to develop
a syllabus based on lexical rather than grammatical principles. Willis’ syllabus
specifies the usage of words, their meanings and patterns of the common
phrases in their most natural environments. Unlike Willis’s, Lewis’s lexical
syllabus

recognises word patterns for de-lexical words, collocation power for

semantically powerful words, and longer multi-word items, partially
institutionalized sentences, as requiring different and parallel
pedagogical treatment. (1993:109)

6. Language is recognized as a personal resource, not an abstract idealization:

In the lexical framework, language is perceived as a personal resource

rather than as an abstract idealization. By extension, learning a language enables
a learner to become resourceful in using it.

7. Successful language is a wiser concept than accurate language:

Like the other communicative approaches, which stress on communicative

proficiency, the lexical approach too highlights the importance of successful
communication rather than the production of accurate language. It believes that
acquisition of lexical chunks makes a learner’s communication more effective.

8. The primacy of speech over writing is recognized; writing is acknowledged as

a secondary encodement, with a radically different grammar from that of the
spoken language:

Contrary to the traditional approaches which advocated the primacy of

writing over speech, the lexical approach believes that the learners at first should
speak fluently in the language before they could learn writing. Lewis feels that
any learner can acquire a language if he/she tries to emulate the ways adopted
by a native speaker.
9. It is the co-textual rather than situational elements of context which are of
primary importance for language teaching:

Lewis feels that co-textual elements of language are more important for
language learning than contextual elements. While contextual elements aid the
learner in comprehending the situation of utterance and the situation of
occurrence of the speech, co-textual elements help in knowing the discourse
preceding and following a particular word. He further states that the awareness
of the co-textual elements makes us understand the co-occurrence of various
words which in turn leads to effective learning.

10. Socio-linguistic competence-communicative power-precedes and is the

basis, not the product, of grammatical competence:

Lexical approach recognises the importance of socio-linguistic

competence and communicative power in attaining mastery of a language. It
advocates that the ability to use a language and the ability to respond to the
language appropriately in a social setting are the bases to achieve grammatical
competence in a language and not vice versa.

11. Grammar as structure is subordinate to lexis:

The lexical approach rejects the notion that grammar is superior to lexis.
The advocates of this approach believe that:

Language is primarily lexical and grammar is largely an

illusion created by different models of language. (Rani
2009:162)

This approach argues for bringing lexis to forefront while learning a

language and it emphasizes teaching of lexis rather than grammar or individual
words. Lewis substantiates this view when he says:

Language consists not of traditional grammar and

vocabulary but often of multi-word prefabricated chunks.
(Lewis1997:3)
 He strongly argues that every word has its own grammar and holds that if
a lexical item is learnt, the grammar of it is also implicitly learnt without much
emphasis. For example: Eat a chocolate. The encounter of the word ‘eat’ makes
the learner notice that it is in its present tense. He holds that grammar is inbuilt in
lexical items. This thesis focuses mainly on learning language through lexical
chunks. Since a number of studies already exist on the teaching of grammar, the
present study has explored only teaching of lexis. References to grammar are
made only wherever found relevant.

12. Grammatical error is recognised as intrinsic to the learning process:

Lewis is of the view that any learner is prone to make grammatical

mistakes while learning a language. Production of erroneous sentences
according to him is a part of leaning. Unlike traditional approaches which do not
encourage the production of incorrect language, the lexical approach welcomes
mistakes in speech and considers them as intrinsic to the process of learning.

13. Grammar as a receptive skill, involving the perception of similarity and

difference, is prioritised:

Grammar is not a productive skill as is purported to be in structuralist

descriptions of language. It cannot be acquired through mere mechanical drilling
of structures. The perception of similarity and difference in the way grammar
works is seen as more important in the lexical approach.

14. Sub-sentential and supra-sentential grammatical ideas are given greater

emphasis, at the expense of earlier concentration on sentence grammar and the
verb phrase:

The lexical approach involves an increased role of word grammar (sub-

sequential grammar) and text grammar (supra-sentential grammar). It holds that
the word grammar and word partnerships are more important while acquiring a
language than sentence grammar. At the same time it attaches significance to
text grammar and discourse markers in the process of learning a language.

15. Task and process, rather than exercise and product, are emphasised:
 As in task-based, procedural syllabuses of Communicative Language
Learning, the lexical approach also underscores the importance of the process of
learning rather than its product.

16. Receptive skills, particularly listening, are given enhanced status:

Lexical approach believes that production of a language is based on its

reception. It further states that the amount of exposure to a language determines
the production of a language. So, it stresses on the need to enhance the listening
skills of the learners which play a pivotal role in language acquisition.

17. The Present-Practise-Produce paradigm is rejected, in favour of a paradigm

based on the Observe-Hypothesise-Experiment cycle:

The approach rejects the Present-Practise- Produce paradigm as it is

similar to the rote repetition of a language. It is more of a teacher- centred
paradigm where the teacher presents the information to be learnt, makes the
learners practise it and finally makes the students produce it without much of their
involvement. But the Observe- Hypothesise-Experiment cycle makes the learners
engross themselves in the activities assigned to them. They are provided a
chance of probing into the language and making predictions and also experiment
on it in their own way. This paradigm grants them considerable freedom to apply
their knowledge in the process of acquiring a language.

18. Recycling and reviewing the language taught:

Lexical Approach adopts the strategy of recycling and reviewing to teach

the language. Lewis believes that learners should be first taught 18 to recognize
and produce the chunks of language. He says that they should be given chances
to revise what has been learnt before. Then, through repetition, he thinks learners
will be able to produce them eventually with some automaticity, thereby improving
fluency. As, Lewis (1997: 45) states recycling should be done in an interesting
and refreshing way, so that learners’ interest is still engaged. Following these
points, the study has made every attempt to make a revision of the chunks the
learners are introduced to. Activities and exercises are devised in such a way that
they create interest in the learners.
3.2.3 Lexis

Though the terms lexis and vocabulary are often stated in the same
context and mostly treated as synonyms, there exists a difference in meaning
between these two terms and they are not one and the same. The distinction will
be made clear by making a note of these definitions put forward by two
advocates:

The entire store of lexical items in a language is called its lexis. (Wikipedia)

Lexis refers to strings of words which go together. (Lewis 1997:213)

Lexis is a more general word than common vocabulary. Vocabulary

is often used to talk of the individual words of language; lexis covers
single words and multi-word objects which have the same status in
the language as simple words, the items we store in our mental
lexicons ready for use. (Lewis1997:217)

Lexis includes not only the single words but also the word
combinations that people store in their mental lexicons. (Olga
2001:1)

Different scholars have referred to these multi-worded units by

different terms:  Holophrases (Corder1973)

 Prefabricated patterns(Hakuta 1974)

 Gambits (Keler 1979)

 Speech formulae(Peters 1983)

 Lexicalized stems( Pawley and Syder 1983)

 Lexical phrases(Nattinger & Decarrico 1992)

 Multi-worded items(Lewis 1993)

  Lexical items/chunks (Lewis 1997)

 Prefabricated chunks (Williams 1998)

3.2.4 The Role of Lexis

Wilkins, a supporter of the lexical approach, was the first to stress the importance
of the role of vocabulary in language teaching. He stated without grammar very
little can be conveyed; without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed (1992:11).
Sinclair (1995) also agrees with Wilkins’ view and points out: A lexical mistake
often causes misunderstanding, while a grammar mistake rarely does (cited in
Lewis, 1997:16)

In his advocacy of a new role for lexis, Lewis (1993) proposed the following major
ideas:

1. Lexis is the basis of language.

2. Lexis is misunderstood in language teaching because of the assumption that

grammar is the basis of language and that mastery of grammatical system is a
prerequisite for effective communication.

3. One of the central organising principles of any-meaning-centred syllabus

should be lexis.

4. The key principle of a lexical approach is that “language consists of

grammaticaliazed lexis, not lexicalised grammar. (cited in Olga 2000:1)

3.2.5 Lexical Approach in Language Teaching

It is clear that in a lexical approach, lexis plays an important role in language

teaching and learning. Nattinger says that teaching should be based on the idea
that language production is the piecing together of ready-made units appropriate
for particular situation (1980:34). So, the understanding of such units is
dependent on knowing the predictable patterns in different situations. Lewis holds
that implementing lexical approach in the class room would entail teachers paying
more attention to:
 Lexis of different kinds

 Specific language areas

 Listening (at lower levels) and reading (at higher levels)

 Organising learners’ notebooks to reveal patterns

 The language learners may meet outside the classroom (songs, films, books,
Internet)

 Preparing learners to use text for their benefit

 Preparing learners to chunk the language

 Creating a habit of using dictionaries as learning sources (1997:15)

3.2.6 Lexical Approach in Language learning

In the lexical approach, lexis in its various types is thought to play a central
role in language learning. The lexical approach recommends the learning of multi-
word items as they aid the learner in producing the language without much effort.
To quote Lewis:

But at the same time Lewis emphasises that the lexical approach does not
undermine the importance of grammar. As he puts it,

The Approach in no way denies the value of grammar,

nor its unique role in language. (Lewis: 1977: 41)

According to Lewis students should also follow a few things while practising this
approach in learning a language:

 Concentrating on what words mean and how words are used

 Participating by listening to the language, noticing and reflecting

 Learning to chunk the language

 Maintaining lexical notebooks to record selected chunks of the language

 Doing the exercises and activities designed in the text

 Using dictionaries as learning resources. (1997:58)

3.2.7. Lexical Categories

The lexicalists classify lexical items into different categories using different
terminology. At least five different classifications could be identified and a detailed
examination of these five classifications is provided below:

3.2.7.1 Pawley and Syder’s Classification

Pawley and Syder were first to divide lexical chunks into two types:

1. Memorized sentences

2. Lexicalized stems

According to them, Memorized Sentences are not capable of expansion

and are spoken as they are. For example, Can I come in? There’s no pleasing
some people.

The second category in their opinion is capable of expansion and

substitution unlike memorized sentences. Ex: Tell the truth/Tom seldom tells the
truth.

3.2.7.2 Nattinger & Decarrico’s Division

1. Lexical Phrases

2. Institutionalised Phrases

3. Phrasal Constraints

4. Sentence Builders

The division places Lexical phrases as they call, into four categories which
is lengthier than the previous one. The first of this division is Polywords. These
are short phrases which function very much like individual lexical items (1992:38).
Ex: for the most part, in a nutshell.
 The second one they call Institutionalised Phrases. These are lexical
phrases of sentence length, usually functioning as separate utterances e.g: How
do you? , There you go, Long time no see. (1992:39).

The third one is Phrasal Constraints. By this, they mean short - to medium-
length phrases associated with a wide variety of functions. Ex: a ________ ago,
See you______ (1992:41)

The fourth category is Sentence builders which they say are lexical
phrases that provide the frame work for whole sentences. e.g: I think (that)
X__________, My point is that _________.(1992:42)

3.2.7.3 Moon’s Classification

Moon (1997) includes five categories of multi-word items

1. Compounds

2. Phrasal verbs

3. Idioms

4. Fixed Phrases

5. Prefabs

According to her, the first division Compounds is the largest and most
tangible group. In this category, it is possible to see the movement of language
at work, for example in the case of Car Park--- the words are slowly being pushed
together to form a compound: Car park, Car- Park, Carpark.

The second category she suggests is Phrasal Verbs. They are

combinations of verbs and particles: bring out, head off.

The third division is Idioms which are multi-word items: To quote Moon,
they have holistic meanings which cannot be retrieved from the individual
meanings of the component words. For ex: Spill the beans (1997: 46),

The fourth one is Fixed Phrases. These are grammatical and discourse
items. E.g. Of course, at least, by far. Also similies: White as a sheet and
Greetings: How do you do?

The fifth category is what she calls Prefabs. Moon states these are pre-
constructed phrases, phraseological chunks, stereotyped collocations,, or semi-
fixed strings which are tied to discoursal functions and which form structuring
devises. (1997:47)

3.2.7.4 Williams’s Division of Lexical Categories

Unlike Nattinger and Moon’s classification, Williams describes the

prefabricated language as comprising three types of chunks :

1. Functional Stems

2. Purely lexical chunks

3. Semi-lexical chunks

Williams defines Functional stems, as recognisable components of what

are presented as functional exponents in published materials. e.g: I don’t think
and Can I just (1998:48)

Williams describes Purely Lexical Chunks as fully lexical items which are
of little interest because they are linked to a specific context. e.g. the new
system (1998:51)

The third division Semi-lexical chunks according to Williams :

is the traditional division of lexis into content and function words is

over-simplistic. Many lexical items are delexicalized or semi-lexical
and find their reference and meaning in their context. E.g. in terms
of, on the basis, on the basis of (1998 :54)

3.2.7.5 Lewis’s Division of Lexical Chunks

Though there are different types of classifications of the chunks, this study adopts
the division postulated by Lewis. Lewis (1997:8) identifies multi-word items as
falling into four types:

1) a) Words
 b) Polywords

2) Collocations

3) Fixed Expressions

4) Semi-Fixed Expressions

3.2.7.5.1 Words and Polywords

The first category is sub-divided into Words and Polywords. The former is
a familiar one and refers to what we traditionally call vocabulary. It constitutes the
largest of all the four categories. The lexical approach also recognizes ‘individual
words’ as a part of lexis but it holds that there are several types of lexical items
of which individual words are one type. Lewis states that words which can stand
alone (OPEN, CERTAINLY!) are lexical items, as are words where a single
substitution produces a totally new meaning: salt/pepper in could you pass the
_______ please? (1997:8)

The next sub-category Polywords is a small group of lexical items which

falls between words and major multi-word categories. These chunks are normally
not reversible. For eg: bread and butter. Lewis considers adverbial phrases of
different kinds as polywords. To quote him

“They are nearly always very short 2- or 3- word

phrases which are obvious units. They are often, but
by no means exclusively, adverbial phrases of
different kinds”. Lewis (1997:8)

Here are some examples:

Sentence adverbs: on the other hand, in some ways Expressions of time:

the day after tomorrow, every now and then Prepositions of place: on either side
of, upside down

Lewis (1993:92) treats phrasal verbs as one kind of polywords and this he
feels the only one to be featured prominently in conventional language teaching.
e.g: put off, look up, look up to.
3.2.7.5.2 Collocations

The second major category of lexical items is collocations. These are

chunks of lexical items that naturally co-occur by mutual expectancy. The
following definitions offer varied views on the concept of collocation:

You shall know a word by the company it keeps. (Firth 1957: 179)

We may use the term node to refer to an item whose collocations

we are studying, and we may define a span as the number of lexical items
on each side of a node that we consider relevant to that node. Items in the
environment set by the span we will call collocates. (Sinclair 1966:415)

The study of lexical patterns…. (Brown 1974:1)

A sequence of words that occurs more than once in identical form and which it
commonly associates…. (Kjellmer 1987:133)

Collocations describe specific lexical items and the frequency with which these
items occur with other lexical items……. A collocational unit consists of a ‘node’
that co-occurs with a ‘span’ of words on either side. (Nattinger & De Carrico 1992:
20)

A recurrent co-occurrence of words. (Clear 1993: 277)

The way individual words co-occur with others. (Lewis 1993:93)

The readily observable phenomenon whether certain words co-occur in natural

text with greater than random frequency (Lewis, 1997:8)

A collocation is a predictable combination of words (Hill, 2000:51)

Collocations are common combinations of words (Lewis 2000:127)

It is interesting to note that like polywords which are mostly irreversible in

their usage, collocations too are not normally interchangeable. For example:
make a mistake and do the work. Though ‘make’ and ‘do’ are considered near
synonyms, they cannot be used interchangeably. In a collocation, a node is the
main word referred to and collocate is the word which co-occurs with the node.
For example; scrambled egg. Here, egg is the node and scrambled is its
collocate. Other words like boiled, fried, soft-boiled can be the collocates of the
node egg.

Hill (2000:63) finds collocations falling into four types:

1. Unique Collocations: e.g. foot the hill

2. Strong Collocations: e.g moved to tears

3. Weak Collocations: e.g a good weekend

4. Medium Collocations: e.g do the laundry

Noting the importance of teaching collocations, Jimmie Hill points out:

In the same way that we teach individual words-

vocabulary- we need to teach collocations… there is
no point in knowing the meaning of the words… unless
you also know the collocation. (Jimmie Hill, 2000:60)

Lewis (2000:51) suggests that teachers should draw learners’ attention to

collocations of different kinds.

 Adjective + Noun magnificent bird

 Noun+ Noun talent show

 Verb+ Adjective+ Noun revise the original plan

 Verb+ Adverb recover immediately

 Adverb+ Verb well rewarded

 Adverb+ Adjective totally safe

 Verb+ preposition + Noun seething with anger

3.2.7.5.3 Fixed Expressions

The third division of items is Fixed Expressions which is also known as

Institutionalized Expressions. Lewis states: these are comparatively rare and
short. These are chunks a speaker stores as units and uses in speech. (1997:9)
Lewis feels that language teaching has always recognized some types of fixed
expressions. The most frequent examples that have featured in teaching
materials:

 Social Greetings: Good morning; how are you?

 Politeness Phrases: No thank you, I’m fine.

 Phrase Book Language: Can you tell me the way to………. Please?

 Idioms: Hang on; you’re putting the cart before the horse there.

Lewis suggests that fixed expressions should be taught without internal analysis
and students should be introduced to the idea that such expressions exist in their
own language too.

3.2.7.5.4 Semi- Fixed Expressions

The last category is Semi-fixed Expressions. This category according to Lewis is

an important one ‘that contains a spectrum’. These expressions range ‘from very
long and from almost fixed to very free’. He also states:

These are often verbless expressions in the spoken

language for managing everyday situations’ (Lewis, 1997:11)

Lewis categorizes fixed expressions into various types:

 Almost fixed expressions, which permit minimal variation: It’s / That’s not my
fault

 Spoken sentences with a simple slot: Could you pass…….. please?

 Expressions with a slot which must be filled with a particular kind of slot-filler:
Hello. Nice to see you. I haven’t seen you + time expression with for or since.

 Sentence heads, which can be completed in many ways: What was really
interesting /surprising/annoying was……..
 More extended frames such as those for a formal letter or the opening
paragraph of an academic paper. For example: These are broadly speaking two
views of……..The more traditional, usually associated with…… (Lewis,1997:11)

Though there have been different categorizations of the chunks, this study adopts
Lewis’s categorization of lexical chunks.

3.2.8 Limitations of the Lexical Approach

Like many approaches, this approach also has many short- comings. Firstly,
many linguists deny lexical approach as an approach for the reason that it does
not provide any coherent theory of language or language learning. As Thornbury
puts it:

Lexical Approach is not an approach, not in the strict sense,

since it lacks a coherent theory of learning and its theory of
language is not fully enough elaborated to allow for ready
implementation in terms of syllabus specification.
(Thornbury, 1998:12)

Secondly, though Lewis has a theory about the nature of language,

Language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar. (1993: vi)
Lewis does not specify the sort of syllabus he favours. Also, he recommends the
use of language material which is text-based and discourse-based, but he does
not specify the selection and organisation of such texts and discourses.

Thirdly, Lewis emphasizes on noticing and memorization of the chunks of

language. But, he offers no clear guidelines as to the selection and grading of the
chunks.

Moreover, Lewis assumes that it is the exposure to language and not

formal teaching that can increase the learner’s lexicon. But, this raises the doubt
if the teaching ideas included in Lewis’s books are redundant.

Though the adoption of this approach in language classrooms may not

lead to methodical changes, it might change the teachers’ and learners’ mind set.
So, to implement this approach, there should be a rationale and design for
lexically based language teaching. More so, a focus on lexical syllabus should be
made to concentrate much on language use.

The main criticism levelled against the lexical approach is that it makes no
suggestions about how the principles of this approach can be translated into a
syllabus. Though Willis’s book The Lexical Syllabus does suggest some
guidelines they are not found to be practically useful.

Except for McCarthy’s books on Collocations in Use, Phrasal Verbs in Use,

Idioms in Use, there are not any significant text cum work books on lexical items
in use. There are no such books/materials at all on lexical items written by Indian
authors. The present project is a modest step towards filling that gap by
attempting to prepare a kind of work book on different lexical items collected from
thirty different comics.
 Chapter III:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF
THE RESEARCH OF A DIDACTIC
MATERIAL BASED ON LEXICAL
APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE
LEARNING OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
 3.1 ANALYSIS OF DATA:

3.1.1 ANALYSIS OF THE PRE-TEST

To know the problematic context which students of level I are involved, a pretest
was applied to the sample and the results were as it follows:

Parts 00 – 05 06 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 Total
Vocabulary 8 10 10 2 30
Reading 10 10 6 4 30
Listening 11 14 3 2 30
Grammar 9 15 3 3 30
Writing 10 16 2 2 30

Chart 01:

Source: Pre-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar Vallejo
university – March 2015.

Analysis:

Chart Nº 01 refers to the vocabulary part of the pre-test which shows that
16.6 % of the students got grades between 0-5 while 33.3 % of them got
grades between 6-10 while 33.3 % of the students obtained grades
between 11-15 and finally 6.6 % of them got grades 16-20.

Interpretation:

The results show that most of the students were found in a very low and
regular level in terms of basic vocabulary knowledge of the English
language. While, few students were found in a low and acepptable level
in the domain of this language.

Chart 02:

Source: Pre-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar Vallejo
university – March 2015.

Analysis:

According to chart Nº 02, we can see that in the reading part, 33.3 % of
the students got grades between 0- 5, 33.3 % of them obtained grades
between 6-10. On the other hand, 20 % of the students got grades
between 11-15 and finally 13.3 % of them obtained grades between 16-
20.

Interpretation:

It is observerd that most of the students did not get a good level of reading
comprehension in the English language when the pre-test was applied.
As a result, they got very low grades while some of them obtained a low
level and a few got a satisfactory level in the pre-test result.
Chart 03:

Source: Pre-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar Vallejo
university – March 2015.

Analysis:

Chart 03 shows that 36.67 % of the students got grades between 0-5 in
the listening part. On the other hand, 46.67 % of them obtained grades
between 6-10, 10 % of the students got grades between 11-17 and finally
6.67 % of them obtained grades between 16-20.

Interpretation:

It can be observed that most of the students were found in failed grades
in terms of listening skill and few students understood what they listened
to according to the result of pre-test.

Chart 04:
Source: Pre-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar Vallejo
university – March 2015.

Analysis:

Chart 04 shows that 30% of the students got grades between 0-5 in the
grammar part , 50 % of them obtained grades between 6-10 while 10 %
of the students got grades between 11-15 and finally 10 % of them
obtained grades between 16-20.

Interpretation:

It can be seen that most of the students got failed grades in the use of
English grammar . On the other hand, there are a few studetns that got
an acceptable grade accordint to the results obtained in the pre-test.

Chart 05:

Source: Pre-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar Vallejo
university – March 2015.

Analysis:

Chart 05 shows that 33.33 % of the students got grades between 0-5,
while 53.33 % of them obtained grades between 6-10. On the other hand,
6.67 % of them got grades between 11-15 and finally 6.67 % of the
students obtained grades between16- 20.
 Interpretation:

It can be shown that most of the students could not a satisfactory grade
and there are few student who got an acceptable grade according to the
results obtained in the pre-test.

3.1.2 ANALYSIS OF THE POST-TEST:

To find out if the didactic material based on Lexical Approach is / was a good
mean to accomplish the purpose of this research.
Results of Post-test

Parts 00 - 05 06 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 Total
Vocabulary 4 8 12 6 30
Reading 5 6 12 7 30
Listening 4 7 13 6 30
Grammar 2 7 14 7 30
Writing 3 8 13 6 30
A post-test was applied to 30 students of level I at Cesar Vallejo University Language
Centre in order to assess the level of the English language learning among them after
applying the didactic material “English for fun”.

Chart 06:
Source: Post-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar
Vallejo university – June 2015.

Analysis:

Chart 06 shows that 13.33 % of the students got grades between 0-5 in
the vocabulary part, while 26.67 % of then obtained grades between 6-
10. On the other hand, 40 % got grades between 11-15 and finally 20 %
of the students obtained grades between16- 20.

Interpretation:

It can be seen that most of the students got a satisfactory grades and
there are few students who obtained unacceptable grades according to
the results obtained in the post-test.

Chart 07:

Source: Post-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar

Vallejo university – June 2015.

Analysis:

Chart 07 shows that 16.67 % of the students got grades between 0-5 in
the reading part, while 20 % of them obtained grades between 6-10. On
the other hand, 40 % got grades between 11-15 and finally 23.33 % of
the students obtained grades between 16- 20.
Interpretation:

It can be appreciated that most of the students got a satisfactory grade

after the application of the didactic material and there are few students
that obtained an unacceptable grade according to the post-test results.

Chart 08:

Source: Post-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar

Vallejo university – June 2015.

Analysis:

Chart 08 shows that 13.33 % of the students got grades between 0-5 in
the listening part, while 23.33 % of them obtained grades between 6-10.
On the other hand, 43.33 % of the students got grades between 11-15
and finally 20 % of them obtained grades between 16-20 according to the
post-test results.

Interpretation:

It can be shown that many students got good results in the listening part,
while there are few students that obtained failed grades which means the
improvement of them after the application of the didactic material.
Chart 09:

Source: Post-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar

Vallejo university – June 2015.

Analysis:

Chart 09 shows that 6.67 % of the students obtained grades bewteen 0-

5 in the grammar part, while 23.33 % of them got grades between 6-10.
On the other hand, 46.67 % of the students obtained grades between 11-
15 and finally 23.33 % of them got grades between 16-20 according to
the post-test results.

Interpretation:

It can be seen that most of the students got satisfactory grades in the
grammar part, while there are few students that obtanined failed grades
which means there was an improvemente after the didactic material
application as it shows in the post-test results.
Chart 10:

Source: Post-test applied in the students of level I – Language Center Cesar

Vallejo university – June 2015.

Analysis:

Chart 10 shows 10 % of the students obtained grades between 0-5 in the

writing part, while 26.67 % of them got grades between 6-10. On the other
hand, 43.33 % of the students obtained grades between 11-15 and finally
20 % of them got grades between 16-20 according to the post-test results.

Interpretation:

It can be shown that more than the half of the students got satisfactory
resulrs in the writing part while the others obtained unacceptable grades
which means that there was an improvement in the post-test result.
 3.2 THEORETICAL DIDACTIC PROPOSAL

3.2.1 THEORETICAL MODEL

DIDACTIC MATERIAL “ENGLISH FOR FUN” BASED ON LEXICAL APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE LEARNING OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE AMONG THE LEVEL I STUDENTS OF THE LANGUAGE CENTRE OF CESAR VALLEJO UNIVERSITY – 2015.

PROBLEM

Students need efficient didactic material to improve the learning of the English language.

THEORETICAL
THEME OUTPUT
FRAMEWORK INPUT

LEXICAL APPROACH
Strategies Objectives
LEXIS The combination of Lexical Approach
with the didactic material DIDACTIC MATERIAL
THE LEARNING OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Skills of the English language Principles Evaluation

DIDACTIC MATERIAL DIDACTIC MATERIAL GOALS:

The combination of different didactic
ACTIVITIES materials. - To elaborate the didactic material.

- To apply a didactic material based

on Lexical Approach.

- To improve students’ learning of

the English language.
3.2.2 PROBLEMATIC SITUATION

At the Language Centre of Cesar Vallejo University, students of level I need

efficient didactic material to improve the learning of the English language so that
they will be able to have better opportunities in this globalized world.

3.2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE DIDACTIC MATERIAL

The Didactic Material based on Lexical Approach is oriented to improve the

learning of the English language among students of level I of the language center
at Cesar Vallejo University. The activities included in the didactic material have
been considered in the presentation of this research and they have been
proposed based on:

- Lexical Approach brings lexis to forefront while learning a language and it

emphasizes teaching of lexis rather than grammar or individual words.

- English language learning can be broadly defined as the process of learning

this language and there are two ways to be learning this. The first one as a second
language and the other as a foreign language. Díaz (2014) points that the
difference between them is just the situations of learning which means that you
can learn the language in a country where people speak it or the place where you
can learn the language but people speak another one as an official language.

- Didactic material is a set of means and resources in which they can facilitate
the learning of something. It is very common to be used them in classrooms so
as to facilitate the acquisition of concepts, abilities and attitudes.

For this didactic material, it is recommended to use the designed lesson plans in
a very friendly way so that they can feel comfortable and part of a meaningful
class.
The combination of the supportive theory and the use of didactic material based
on Lexical Approach can have very good results in improving the learning of the
English language among students taking into account the principles, phases and
different activities in order to have varied lessons with the learning of the English
goals.

3.2.4 PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES

 General Objective
- To apply a didactic material based on Lexical Approach to improve the
learning of the English language.

 Specific objectives

- To elaborate adequate tools to use and find out the level of the learning
of the English language among the level I students of the Language Centre
of Cesar Vallejo.

- To design and implement a didactic material “English for fun” based on

the lexical approach to improve the learning of the English language
among the level I students of the Language Centre of Cesar Vallejo
University.

- To assess the level of the English language learning among the level I
students after applying the didactic material “English for fun” through the
post - test.
3.2.5 DIDACTIC PROPOSAL STRUCTURE
TOPIC LESSONS LEARNING PROCESS

Title Content

Lesson 01 : Let’s find out how much I know about English Pre-test

Lesson 02: Welcome to the class !

Lesson 03: Read and understand main information of a text through identification of corresponding topics and
pictures with a satisfactory level of comprehension.
Just taste it, but don’t look Didactic Material
at it

Lesson 04: Read and understand main information of a text through identification of corresponding topics and Answering some
pictures with a satisfactory level of comprehension. post-questions
Exploring the desert
related to the topic.
TOPIC LESSONS LEARNING PROCESS

Goal Outcome

Lesson 05: Answering some post-

questions related to the
Dos and don’ts Read and understand a text about good role models with a satisfactory level of comprehension.
topic.

Lesson 06 : Read and understand texts on subjects related to his / her field and interest with a satisfactory level of The completion of a
comprehension. post-reading
Natural beauty
worksheet.

Lesson 07: Read and understand texts on subjects related to his / her field and interest with a satisfactory level of Answering some post-
comprehension. questions related to the
Only time will tell
topic.

Lesson 08: Answering some post-

questions related to the
What an idea Read and understand texts on subjects related to his / her field and interest with a satisfactory level of
topic.
comprehension.

Lesson 09: The completion of a

post-reading
When in danger… Read and understand texts on subjects related to his / her field and interest with a satisfactory level of
worksheet.
comprehension.

Lesson 10: Read and understand texts on subjects related to his / her field and interest with a satisfactory level of The completion of a
comprehension. post-reading
In the news
worksheet.
 CONCLUSIONS

1. Based on the study and results obtained from the instruments, it can be said
that the use of didactic material “English for fun” based on Lexical Approach to
improve the learning of the English language is reliable, and it can be useful for
all students who are interested in improving their learning of this language.

2. The use of the instruments were very useful tools for this research. The
application of the pre-test among the students of level I at the Language Centre
of Cesar Vallejo University was a great tool to identify the difficulties students had
in the learning of the English language.

3. It was designed a didactic material “English for fun” based on the Lexical
Approach so that it could help students to improve their learning of the English
language. The lesson plans were developed in face-to-face modality so the
students could learn the language in an innovated and suitable way.

4. Finally, I could evaluate the level of improvement of the learning of the English
language after the application of the didactic material “English for fun” through
the use of the post-test which could let me see a great improvement among the
students because more than 63% of them got passed grades after the application
of such a didactic material and it can also be concluded it was a success in just
3 months of application.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Firstly, teachers should choose appropriate activities carefully, taking into

account different aspects such as the appropriate level of difficulty and clear goals
for lessons. After choosing suitable activities for a lesson plan, teachers have to
think of how to design appropriate lesson plans based on Lexical Approach to
students' level and their interest as well.

Since the advantages of using Learning Approach have been well supported by
researchers and most of the students show their interest in improving their
learning skills in the English language through the use of Lexical Approach
activities, future researchers should think of using them in teaching real English
not only to push students to use the English language but also improving their
ways of learning the language.

The idea of using didactic materials based on Lexical Approach in classes is not
to have students doing these activities in every single class. We recommend
teachers to encourage their students to do it in any other situations inside and
outside the class; taking into account the importance of practicing the language
individually or in groups in order to experience the use of the language in different
contexts.

This research is a guide for other teachers who want to develop their student’s
skills in the learning of the English language so I recommend other researchers
to keep working on this research in other institutes or language schools so that
this proposal can be much more validated.

As a final recommendation, I want to let teachers and students know that the
application of this new didactic material requires a lot of time; therefore, an
important suggestion from my own experience is to be patient and follow the
steps carefully in order to obtain better results. Something else to be taken into
account is that the results may not be instantaneous. They will gradually be
noticed if this is applied accurately.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baigent, Maggie (1999). Teaching in chunks: integrating a lexical
approach. Modern English Teacher 8(2):51-54.
Lewis, Michael (1993), The Lexical Approach, Hove: Language Teaching
Publications.

Lewis, Michael (1996). Implications of a lexical view of language. In

Challenge And Change In Language Teaching, Jane Willis and Dave Willis
(eds.). Oxford: Heinemann.

Lewis, Michael (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting

Theory Into Practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, Michael (2000). Language in the lexical approach. In Teaching

Collocation: Further Developments In The Lexical Approach, Michael Lewis
(ed.), 126-154. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Nattinger, James R. and DeCarrico Jeanette S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and

Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pawley, Andrew and Syder, Frances Hodgetts. (1983). Two puzzles for
linguistic theory: native like selection and native like fluency. In Language
And Communication,JackC.RichardsandRichard W. Schmidt (eds.), 191-
225. London: Longman.

Thornbury, Scott (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that

promote 'noticing'. ELT Journal 51(4): 326-334.

Thornbury, Scott (1998). The Lexical Approach: a journey without

maps? Modern English Teacher 7(4): 7-13.

Willis, Dave (1990). The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach To Language

Learning. London: Collins ELT.
Willis, Dave (1990). The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach To Language
Learning. London: Collins ELT.

Woolard, George (2000). Collocation- encouraging learner independence.

In Teaching Collocation: Further Developments In The Lexical Approach,
Michael Lewis (ed.), 28-46. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

LINKS

Hutchinson R. (2007) The influence of the lexical approach in university

students. Recover from:

http://biblioteca2.ucab.edu.ve/anexos/biblioteca/marc/texto/AAQ8192.pdf

Romero B. (2014) The Lexical approach applied to the reduction of

interlinguistics mistakes. Recover from:
http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/redele/MaterialRedEle/Biblioteca/2014bv1
5/2014-BV-15-03B-RomeroDolz.pdf?documentId=0901e72b818c6aa1

Travalia C. (2013) The Lexical Approach applied in the teaching of a

second language. Recover from:
http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/pdf/17/17_1021.p
df

Vidiella M. (2012) The lexical approach. Recover from:

http://marcoele.com/descargas/14/vidiella-lexico.pdf
ANNEXES
 PRE- TEST ENGLISH EXAM

Student´s name:_________________________________________________ Score:

Teacher: Demis Andonayre

1. GRAMMAR (5 marks)
Complete the sentences. Use contractions of the verb to - be
Example: He’s Turkish.
1 Hi. I ________ Stephanie Webb.
2 They ________ in room 9.
3 We ________ in Paris.
4 Sue is from the USA. She ________ American.
5 A You ________ late! B Sorry.

Complete the dialogues. Use contractions where possible.

Example: A Are you Italian? B Yes, I am.
1 A Where ________ they from? B Portugal.
2 A Are you from England? B No, I ________.
3 A What ________ your name? B Harry.
4 A Are they from France? B Yes, they ________.
5 A Is she Japanese? B No, she ________.

2. VOCABULARY (5 marks)
Complete the maths. Tick () the correct answer.
Example: four + five =
A eight B nine  C ten
1 three + two =
A five B six C seven
2 four + fifteen =
A seventeen B nineteen C twenty
3 nine – seven =
A one B two C three
4 seven + eleven =
A sixteen B seventeen C eighteen
5 nineteen – seven =
A eleven B twelve C thirteen
Complete the nationality endings.
Example: Italy Italian
1 Spain Span________
2 Brazil Brazil________
3 China Chin_________
4 Turkey Turk_________
5 Hungary Hungar_______
 3. READING (5 marks)
Read the text and match the names in the box to the descriptions.

My family

Hi! My name’s Ian Haig and I’m from Glasgow in Scotland. I’m not English – I’m Scottish! I have
a big family. My father’s name is Gordon and he’s 50. My mother is 45. Her name’s Anna and
she’s very nice.
My mother’s Scottish but her mother and father are Italian. They’re from Milan. I have three
sisters. Their names are Rosie, Jenny, and Valeria. Valeria is an Italian name. Rosie is 26.
She’s tall and beautiful, and she’s married. Her husband’s name is Tom and he’s very tall. Jenny
and Valeria are 24, but Jenny is tall with short hair and Valeria is short with long hair.
We have a big, new house and an old car. It’s slow and cheap, and very small! But it’s OK! My
mother and father are very short!
Me? Well, I’m 21, I’m not tall, and I’m slim with short hair. I have a girlfriend but I’m not married.
Her name is Lucy and she’s very beautiful. She’s tall with short, dark hair. She’s English but
she’s nice!

Ian Anna Lucy Tom Valeria Jenny Gordon

Rosie

Example: He’s short, twenty-one, and Scottish. Ian

1She’s tall, beautiful, and English. ________
2She’s short and Scottish, but her mother’s Italian. ________
3She’s tall, twenty-six, and married. ________
4He’s short, Scottish, and fifty ________
5She isn’t tall and she isn’t married. ________

4. LISTENING (5 marks)

Listen to Dan and Jenny talking to the receptionist. Tick () the correct information.

Name: 1 A Dan Hughes B Dan Howes

Nationality: 2 A English B American
Room: 3 A fourteen B fifteen

Name: 4 A Jenny Kerr B Jenny Carr

Nationality: 5 A English B American
Room: seven

Listen to five conversations. Tick () the correct answer.

1 Her name is…
A Rachel Wells B Rachel Walls
2 Paul is in room…
A fourteen B thirteen
3 Anna is from…
A Hungary B Russia
4 Fiona is from…
A Wootton B Wooten
5 Go to page…
A eight B eighteen

KEEP WORKING ON YOUR ENGLISH

 POST-TEST- ENGLISH EXAM

Student´s name:_________________________________________________
Score:
Teacher: Demis Andonayre

1. GRAMMAR (20 marks)

Complete with my, your, his, her, its, our or their Complete using am, are, is

. I´m Peruvian. ________ name is Irma. - They __________ from Chile. What ________
their names?
. They´re form Ecuador. ________ names are Blanca and Sofia.
- His name _________ Rafael and her name
. What´s ________ name? I´m David. Nice to meet you. ____________ Oscar.

. We´re Argentinian. ________ names are Karina and Linda. - Where __________ they from?

. That´s their dog. ________ name is Drako.

2. VOCABULARY (5 marks)
Look at these pictures of places. Match them with their names.

a square a church a park a market a museum

a beach a hotel a house a university an airport

_____________________ ____________________ _____________________ ________________________ _____________

_________________ ________________ _________________ __________________

_____________
 3. READING (5 marks)
Read the article and answer the questions below
Racing cars are usually made from the latest hi-tech engineering materials.
They are made from metal, alloys, ceramics, plastics, and composites. Many
materials in the cars are light but very strong.
The spoiler and the wing of the vehicle are made from two materials. The
inner core is light. It is made of polystyrene. The outer skin is hard and of
fiberglass.
The nose cone is made of strong, light fiberglass.
The frame is light, but very though and rigid. It is made of cromoly, a steel
alloy.
The radiator is made of aluminum. The aluminum is coated with ceramic.
These two materials are corrosion resistant.
The engine and the pistons are made of aluminum alloy; each piston inside
the engine is coated with heat-resistant ceramic.
The wheels are made of strong, light aluminum alloy. The tires are made of
tough rubber composite.

1) What is the nose cone made of? _________________________________

2) What are the spoiler and wings coated with?________________________________
3) What are the wheels made of? _________________________________
4) What are the tires made of? _________________________________
5) What is the piston coated with? _________________________________

4. LISTENING (5 marks)
Listen to the cd and complete the clocks

Listen the short dialogues and writes the correct name of the speaker.

__Carl__ draws up building plans

_______ programs software

_______ repairs cars

_______ creates a scale model house

_______ reboots computers

_______ writes novels

KEEP WORKING ON YOUR ENGLISH