Can you please explain the different between 1 and 2?
1. "Now make up your own sentences, one for each of the new words you have just been taught."
2. "Now make up your own sentences, one for each of the new words you taught."

Sorry Drago, I should have write 2 as:
2. "Now make up your own sentences, one for each of the new words you was taught."

Yes, I didn't notice to 'you'. Thanks a lot :)
If the time period is the same, are both the same?
3. "You've learned a lot of new vocabulary in the last week. Now make up your own sentences, one for each of the new words you were taught."
4. "You learned a lot of new vocabulary in the last week. Now make up your own sentences, one for each of the new words you were taught."

'In the last week' is the week leading up to now. So that takes the present perfect.

'Last week' is a period in the past, and can take the past. It can also take the present perfect depending on what you are talking about.


You need to consider about the meaning. If you learn something, does it have an effect on the present - ie do you still expect to remember it? Yes - so the present perfect emphasises that.

eg
A few years ago I learnt some Arabic but I haven't used it so I have forgotten it all.
A few years ago I learnt some Arabic so I can understand simple signs.
I learnt it - that is a past action. It may or may not be true in the present.

In the last few months I have learnt some Turkish.
That suggests I still know most of it, because it is talking about the present effect of a past action.

It depends on the verb. If you learn something, then the meaning implies that knowledge stays with you, so there is less difference between the past and the present.

Quick note: British "learnt " = American "learned ".

I guess you have a learned behaviour and a learned person.
Ah, such a lovely phonetic language!

I do hear American 'beloved' with no final stress, said the same way you would say 'loved'. Whereas to me it has a final stress - like a beloved dog, a learned person. But that is not grammatically justifiable, I think. The dog is loved by someone, but the person is not learned by someone. OK, that is not comparable because of the be-. But a hall is not a bedeck-ed hall. I think some of these things are just a bit random the way they have turned out!

I too hear my fellow Americans, especially when reading aloud, losing a syllable from learnéd, belovéd and blesséd.

Admittedly, the phonetic confusion is not surprising, but usually context should be sufficient to determine which pronunciation is appropriate.

(Of course the acute accent is not "authentic" for this use, and in fact it is seldom used in the spelling.)

One does not, however, require diacritical marks for pronunciation! In writing, while I personally like the use of accent and diacritical marks, and borrowed letters or even words, context generally explains the difference in meaning.

And, of course, while relatively unusual (but only relatively) in AE, the final "t" in place of "ed" is certainly not wrong. Think of it as flexibility.