根據Nation的理論，本研究設計精熟學習的語言課程，聚焦在意義為主的輸入、以形式為主的教學、以意義為主的輸出和語文流暢發展，探討整合戴教授自編教材、數據驅動學習(DDL) 和遊戲化活動，以增強大學生詞排學習的成效。「詞排」理論由Hoey (2005) 提出，用於分析語言和語言教學，強調語義聯想和語法在詞彙學習中的關聯。
    本研究分三個實驗逐步進行。在第一個實驗中，35名大二英語系學生參與，透過戴教授自編的詞彙教材學習詞排詞彙，契合Nation所提的以意義為主的輸入和以形式為主的教學。第二個實驗引入DDL，幫助30名大二企管系學生理解語言句構，並將所學詞彙應用於寫作中，符合Nation所提的以意義為主的輸出。第三個實驗，綜合前兩個實驗，參與者為60名大二資工系和電機系學生，進行全面詞彙學習，其中有30名學生自願參與實驗組，此研究整合教師自編的詞彙教材、DDL學習方法和遊戲化活動，旨在幫助學生掌握已學詞彙，同時符合Nation所提的語言流暢發展，另一組30名學生為對照組。評量化數據收集，包括學生的前後多益(TOEIC)測試、前測中級全民英檢、課程前後測單字測驗、每週測驗和Schmitt的詞彙學習策略問卷。並對六名參與者進行質性的訪談。研究結果顯示，使用自編的詞彙教材，學生的詞彙獲得改善。DDL進一步提升語言理解和單字的運用。綜合教材和教法再透過遊戲化活動，學習者對詞彙記憶和使用上顯著進步。總之，教師自編的詞彙教材、DDL和遊戲化活動納入詞彙教學均有效。本研究為英語教學方法提供了有價值的驗證，並為教育工作者提供了有效的教學策略，增強大學生的詞彙學習，均有所取益。

According to Paul Nation’s theory, this study designs and involves into a balanced language course, including four strands: meaning-focused input, form-focused instruction, meaning-focused output, and fluency development. This study also investigates the effectiveness of integrating self-curated materials, Data-driven Learning (DDL) and gamified activities to enhance lexical priming learning effects among college students. Lexical priming, as proposed by Michael Hoey (2005), serves as a theoretical framework for language analysis and language instruction, emphasizing the relationship between semantic associations and grammar in lexical learning. 
The study unfolds three experiments. In Study I, 35 sophomore English majors engage with self-curated vocabulary teaching materials to learn lexical priming, aligning with Nation’s meaning-focused input and form-focused instruction. Subsequently, Study II introduces DDL to foster 30 sophomore business majors’ comprehension of language patterns and structures, as well as the application of vocabulary in writing, aligning with Nation’s meaning-focused output. 
In the Conclusive Study, 60 students engage in comprehensive vocabulary learning, with 30 students volunteering for the experimental group (EG). This study integrates self-curated vocabulary teaching 
materials, DDL and gamified activities, aiming to help college students not only master the vocabulary they have learned but also involve Nation’s meaning-focused strands of learning from input, learning from output and fluency development. The remaining students form the control group (CG). 
Quantitative data, including pre- and post-TOEIC tests, pre-GEPT intermediate test, pre-and post-lexical priming test, weekly quizzes, and Schmitt’s vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire, were collected to assess the intervention’s effectiveness. Qualitative insights were obtained through interviews conducted with six participants.
The results indicated that engagement with self-curated vocabulary teaching materials led to improved vocabulary acquisition, DDL enhanced language comprehension and vocabulary application, the integration of gamified activities facilitated increased retention and engagement with lexical priming strategies. Overall, these findings highlight the effectiveness of incorporating self-curated vocabulary teaching materials, DDL and gamified activities into lexical priming instruction. This research contributes valuable insights to the advancement of language teaching methodologies, offering educators effective strategies for enhancing lexical priming effects among sophomore college students.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
CHINESE ABSTRACT ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES	x
LIST OF FIGURES	xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Research Objectives	5
1.3 Research Questions	6
1.4 Definition of Terms	7
1.4.1 The Four Strands of Language Course	7
1.4.2 Lexical Priming Learning	8
1.4.3 Lexical Priming Instruction with Topic Related Vocabulary	9
1.4.4 Self-Curated Vocabulary Teaching Materials 10
1.4.5 Data-driven Learning (DDL) 11
1.4.6 Fluency Development Activities	12
1.4.7 Gamified Activities 13
1.5 Significance of the Study	14
1.6 Structure of this Dissertation 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEWS	16
2.1 Lexical Priming and Vocabulary Acquisition in EFL Contexts	17
2.1.1 Paul Nation’s Vocabulary Acquisition Theory 17
2.1.2 Theoretical Framework of Nation’s Four Strands in Language Courses 20
2.1. 3 The Concepts of Michael Hoey’s Lexical Priming Theory	22
2.2 Self-curated Materials: Impacts on Vocabulary Learning 26
2.3 Data-Driven Learning (DDL) in EFL Lexical Instruction 30
2.3.1 Definition of DDL	30
2.3.2 Theoretical Framework of Corpus-Based Learning 32
2.3.3 Reviews of DDL Effects in Language Classrooms 34
2.4 Gamification in Education 37
2.4.1 Definition of Gamification 37
2.4.2 Theoretical Framework and Behavior Changes through Gamification 37
2.4.3 Reviews of Gmification in Language Classrooms	39
2.5 Integrating Self-curated Materials, DDL, and Gamification in EFL Lexical Priming, Learning 43
2.6 Challenges and Opportunities in Vocabulary Learning for EFL Students 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 48
3.1 Research Design 48
3.1.1 The Course Instructional Framework: Integrating Nation’s Four Strands with The Cycle Diagram of Structures, Systems and Strategies (3S)’ Instruction 51
3. 1. 2 Characteristics of Self-curated Vocabulary Teaching Materials 58
3.3 Research Instruments 63
3.3.1 The Pre- and Post- TOEIC Tests 63
3.3.2 The General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), Intermediate Level 65
3.3.3. Weekly Quizzes and Review Tests	66
3.3.4 Pre- and Post-Lexical Priming Test 67
3.3.5 Schmitt’s (1997) Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLQ) 67
3.3.6 Data-Driven Learning (DDL) Activities 68
3.3.7 Writing the Topic-Related Composition 68
3.3.8 The Questionnaire of the Self-curated Materials and Lexical Priming Instruction	69
3.3.9 Questionnaire of the DDL and Quality of Writing 70
3.3.10	Questionnaire of the Self-curated Materials, DDL, and Gamified Activities	70
3.3.11 Individual Interview 71
3.4 Data Collection Procedures	76
3.5 Data Analysis Procedures 78
3.6 Summary 79
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 81
4.1 Results of Study I 82
4.1.1 Student’ Performance in the Pre-and Post-TOEIC Tests 83
4.1.2 Students’ Performance in Weekly Quizzes and Review Tests 85
4.1.3	The Responses on the Questionnaire of the Self-curated Materials and the Lexical Priming Instruction	88
4.2 Results of Study II	91
4.2.1 Students’ Performance in Pre- and Post-Lexical Priming Tests 92
4.2.3 Students’ Performance in Weekly Quizzes 93
4.2.3 The Responses on the Questionnaire of the DDL and Quality of Writing  94
4.3 Results of Conclusive Study III 97
4.3.1 Students’ Language Proficiency in the Pre-GEPT Intermediate Level Test 98
4.3.2 Results of Pre- and Post-Lexical Priming Tests 101
4.3.3 Students’ Performance in Weekly Quizzes 102
4.3.4 Results of Schmitt’s (1997) VLSQ	105
4.3.5 The Responses on the Questionnaire of the Self-curated Materials, DDL, and Gamified Activities 111
4.3.6 The Results of Individual Interviews 116
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS	121
5.1 Discussion the Research Questions	121
5.2 Summary of the Major Findings	128
5.3 Limitations of the Study	129
5.4 Pedagogical Implications	131
5.5 Suggestions for Further Researchesu	132
5.6 Research Gaps and Challenges	133
REFERENCES	136
APPENDIXES	149
Appendix 1 Consent Form for the Study I	149
Appendix 2 Consent Form for the Study II	150
Appendix 3 Consent Form for the Conclusive Study	151
Appendix 4 The Questionnaire on the Self-Curated Materials and Lexical Priming Instruction	152
Appendix 5 The Questionnaire on DDL and Quality of Writing in English Version	153
Appendix 6 Questionnaire on Self-curated Materials, Data-driven Learning and Gamified Activities	154
Appendix 7 A Taxonomy of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLSQ) in Chinese and English Version	156
Appendix 8 The Original NBA Article	159
Appendix 9 The Revised Original NBA Article	161
Appendix 10 Basketball Vocabulary Learning	162
Appendix 11 DDL Vocabulary Activity1	163
Appendix 12 Answers for DDL Vocabulary Activity1	164
Appendix 13 DDL Vocabulary Activity2	166
Appendix 14 Answers for DDL Vocabulary Activity2	167
Appendix 15 DDL Vocabulary Activity3	169
Appendix 16 Answers for DDL Vocabulary Activity 3	171
Appendix 17 Semantic Mapping: Activity1: Semantic Map of “obtain”	173
Appendix 18 Semantic Mapping: Activity2: Semantic Map of “obtain”	174
Appendix 19 A colocation quiz using the words: do, have, make	175
Appendix 20 Basketball Collocation Quiz: Use the words: do, have, make	176
Appendix 21 The followings are the examples of students’ composition writing1	177
Appendix 22 The followings are the examples of students’ composition writing2	179
Appendix 23 The followings are the examples of students’ composition writing: Practice	181
Appendix 24 The Responses of Individual Interview Questions in the EG of Conclusive Study (English Version)	182
Appendix 25 The Responses of Individual Interview Questions in the EG of Conclusive Study (Chinese Version)	187
Appendix 26 CEFR of GEPT & NEW TOEIC	193

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Incorporating Nation’s Four Strands into the Three Studies.	7
Table 3.1 The 10 Units Self-curated Materials and 18-week Syllabuses	54
Table 3.2 18-Week Syllabus in 2014	55
Table 3.3 6-Week Syllabus in 2016	56
Table 3.4 10-Week Syllabus in 2023	56
Table 3.5 The Scale Range of TOEIC Scores for Listening and Reading	64
Table 3.6 Comparing with Original TOEIC and Updated TOEIC	64
Table 3.7 The GEPT Intermediate Level Format & Structure	66
Table 4.1 Students’ Performance in the Pre- and Posttests of TOEIC.	84
Table 4. 2 Descriptive Statistics for the Weekly Quizzes and Review Tests (N=35)	86
Table 4.3 Students’ Feedback toward the Self-Curated Materials and Lexical Priming Instruction (N=35).	89
Table 4.4 Students’ Performance in the Pre-and Post-Lexical Priming Tests	92
Table 4.5 Students’ Performance in the Weekly Quizzes (N=30)	93
Table 4.6 Students’ Feedback towards DDL and Quality Writing in a class (N=30)	95
Table 4.7 Students’ Performance in the Pre-GEPT Intermediate Test at the Beginning with Experimental Groups and Control Groups	99
Table 4.8 Students’ Performance in the Pre- and Post- Lexical Priming Tests of the CG and the EG	102
Table 4.9 Students’ Performance in the Weekly Quizzes (EG N=30; CG N=30)	103
Table 4.10 Five of the Most Frequently Used Vocabulary Learning Strategies of the EG (N=30)	106
Table 4.11 Five of the Most Least Used Vocabulary Learning Strategies of the EG (N=30)	107
Table 4.12 Five of the Most Frequently Used Vocabulary Learning Strategies of the CG (N=30)	108
Table 4.13 Five of the Most Least Used Vocabulary Learning Strategies of the CG (N=30)	109
Table 4.14 Students’ Feedback toward the Self-Curated Materials, DDL and Gamified Activity in the EG (N=30)	112
 
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 The flow chart of overall framework of research design	50
Figure 3.2 The cycle diagram of 3S instruction: Structures, systems, and strategies	53
Figure 3.3 Six priming hypothesis in binary oppositions	59
Figure 4.1 Students’ performance in weekly quizzes and review tests	87
Figure 4.2 Students’ performance in weekly quizzes	94
Figure 4.3 Students’ performance in weekly quizzes for CG & EG	103

REFERENCES

AIContenty team (2023, Nov. 6). ChatGPT and the future of language learning. AIContenty. https://aicontentfy.com/en/blog/chatgpt-and-future-of-language-learning 
Al-Gamal, A. A. M., & Ali, E. A. M. (2019). Corpus-based method in language learning and teaching. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 6(2), 473-476.
Anak Yunus, C.C., & Hua, T. K. (2021) Exploring a gamified learning tool in the ESL classroom: The case of Quizizz. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research,  8(1), 103-108. 
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. NY: Springer. 
Brent, M. R., & Siskind, J. M. ( 2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition, 81, 33-44. 
Brown. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. NY: Pearson. 
Brown, D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. NY: Pearson. 
Celce-Murcia, M. (2014). An overview of language teaching methods and approaches. In M., Celce-Murcia, D. M., Brinton, & M. A., Snow, Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th) (pp.1-14). MA: National Geographic Learning.
Chang, C.-C. (2024). Enhancing EFL university students’ readiness for learning academic content in English: the Effectiveness of combining MOOCs with data-driven learning activities in an English language classroom. English Teaching & Learning, 48, 439-464. 
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research. New Jersey: Pearson Education. 
Dai, W-Y. (2014). An Introduction to the Lexicology Framework. The World of Chinese Language and Literature, 46-57.
Daskalovska, N. (2013). Corpus-based versus traditional learning of collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(2), 130-144.
Dionisio,G., Pascual, L. C., & Ilustre, R. (2022). Vocabulary acquisition and learning strategies in second language learning: A review paper. International Journal of English Language Studies, 4(3) 58-62. doi: 10.32996/ijels.2022.4.3.9
Doyle, P. (1991). Could they be persuaded? An investigation of data-driven learning using classroom concordancing. STETS Review, 25, 11-19. 
Doyle, P. (2011). Viewing language patterns: Data visualization for data-driven language learning. In M. L., Ho, K. T., Anderson & A. P., Leong. (Eds.), Transforming literacies and language: Multimodality and literacy in the new media (pp.149-166). NY: Continuum International.  
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research, 26(2), 163-188. 
Educational Testing Service (2023). Report on test takers worldwide: TOEIC listening & reading test. https://www.ets.org/pdfs/toeic/toeic-listening-reading-report-test-takers-worldwide.pdf 
ETS (2024, June 14). How the TOEIC tests benefits you. ETS. https://www.ets.org/toeic/test-takers/how.html 
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Ellis, N. C. (2015). Implicit AND explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 3–23). John Benjamins
Eriksson, A. (2012). Pedagogical perspectives on buns: Teaching bundles to doctoral students of biochemistry. In J. Thomas & A. Boulton (Eds), Input, process and product: Developments in teaching and language corpora (pp.195-211). Brno: Masaryk University Press. 
Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222-241. 
Fitria, T. N. (2022). Authentic material and created material (teacher-made) for English language teaching (ELT): Benefits and limitations. JADEs Journal of Academia in English Educations, 3(2), 117-140. 
Franco, N. B. (2024). The role of lexical priming theory in the investigation of the formal characteristic of metaphoricity, Entreculturas, 14. 196-206. 
Gray, P. (1999). Psychology. NY: Worth. 
Hamzah, M. S. G., Kafipour, R., & Abdullah, S. K. (2009). Vocabulary learning strategies of Iranian undergraduate EFL students and its relation to their vocabulary size. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), 39-50. 
Hidayati &Pratiwi, L. A. S. (2019). The use of authentic material in teaching vocabulary: An experimental study the first grader of SMAN 1 Batukliang in academic Year 2015/2016. Linguistics and Elt Journal, 9(1), 71-79.
Hoey, M. (1997). From concordance to text structure: New uses for computer corpora. In B. Melia, Proceedings of practical applications of linguistic corpora conference. PALC ‘97. University of Lodz.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. NY: Routledge. 
Huang, P.-Y., Wible, D., & Chou, C.-T. (2012). EFL learners’ mental processing of multi-word units. English Teaching & Learning, 36, 129-163. 
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and noticing hypothesis. SSLA, 24, 541-577.
Johns, T. (1991). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom Concordancing. ELR Journal, 4, 27-45, University of Birmingham. 
Jonassen, D. H. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
Jones, C. (2015). In defence of teaching and acquiring formulaic sequences. ELT journal, 69(3), 319-322. 
Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2012). Lexical priming: Associative, semantic, and thematic influences on word recognition. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition: Meaning and context, individuals and development (pp.44-72). Psychology Press. 
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypotheses, issues and implication. Halow: Longman. 
Krishnamurthy, R. (2002). Language as chunks, not words. JALT Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Krüger, M. (2023). Theory of second language learning acquisition. In M., Krüger, Media-related out-of-school contact with English in Germany and Switzerland: Frequency, forms and the effect on language learning. (pp.51-93). Wiesbaden: Springer. 
Lasern-Freenman, D., & Anderson, M. Techniques & principles in language teaching. NY: Oxford.
Lee, H.-C. (2011). In defense of concordancing: An application of data-driven learning in Taiwan. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 399-408. 
Leung, M. S.-N. (2021). Teaching phrasal verbs: Data-driven learning in the ESP classes. In Y.-N., Leung, W.-Y., Shieh & D.-S., Villarreal (Eds.), Reflections on the English language teaching and learning in the global and diversified world (pp.66-84). Taipei: Crane.  
Liao, Y.-F. (2004). A survey study of Taiwan EFL Freshmen’s vocabulary learning strategies. Journal of Pingtung Teachers College, 21, 271-288.
Lieber, R. (2010). Introducing morphology. UK: Cambridge. 
Lin, M. H., & Lee, J.-Y. (2015). Data-driven learning: Changing the teaching of grammar in EFL classes. ELT Journal, 69(3), 264-274. 
Lin, M. H., & Lee, J.-Y. (2017). Pedagogical suitability of data-driven learning in EFL grammar classes: A case study of Taiwanese students. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 541-561. 
Lin, M. H. (2021). Effects of data-driven learning on college students of different grammar proficiencies: A preliminary empirical assessment in EFL Classes. SAGE Open, 1-15. 
Liu, D. (2011). The most frequently used English phrasal verbs in American and British English: A multicorpus examination. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 661-687. 
Liu, D. (2023). Making and using individualize word lists for sustained language learning. In Leung, Yiu-Nam et al (Eds.) The thirty-second international symposium on English language teaching and learning: Innovation, diversity, and sustainability in English language teaching and learning (pp.45-59). Taipei: Crane Publishing Company. 
Luo, Q. (2016). The effects of data-driven learning activities on EFL learners’ writing development. Springer Plus, 5, 1-13. 
Macalister, J. (2010). Today’s teaching, tomorrow’s text: Exploring the teaching of reading. ELT Journal, 65(2), 161-169. 
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2008). Exploring the driving forces behind TOEIC scores: Focusing on vocabulary learning strategies, motivation, and study time. JACET Journal, 46, 17-32.
Mizumoto, A. (2012). Exploring the effects of self-efficacy on vocabulary learning strategies. SiSAL Journal, 3(4), 423-437. 
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97. 
Myers. J. L. & Chang, S.-F. (2009). A multiple-strategy-based approach to word and collocation acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(2), 179-207.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. UK: Cambridge. 
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82. 
Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1-12. 
Nation, I. S. P. (2009a). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. NY: Routledge. 
Nation, I. S. P. (2009b). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking . NY: Routledge.
Nation, I. S. P., & Nation, M. (2010). Vocabulary. In N. Schmitt, An introduction to applied linguistics (pp.34-52). UK: Hodder.  
Nation, I, S, P. (2011). The best vocabulary teaching activities. In ETA, 2011 PAC and the 20th international symposium on English teaching: Program book & collection of papers from the invited speakers and winners of paper wards (pp. 140-149). Taipei: Crane. 
Nation, I. S. P. (2024). Re-thinking the principles of (vocabulary learning) and their applications. Language, 9(160), 1-14.
Nation, I, S, P., & Yamamoto, A. (2012). Applying the four strands to language learning. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching, 1(2), 173-187.
National Development Council (2024, June 14). Bilingual 2023. https://www.ndc.gov.tw/en/Content_List.aspx?n=BF21AB4041BB5255 
Nazeer, I., Mukhtar, S., & Azhar, B. (2023). Exploring the effectiveness of vocabulary acquisition strategies in foreign language learning. Harf-o-Sukhan, 7(3), 1-14. 
Newman, S. D., Ratliff, K., Muratore, T., & Burns Jr. T. (2009). The effect of lexical priming on sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Brain Research, 1285(18), 99-108. 
Nguyen, L. Q. & Le, H. V. (2022). Quizlet as a learning tool for enhancing L2 learners’ lexical retention: Should it be used in class or at home? Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1, 1-10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8683671. 
Oakey, D. (2009). Fixed collocational patterns in isolexical and isotextual versions of a corpus. In P. Baker, Contemporary corpus linguistics (pp. 140-158). UK: Bloomsbury. 
Oakey, D. (2010). English vocabulary and collocation. In S. Hunston & D. Oakey, Introducing applied linguistics: Concepts and skills (pp. 14-23). NY: Routledge. 
Oakey, D. (2011). Using corpus and web language data to create EAP teaching materials. In M. L., Ho, K. T., Anderson & A. P., Leong. (Eds.), Transforming literacies and language: Multimodality and literacy in the new media (pp.167-184). NY: Continuum International.  
Ortiz, S. (2023, Aug. 14). What is ChatGPT and why does it matter? Here’s what you need to know. ZDNET/innovation. https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-chatgpt-and-why-does-it-matter-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/#google_vignette 
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. USA: Heinle & Heinle. 
Oxford, R., & Crookall, D. (1990). Vocabulary learning: A critical analysis of techniques. TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), 9-30. 
Pace-Sigge, M. T. L. (2013). The concept of lexical priming in the context of language use. ICAME Journal, 37, 149-173.
Pei, A., & Lin, Y. (2020). A study on the input and output of vocabulary teaching based on noticing theory. Studies in English Language Teaching, 8(2), 123-135. 
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. UK: Cambridge. 
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.  
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2022). Explicit and implicit knowledge and learning of an additional language: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 1-19. 
Sartika, K. D., Heriyawati, D. F., & Elfianto, S. (2023). The use of Blooket: A study of student’s perception enhancing English vocabulary mastery. Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 7(2), 357-368. 
Scheffler, P. (2015), Lexical priming and explicit grammar in foreign language instruction. ELT Journal, 69(1), 93-96. 
Schmidt, R. (990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics ,11, 129- 158.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.199-227). Cambridge: Cambridge.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge. 
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-323. 
Schmitt, N. (2021). Why should we study English and principles for teaching it. In Y.-N., Leung, W.-Y., Shieh & D.-S., Villarreal (Eds.), Reflections on the English language teaching and learning in the global and diversified world (pp.207-214). Taipei: Crane.  
Singh, K. (2003, August 16). Gamification in education: Advancing 2st- century learning. [Web log message].Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/gamification-in-education-advancing-21st-century-learning
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Explicit and implicit lexical knowledge: Acquisition of collocations under different input conditions. Language Learning, 63(1), 121-159. 
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. NY: Blackwell.
Syamsidar, Silalahi, R. M. P., Rusmardiana, A., Febbriningsih, F., Taha, M. & Erniwati (2023). Wordwall on master of vocabulary in English learning. AI-Ishlah: Journal Pendidikan, 15(2), 1801-1806. 
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Essex: Longman. 
Vnucko, G., & Klimova, B. (2023). Exploring the potential of digital game-based vocabulary learning: A systematic review. Systems, 11(57), https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/11/2/57 
Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2009). The effects of vocabulary learning on collocation and meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 55-77. 
Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63(1), 91-120. 
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
Xue, L. (2021). Using data-driven learning activities to improve lexical awareness in intermediate EFL learners. Cogent Education, 8, 1-17. Retrived from https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1996867
Yamashita, J., & Jiang, N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 647-668. 
Yeh, S.-Y. (2020). A corpus linguistic approach to build lexical priming from learner: The Wall Street Journal Online and The Economist.  In Y.-N., Leung, W.-Y., Dai, H.-C. Lee (Eds.) The twenty-ninth international symposium on English language teaching (pp.218-226). Taipei: Crane.  
 
Yeh, S.-Y. (2023). Raising EFL learners’ awareness of lexical priming through the technology tools. In Y.-N., Leung, T.-Y., Hsiao & H.-C., Huang (Eds.), The thirty-second international symposium on English language teaching and learning: Innovation, diversity, and sustainability in English language teaching and learning (pp.275-282). Taipei: Crane.  
Yeh, S.-Y., & Dai, W.-Y. (2012). Lexical instruction through principles and parameters pattern approaches. In W.-Y., Dai, C.-S., Hsia, Y.-N., Leung, & H.-C., Lee (Eds.), Innovation and empowerment in English instruction (pp.85-98). Taipei: Crane.