Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
138
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
ABSTRACT
The study examined the whether different instructional strategies impact on the development of lexical competence
in A+ level learners. An evaluation of the effectiveness of identified instructional strategies intertwined with explicit
vocabulary teaching in improving lexical competence have been addressed. The analysis of cognitive and motivational
factors in lexical competence development have been examined.
Materials and Methods: Vocabulary Learning Strategies Inventory (VLSI) was administered. Performance was
compared using a pre- and post-test in the study. Participants were informed about the study's objectives and data
anonymization was done with an eye on ethical considerations.
Results: Results showed consistency and stability when the investigation looked at participants' vocabulary ratings.
There was a strong relationship between the results of vocabulary learning tactics and improvements in pre- and post-
test scores, according to the study. The growth of lexical competence was validated by the Peason Product Moment
Correlation. Subjects' reported vocabulary acquisition tactics were positively correlated with their post-test scores,
suggesting that their strategies were effective.
Discussion: In order to increase post-scores, the study found that A+ level learners should use vocabulary building
tactics such as context-based learning, mnemonics, word association, and repetition. Memory, retention, word
retrieval, and context-based learning are all ways that can improve one's vocabulary, but prior studies failed to find a
strong correlation between the two. More advanced vocabulary acquisition models and investigations into possible
reasons should guide future research.
Conclusion: Using mnemonics, word associations, context-based learning, and repetition, the study examines how A-
level learners might increase their lexical competence. It emphasizes the importance of motivation and cognition in
Research Article
IMPROVING LEXICAL COMPETENCE OF A+ LEVEL LEARNERS
Submission Date:
December 14, 2024,
Accepted Date:
December 19, 2024,
Published Date:
December 30, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/pedagogics-crjp-05-12-28
Karimova Muattar Fayzullayevna
Basic doctoral student in Tashkent, State Pedagogical University, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://masterjournals.
com/index.php/crjps
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
139
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
learning new words, with the most fruitful strategies being word association and context-based learning, which lead
to excellent results on final exams.
KEYWORDS
a-level learners, lexical competence, VLSI, experimental design, SPSS.
INTRODUCTION
The review seeks to examine the strategies and
methods for improving lexical competence of A+ level
learners. Therefore, the researcher seeks to present a
well-founded and confirmatory assessment using an
experimental design on the success rate of key
strategies
and
motivational
factors
towards
attainment of lexical competence. The implications of
the findings towards methods for lexical competence
proficiency have also been justified among others.
Background of the Study
The relevance of lexical competence has been featured
across several studies. According to Castles et al. (2018)
lexical competence consists of a crucial component of
language competency which impacts on the capacity
of the learners in participating in complex academic
discourses. Supporting the same claims Delgadova
(2015) held that other than having a wide vocabulary
coverage, it symbolizes the potential for the
application of vocabulary in a correct manner by
production namely speaking and writing and
responsive which refers to reading and listening.
Aligned to the above Laufer (2018) stated that
acquiring proficiency in complex vocabulary remains
fundamental for primary school learners mainly in A+
level, for the sake of academic success and
participation in more challenging environments that
demand accuracy, coherence, and consistency in
communicating complex ideas. Similarly, Nation (2018)
held that native proficiency which includes learning
multiple words but also the comprehension of their
significance, their implications, and applicable usage
circumstances, is required of learners at the A+ level.
Affirming the same Webb and Chang (2018) note that
this is critical for lexical competence considering that
the sophistication of the text and clarity are influenced
by the capacity to select precise terminology. For
instance, the prevention of the recurrence and
demonstration of high skill, requires learners to select
words that are not only acceptable but also suitable in
context and differentiated when writing or
communicating orally.
Notwithstanding its valuable contribution, learners are
reported to struggle in developing lexical competence,
mainly the ones that dedicate to attain high degrees of
proficiency. As held by Gumede and Boakye (2020) and
Francis et al. (2018) primary school learners are
reported to struggle in learning and maintaining the
complex language needed for both professional and
academic environments. In line with the above Zhao
and Li (2018) and Kim et al. (2019) asserted that A+ level
learners
encounter
cognitive
difficulties
in
comprehending word meanings and forms, which
render it difficult for them to utilise vocabulary
effectively in academic engagements. Further Kim et
al. (2019) indicated that development of lexical
competence requires the integration of successful
teaching
techniques
into
language
training.
Connecting to the above Nation (2018) argued that
vocabulary acquisition can be greatly enhanced
through the combination of explicit vocabulary
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
140
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
training with strategies that incorporate context-
based instruction, word connection, and repeated
usage of space. However, albeit the increased
assessment of vocabulary teaching strategies, there
has been little research undertaken to specifically
expound on the lexical competence needs of students
at the A+ level.
Next, is an evaluation of the various methods that are
considered suitable in developing lexical competence
of A+ level learners. According to Webb and Chang
(2018) advanced vocabulary learning invites specialized
approaches that exceed the conventional methods
employed primary school learners. As held by Piper et
al. (2016) the focus of these techniques ought to be
about
the
improvement
of
the
stu
dents’
comprehension of words and the ability to make use of
them accurately across varying academic settings.
Furthermore, Zhao and Li (2018) stated that cognitive
and motivational factors impact on lexical competency
development. For instance, cognitive learners have
more potential to absorb and recall newly acquired
concepts with much effectiveness. On the other hand,
Nation (2019) depicted that motivation is fundamental
for vocabulary acquisition, majorly for primary school
learners who need a constant effort for lexical
competence development. Although, the far-reaching
effects of these has been often overlooked across
studies, which creates a gap in knowledge of the
manner in which these components interact within
advanced settings. With an emphasis on specialised
teaching
techniques
and
the
cognitive
and
motivational elements that affect vocabulary
acquisition, this study attempts to investigate the best
practices for raising lexical competence at the A+ level
in light of these difficulties.
Inasmuch as A+ level learners should exhibit lexical
competency, a lot of them have difficulty learning
complex language thus impacting on their academic
achievement. As held by Snow and Mathews (2016) at
the A+ level students are expected to use complex
technology in a correct manner in their academic
contexts including showing solid comprehension of
the same. Nevertheless, studies reveal that even
proficient learners have a difficult time learning and
applying complex language. Laufer (2018) stated that
as the learners sought to attain lexical competence,
they reported difficulties in going beyond simplicity of
vocabulary usage hence been limited in proficiency for
complex academic discourse. In addition, Webb and
Chang (2018) asserted that high level vocabulary
proficiency requires mechanical memorization. For
instance, it requires exposition to words in context,
understanding of their deeper significance, and their
effective employment in interactive communication.
Countering the above findings, Wang et al. (2018) held
that regardless of the explicit importance of
vocabulary instruction for the attainment of lexical
competence, a majority of A+ level learners fail to
explicitly benefit from it due to the fact they fail to
practice or interact with more complex language
conditionalities. Aligned to the above Wills et al. (2022)
held that lexical competence can both be influenced by
motivational and cognitive factors despite that their
significance is complicated by language learning.
Opposed to the assertions above Pretorius and Spaull
(2016) held that albeit motivation been valuable to
prolonged lexical competence attainment, A+ level
learners may encounter several cognitive challenges,
for example the digestion of complicated word types
or maintenance of extensive vocabulary across the
period. Overall, the gap in this study is the lack of
specialized teaching strategies and the dearth of
knowledge on the cognitive and motivational factors
impacting on vocabulary development or A+ level
learners. As a consequence, this study aims to narrow
the gap via assessment of the most suitable methods
to achieving lexical competency of the A+ level learners
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
141
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
whilst considering the difficulties and cognitive
complexities involved in the process.
Research Questions
RQ: Do different instructional strategies influence the
development of lexical competence in A+ level
learners?
Research Objectives
1.
To evaluate the effectiveness of various
instructional strategies, including explicit vocabulary
teaching, in improving lexical competence among A+
level learners.
2.
To examine the role of cognitive and
motivational
factors
in
lexical
competence
development process at the A+ level.
3.
To propose most suitable for improving lexical
competence among A+ level learners.
Significance of the Study
This study aims to enhance our understanding of how
lexical competence grows in advanced learners,
particularly those at the A+ level. It will improve
teaching
strategies
for
advanced
language
competency by illuminating the challenges these
students face when acquiring and using complex
terminology. This study addresses a knowledge
vacuum by focusing on the vocabulary needs of
advanced learners. In order to better understand how
to teach this demographic, this study will look at
different approaches and see which ones work best for
advanced
language
learners
and
vocabulary
development. The findings will also help language
instructors develop more targeted and context-
dependent approaches to teaching vocabulary, which
should improve the academic performance of students
at the A+ level. Better pedagogical practices and
course materials can be created as a result of the
study's increased knowledge of the cognitive and
motivational aspects of lexical competence.
METHODS
This study used a strictly quantitative research design
to investigate how well different vocabulary
acquisition
techniques
can
raise
the
lexical
competency of students at the A+ level. This study
benefited from a quantitative approach since it made it
possible to test vocabulary learning objectively and
utilise statistical analysis to assess the data' relevance.
A pre-test and post-test design were part of the
technique, which was backed up by statistical analysis
of the data.
Participants
50 A+ level students enrolled in primary school i.e.
Grades 5 and 6 participated in this study. Purposive
sampling was used in the selection process to make
sure the participants were actively involved in
language learning and satisfied the necessary
competence level. To guarantee the results'
generalisability, the sample comprised a wide variety
of students in terms of gender, age, and academic
background.
Materials
Assessment of pre- and post-test vocabulary
The pre-test and post-test vocabulary evaluation,
which
was intended to gauge participants'
improvements in lexical competency, was a crucial tool
in this investigation. To evaluate the students' capacity
to identify and use complex language in context, the
test included both receptive and productive
vocabulary problems.
o
Receptive Vocabulary Test: This component
evaluated participants' knowledge of advanced
academic vocabulary with word-definition matching,
multiple-choice questions, and reading comprehension
tasks.
o
Productive Vocabulary Test: In this portion,
participants had to write brief paragraphs or complete
sentences using words from the target vocabulary.
Academic and discipline-specific terms that are critical
for advanced students at the A+ level was taken into
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
142
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
consideration while choosing the vocabulary items
(Laufer, 2018). The Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Inventory (VLSI) was utilised in the study to investigate
the vocabulary learning techniques that the
participants used. This tool assessed the prevalence
and efficacy of a number of tactics, including word
associations, repetition, mnemonic devices, and
context-based learning. Participants used a Likert scale
to score how often they used each of the 30 items in
the VLSI (1 = Never, 5 = Always). The techniques that
most closely correspond with gains in lexical
competence were found with the aid of this inventory.
Methodology
Pre-test and post-test criteria
The pre-test, which evaluated the participants' prior
vocabulary knowledge, was first finished. To make sure
that participants were not impacted by other
influences, the test was given in a controlled setting.
Following the completion of the pre-test, the
participants used the VLSI-identified techniques to
learn vocabulary for six weeks. Active vocabulary
learning strategies, like employing words in academic
writing, participating in conversations, and developing
word associations, were the main focus of the lesson.
Participants took the post-test at the conclusion of the
6-week period; it was structured similarly to the pre-
test so that performance could be directly compared.
Statistical Analysis
Pre-test and post-test scores were compared as part of
the primary data analysis to see if there were any
appreciable gains in lexical competence. The statistical
techniques listed below were used:
o
Characteristic Statistics: To give a summary of
vocabulary proficiency before and after the
intervention, mean scores, standard deviations, and
ranges were computed for both pre-test and post-test
data.
o
To ascertain whether there is a statistically
significant difference between the pre-test and post-
test scores, a paired sample t-test was employed. This
test determined if the vocabulary acquisition
techniques used during the study were responsible for
the increase in lexical competence. P-values below
0.05 were regarded as statistically significant.
o
Correlation Analysis: The association between
participants' reported vocabulary learning strategies
(based on the VLSI) and their increase in vocabulary
scores from the pre-test to the post-test will be
investigated using Pearson's correlation coefficient.
The techniques that are most closely linked to
advances in lexical competence will be determined
with the use of this analysis.
Ethical Considerations
The appropriate institutional review board granted
ethical
approval.
Every
participant
received
information regarding the study's objectives, their
voluntary involvement, and their freedom to
discontinue participation at any moment without
incurring any fees. All participants gave their informed
consent before to taking part in the study, and data
anonymisation was used to guarantee confidentiality.
Only the research team had access to the safely kept
data.
RESULTS
The results of the experiment are presented in this
section with the focus to establish the significant
differences between pre-test and post-test scores. This
was following the completion of vocabulary
evaluation,
aimed
to
gauge
participants'
improvements in lexical competency. Table 1 below
captures the summary statistics of key outcomes
throughout the experiment.
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
143
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of key outcomes
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pre-Test Score
50
58.00
92.00
74.1800
8.24049
Post-Test Score
50
66.00
95.00
81.7200
7.29003
Contextual Learning
50
2.00
5.00
3.6800
.95704
Word Association
50
2.00
5.00
3.8200
.84973
Mnemonics
50
3.00
5.00
4.1000
.76265
Repetition
50
3.00
5.00
4.0600
.76692
Valid N (listwise)
50
The results under Table 1 above showcase the
descriptive statistics for the key outcomes and the
mean scores are all above the dispersion trends. For
that reason, it means that there exists consistency and
stability in each of the reported outcomes. In other
words, there is minimal deviation from the average
scores both in the pre-test and post-test including the
reported trends for word associations, repetition,
mnemonic devices, and context-based learning.
Table 2: Mean differences between pre-test and post-test scores
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t
df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Pair
1
Pre-Test Score -
Post-Test Score
-
7.54000
1.45980
.20645
-7.95487
-7.12513
-
36.523
49
.000
Under Table 2 results it is evident that the mean
differences between pre-test and post-test scores are
significant at 95% confidence interval. For that reason,
that the rise or fall in scores (between the first and
second assessments) is not attributable to chance
alone, according to the available data. Therefore, there
was a statistically significant change in scores between
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
144
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
the pre- and post-tests as a result of the intervention or
treatment for improvement of lexical competence.
Table 3: Correlation analysis on reported vocabulary learning strategies (based on the VLSI) and their increase
in vocabulary scores from the pre-test to the post-test
Correlations
Pre-Test
Score
Post-Test
Score
Contextual
Learning
Word
Association Mnemonics Repetition
Pre-Test Score Pearson
Correlation
1
.990
**
.911
**
.684
**
.510
**
.466
**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Post-Test
Score
Pearson
Correlation
.990
**
1
.914
**
.684
**
.523
**
.448
**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Contextual
Learning
Pearson
Correlation
.911
**
.914
**
1
.580
**
.408
**
.555
**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.003
.000
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Word
Association
Pearson
Correlation
.684
**
.684
**
.580
**
1
.060
.518
**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.680
.000
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Mnemonics
Pearson
Correlation
.510
**
.523
**
.408
**
.060
1
-.010
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.003
.680
.942
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
145
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
Repetition
Pearson
Correlation
.466
**
.448
**
.555
**
.518
**
-.010
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
.001
.000
.000
.942
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Finally, the results presented in Table 3 above reveals
that a high correlation is present across changes in the
pre-test and post-test scores and the outcomes for the
reported vocabulary learning strategies (based on the
VLSI). The Pearson Product Moment Correlation
reveals the p-values to be above 95% confidence
interval hence a high linearity of the factors. In this
regard, vocabulary learning strategies (based on the
VLSI) prove to move in the same direction which
further confirms the attainment of lexical competence
development of the cohort. In fact, the test results
reveal that the correlation coefficients are increased
between the post-test scores versus the reported
vocabulary learning strategies which proves the
efficiency of the subjects in attaining optimum lexical
competence based on the interventions in place.
DISCUSSION
The research has evaluated the improvement of lexical
competence of A+ level learners. The findings based on
the reported significance level in the mean differences
between pre-test and post-test scores have proved
that different instructional strategies influence the
development of lexical competence in A+ level
learners. Indeed, in this study it was affirmed that there
was observable improvement in the post-scores upon
the utilization of key vocabulary development
strategies such as repetition, word association, use of
mnemonics, and context-based learning. The findings
align to the research by Laufer (2018), Nation (2019),
Webb and Chang (2018), Delgadova (2015), and Laufer
(2018) since they also affirmed the suitability of
instructional strategies such as context-based learning
and spaced repetition towards lexical competence
development. Nonetheless, the findings derived from
the experimental design contradict the research by
Francis et al. (2018), Gumede and Boakye (2020) and
Zhao and Li (2018) where lexical competence and
repetition and word association depicted inverse
proportionality when linked to lexical competence. For
that reason, an increase in lexical competence only
connected to a decrease in either word association or
context-based learning. However, in the experiment
conducted in this study a direct proportionality was
reported between lexical competence versus
instructional strategies such as word association, for
example. In the experiment adopted in this research
cognitive
and
motivational
factors
such
as
contextualization and meaning making as well as
memory and retention led to the increased post-test
scores among A+ level learners. As a result, their
proved to have significant effects on attainment of
lexical competence of the cohort. However, several
studies such as Kim et al. (2019), Piper et al. (2019), and
Pretorius and Spaull (2016) could not establish
significant association between lexical competence
versus strategies such as memory and retention, word
retrieval, and context-based learning among A+ level
learners. Considering the outcomes of the research
several implications can be cited which include:
Findings from the study corroborate previous research
showing that A+ level students' lexical competency is
much improved when teachers use techniques
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
146
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
including context-based learning, mnemonics, word
association, and repetition. This means that in order to
effectively promote vocabulary expansion, educators
and teachers should prioritize integrating these tactics
into their lesson plans. It is important for educators to
create learning environments that prioritize deeper
understanding and student engagement in addition to
vocabulary instruction, because cognitive factors (such
as meaning-making and memory retention) and
motivational factors (such as contextualization) have a
positive effect on lexical competence. Improved
learning outcomes and enhanced retention can result
from combining cognitive and motivating factors. This
study's inconsistent results raise doubts about the
consistency of the relationship between lexical
competence and instructional approaches. Possible
causes of these inconsistencies should be investigated
in future studies, which should also take into account
contextual or individual variations in how learners
react to particular tactics. As a result, we may see more
sophisticated
models
of
vocabulary
learning
developed to meet the needs of individual students.
CONCLUSION
The study has presented focused investigation on
lexical competence improvement through of A-level
learners. On this account the study has confirmed the
effectiveness of various instructional strategies in
improving lexical competence among A+ level learners
mainly the use of mnemonics, word association,
context-based learning, and repetition. Further, the
study has presented the role of cognitive and
motivational factors in the vocabulary acquisition
process at the A+ level. For this study it can be stated
that context-based learning and word association are
the most suitable for improving lexical competence
among A+ level learners given their high significance in
post-test scores.
REFERENCES
1.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending
the reading wars: reading acquisition from novice
to expert. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest,
19(1),
5
–
51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
2.
Delgadova, E. (2015). Reading literacy as one of the
significant academic competencies for university
students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
178,
48
–
53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.145
3.
Francis, D. J., Kulesz, P. A., & Benoit, J. S. (2018).
Extending the simple view of reading to account
for variation within readers and across texts: the
complete view of reading (CVRi). Remedial and
Special
Education,
39(5),
274
–
288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904
4.
Gumede, T., & Boakye, N. (2020). Investigating the
reading comprehension ability of Grade 9 (Form 2)
learners at Bulawayo Central District high schools
in Zimbabwe. Per Linguam, 36(1), 71
–
89.
https://doi.org/10.5785/36-1-938
5.
Kim, S. G., Lee, H., & Zuilkowski, S. S. (2019). Impact
of literacy interventions on reading skills in low-
and middle-income countries: a meta-analysis.
Child
Development,
91(2),
638
–
660.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13204
6.
Laufer, B. (2018). The influence of lexical
competence on academic writing: Exploring the
connections between vocabulary knowledge and
writing ability. Journal of Second Language
Writing,
41,
24
–
35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.04.002
7.
Nation, I. S. P. (2018). Teaching vocabulary:
Strategies and techniques. Cambridge University
Press.
8.
Nation, K. (2019). Children’s reading difficulties,
language, and reflections on the simple view of
reading. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties,
Volume 05 Issue 12-2024
147
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PEDAGOGICS
(ISSN
–
2767-3278)
VOLUME
05
ISSUE
12
Pages:
138-147
OCLC
–
1242041055
Publisher:
Master Journals
24(1),
47
–
73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1609272
9.
Piper, B., Schroeder, L., & Trudell, B. (2016). Oral
reading fluency and comprehension in Kenya:
reading acquisition in a multilingual environment.
Journal of Research in Reading, 39(2), 133
–
152.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12052
10.
Pretorius, E. J., & Spaull, N. (2016). Exploring
relationships between oral reading fluency and
reading comprehension amongst English second
language readers in South Africa. International
Journal: Reading and Writing, 29(7), 1449
–
1471.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9645-9
11.
Snow, C. E., & Mathews, T. J. (2016). Reading and
learning in the early grades. The Future of Children,
26(2), 57
–
74. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0012
12.
Wang, Z., Sabatin, J., O'Reilly, T., & Weeks, J.
(2018). Decoding and reading comprehension: a
test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 11(3), 387
–
401.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu000032
13.
Webb, S., & Chang, A. C. S. (2018). The impact of
vocabulary learning strategies on vocabulary size
and depth of knowledge: a longitudinal study.
Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 154
–
176.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817698704
14.
Wills, G., Ardington, C., Pretorius, E. J., & Sebaeng,
L. (2022). Benchmarking early grade reading skills:
English first additional language, summary report.
Khulisa Management Services.
15.
Zhao, X., & Li, Q. (2018). Cognitive factors
influencing vocabulary acquisition: Insights for
advanced language learners. Language Learning,
68(4), 1042
–
1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12288
