They acknowledge that, as Bowerman (1978) states, ‘Lexical rules are language – and culture – specific.’ (cited in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). However, both programs aim to move a student away from lexical over-generalisations (Backhouse, 1994) and increase depth of knowledge and breadth of vocabulary. Backhouse (1994) relates lexical development to intra and extra – lingual processes ie the “semantic relations which hold between lexical items in a given language.” (p.19) and the “paradigmatic relations” or the specific fields that define meaning within that context. Assessment of student understanding looks at how individuals develop vocabulary around a subject area through discussion, class response and exercises. In essence, it appears that both texts use a ‘field theory’ approach that allows for lexical compartmentalisation and a hyponomic (see McCarthy, 1990, p19) focus on developing associated meanings (Carter & McCarthy, 1988). However, they do not limit themselves to associating specific vocabularly within specific fields. “Lexical phrases or ‘language chunks’ are like prefrabricated building units.” (Lewis, cited in Harmer, 2001, p.21) Part 2. How effective is the treatment of lexis in the two chosen units for a group of learners with whom you are familiar? What changes would you make in using these units with the learners you have identified? Class Profile This class consists of seventeen males and five females, all L1 Arabic speakers. They come from six countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It is an intermediate level class. 30% are students, 40% are supervisory/managerial levels of employees in Government departments or from private businesses. 20% are self-employed private businessmen and the remaining 10% are homemakers. The age range is 20-58 years. They are currently about half way through a twenty week English course. Whilst the treatment of lexis in the two chosen units is efficient and effective, it does benefit from some individual tailoring towards the above class. For example with some of the students I would perhaps encourage a move towards a more self directed learning plan (Pemberton et al, 2001). Others need more scaffolding. I have also tried to cater for learning styles so that a variety of exercises are supported by a variety of materials and presented in more than one way. I have not simply repeated specifics, but changed the way they are communicated. Clearly, cognitive tools vary according to each individual and the situation so no assumptions should be made (see Papademetre & Scarino, 2000 for an exploration of class and culture) based on ones own param>