EAP collocation: delexical verbs versus academic chunks
You are teaching on a 10-week pre-sessional EAP course. Your class of 18 learners is preparing a 2,000-word argument essay. A corpus of their first drafts shows 14 instances of 'do a research', 23 of 'big problem', 41 uses of 'important' and 9 of 'make a conclusion'. In class they can define 'collocation' and score well on a gap-fill of delexical verbs, but their own writing relies on general, high-frequency words. The coursebook chapter lists 20 delexical verbs with a gap-fill and a matching exercise. You have two 90-minute sessions before the next draft is due, plus access to a concordance tool and the students' own drafts. The writing tutor wants 'more academic vocabulary' but is worried about overload.
1. Diagnose the problem. Why is this not simply a gap in the students' knowledge of delexical-verb rules?
Read the worked answer
The students can define collocation and complete a gap-fill, so the problem is not a missing rule. It is a lack of phraseological repertoire and register awareness. 'Do a research' and 'make a conclusion' show that learners are combining a general verb with a noun by meaning, rather than storing the whole academic chunk. 'Big problem' and the heavy use of 'important' suggest avoidance of more precise academic lexis and reliance on high-frequency general words. The gap-fill reinforces individual verbs, not the noun-verb chunks the essay needs. The writing tutor's request for 'more academic vocabulary' risks making this worse if it becomes a long list. The useful target is a small set of frequent, genre-relevant chunks that the learners can retrieval-practise and then use in their own argument.
2. How would you select and sequence lexis for the two 90-minute sessions? Give concrete examples and justify the ordering.
Read the worked answer
Selection criteria: frequency in the students' target genre, usefulness across essay topics, and evidence from their own drafts. Do not teach all 20 delexical verbs. Choose eight to ten chunks, for example 'conduct/carry out research', 'a major/significant problem', 'draw a conclusion', 'play a significant role', 'raise an important issue'.
Session 1: start from four error-rich chunks in their drafts. Use concordance lines to notice the noun-verb partnership, then sort chunks into meaning groups (research, problems, conclusions). Finish with controlled retrieval: complete a gapped paragraph from memory, then compare.
Session 2: move to productive use. Learners select three chunks for their own essay plan, write sentences, and peer-check for collocation and register. End with a short timed paragraph using at least three target chunks.
The ordering is noticing → retrieval → productive use, because learners need repeated retrieval in new contexts, not a single matching exercise. Eight to ten items is manageable within two sessions and can be recycled in feedback on the next draft.
3. What role should the concordance tool play, and what are the risks? How would you check transfer?
Read the worked answer
The concordance tool should supply short, curated lines that make the partnership visible. Print or project eight to ten lines per chunk, with the target highlighted, and ask guided questions: 'Which verb goes with research?' 'Which adjective is most frequent with problem?' Do not let learners search freely for long periods: raw concordance output is noisy, includes irrelevant genres, and can overload weaker readers. Select lines from academic sources and check them before the lesson.
Transfer should be checked in the next draft, not in a gap-fill. Mark up to five target chunks in the draft and count accurate, appropriate uses; compare with the first draft. Ask learners to highlight the chunks they used in their essay plan and in the final text. A short delayed retrieval task two weeks later would show whether the chunks are retained. The evidence of success is appropriate use in the students' own argument, not recognition on a worksheet.