Abstract
The present study was conducted to compare the impacts of two vocabulary teaching techniques (a contextualizing technique and a decontextualizing technique) on vocabulary learning of a low proficiency group of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language (N=50), who were divided into an experimental group and a control group. In the experimental group, the students were taught to learn new English words by memorizing word lists associated with their Persian meanings (a decontextualizing technique) and having a lot of inside-and-outside-of-the-class practice. In the control group, the students were taught to learn the new English words by just making either spoken or written sentences using them (a contextualizing technique). The data were collected using two types of tests: a rote memorization test and a sentence-making test, which were administered to both groups. The results of the study revealed that the students receiving treatment in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group quite significantly on a vocabulary memorization test. The experimental group also had a better performance on a sentence-making test than the control group though the difference was not statistically significant. Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that rote memorization of word-lists can work better than sentence-making practice, especially for Iranian learners of English at low levels of proficiency.
Key words:Contextualizing, decontextualizing, rote memorization, sentence-making
Introduction
Learning a second or foreign language mainly involves learning the sound system, grammar, and vocabulary of that language. Vocabulary learning by far plays a very crucial role in learning another language. Seal, (1990, as cited in Celce-Murcia, 1991, p. 269) states that “To the non-language specialist, the common sense view of how languages are learned is that you substitute the words in your first language for the corresponding words in the second language. Words are perceived as the building blocks upon which a knowledge of the second language can be built.”
Considering the crucial role attributed to vocabulary learning in second or foreign language learning, one can implicitly understand the importance of vocabulary teaching as well. In the past, vocabulary teaching and learning were often given little priority in second language programs, but recently there has been a renewed interest in the nature of vocabulary and its role in learning and teaching (Richards & Renandya, 2002).
A number of research studies have dealt with lexical problems, namely, problems which language learners face in vocabulary learning. The research findings have revealed that lexical problems frequently interfere with communication. As a matter of fact, communication breaks down when people do not use the right words (Allen, 1983).
It is also generally accepted that second or foreign language learners who possess good word power or knowledge of vocabulary are usually more successful language learners. Simply put, people with large vocabularies are more proficient readers than those with limited vocabularies. In fact, there is usually a positive correlation between one’s knowledge of vocabulary and his/her level of language proficiency (Luppescu & Day, 1993).
Broadly speaking, there are three approaches to vocabulary teaching/learning: incidental, or indirect learning (i.e., learning vocabulary as a by-product of doing other things such as reading or listening), explicit or direct instruction (i.e., diagnosing the words learners need to know, presenting such words to the learners and elaborating on their word knowledge) and independent strategy development (i.e., practicing guessing the meaning of the words from context and training learners to use dictionaries) (Hunt & Beglar 2000, cited in Richards & Renandya, 2002). In connection with the first two approaches to vocabulary teaching/learning, a number of techniques can be employed. One can make use of decontextualizing techniques such as memorizing word lists or using flashcards. And while adopting the indirect approach, one can utilize contextualizing techniques such as reading and listening practice and speaking and writing practice (Oxford & Crookall, 1990).
In regard to the first two approaches to vocabulary teaching/learning, there is a problem which has remained unsolved to date. The problem is whether the direct approach (using decontextualizing techniques) is superior to the indirect approach (using contextualizing techniques) or not. In fact, there are a number of studies which have addressed the issue, but most of such studies have come up with mixed results. As a matter of fact, there is no consensus of opinions on the superiority of one approach over the other. Nation (1994) argues for a systematic rather than an incidental approach to the teaching of vocabulary and argues that such a factor is an essential part of a language course. He points out the limitations of incidental learning and the fact that L2 learners are often unable to benefit from incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading because of limitations in their vocabulary knowledge. Read (2004) also contends that although learners certainly acquire word knowledge incidentally while engaged in various language learning activities, more direct and systematic study of vocabulary is required.
Literature Review
As mentioned above, a number of research studies have dealt with the effect(s) of the direct and indirect approaches of vocabulary teaching/learning on learning vocabulary, in general, and on learning English vocabulary as a foreign or second language in particular. What follows is a brief review of the related literature on the topic in question.
In a study, Laufer and Shmueli (1997) examined the relationship between memorization of new words (short-term and long-term) and teaching techniques involving different modes of vocabulary presentation and different language of vocabulary glossing. The four modes were: (1) words presented in isolation, (2) in ‘minimal context’, that is, in one meaningful sentence, (3) in text-context, and (4) in ‘elaborated’ text context, namely, in the original text supplemented by clarifying phrases and sentences. In each mode of presentation, half (ten) of the words were translated into learners’ L1 and half were explained in English. An additional group of learners served as a control group. They were asked to learn the words for a quiz by themselves. All subjects were tested on the short-term and long-term retention of the target words. Retention scores were compared by mode of presentation, language of glossing and the interaction between the two. The results of the study revealed that words glossed in L1 were always better retained than those glossed in L2. As for context effect, words presented in lists and sentences were remembered better than those presented in text and elaborated text. The control group received the lowest scores. The results underscored the importance of attending to newly learnt vocabulary and relating it to the first language. Based on the results of this study, it is suggested that mental elaboration which is claimed to affect retention may not necessarily take place when words are encountered in texts. On the other hand, bilingual lists may be conducive to such elaboration.
In another study, Qian (1996) compared the learning of second language words in lists and in contexts. He employed 63 Chinese university learners of English learning a set of 15 English target words. The No-Context group produced significantly better scores on an immediate recall test than the Context group did; and this difference was also observed on post-test administered one week and three weeks later. The findings of his study suggest that decontextualised L2 vocabulary learning with feedback is more effective for these particular students than contextualized vocabulary learning without feedback. He also provided a comprehensive review of research that compares the learning of L2 words in lists and in contexts. Based on the results of this review he argues that most of these data are equivocal, in that it fails to show significant effects for one method over the other. He also challenges the assumption that contextualized vocabulary learning always leads to superior retention.
In still another research project carried out by Lawson & Hogben (1996) the behavior of university students with experience in Italian (N = 15) attempting to learn the meanings of new Italian words was observed using a think aloud procedure. The great majority of the procedures used involved some form of repetition of the new words and their meanings - mostly a simple reading of the dictionary-like entries provided, or repetitions of the word-meaning complexes. Relatively little use of the physical or grammatical features of words, or elaborative acquisition procedures was evidenced. This lack of acquisition between use of context and recall of word meaning is contrasted with the stress placed on context by many researchers. Even when the subjects did use the cues in the sentences to generate possible meanings for the target words, it did not help them establish representations for the meanings of the words.
In a further experiment, Prince (1996) explored the role of context versus translation as a function of proficiency. In this study a recall experiment was performed to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of context learning and translation learning as a function of learner proficiency (N = 48 English as a foreign language students). The results revealed a superiority of translation learning in terms of quantity, but an inability of weaker learners to transfer their knowledge into second-language contexts.
Khuwaileh (1995) also investigated the effect of contextualization on vocabulary at the intermediate level of English for academic purposes in an experiment with Jordanian university students (N = 40). Two lists were created, each containing 20 new words. List 1 was presented with English meaning and discussed in Arabic; the words of list 2 were embedded in a text for silent reading with vocabulary questions. After 14 weeks, the subjects were tested on list 1 and a second text containing the words of list 2 in the same meanings as in the first text. The number of correct responses to each list was tabulated and it was revealed that the average correct was 9.3 for list 1 and 14.04 for list 2, showing a clear advantage of contextualization for comprehension, learning and-or recall.
With respect to the use of word lists as a technique for learning vocabularies, Ianacone (1993) argues that vocabulary lists are isolated and isolating. They are artificially constructed lists which lack context and are not capable of inspiring motivation to learn. Based on his teaching experience and the specific approach which he adopted, he suggests that words should be learned in a context in which students are actively engaged in guessing word meanings as they appear in natural contexts. He finally states that this approach allows students to build their own vocabulary lists and forces them to assume responsibility for their own learning.
Although it is generally believed that most words are learned from context and it is a very useful and productive way to learn words, the usefulness of this method of vocabulary learning for all learners at different levels of proficiency is open to question. Waring (1995, p. 2), for instance, argues that, “Beginners need a basic vocabulary before they can even start to learn from context as they have insufficient knowledge and the text is too dense with unknown and partly known words.” In fact, they do not also possess enough knowledge of grammar and consequently can not make use of grammatical contextual clues to guess meaning from the context. He finally recommends that guessing from context be left to a later stage when the learner has enough knowledge base from which to work.
The gist of the forgoing points is that with respect to beginning learners we should start from an emphasis on direct learning and move on to strategies which are more based on incidental learning such as guessing meaning from context. As an alternative vocabulary learning strategy for students at low levels of proficiency learning from word lists is highly recommended. “Learning from word lists, as stated by Waring (1995, p. 2), is a conscious intentional strategy whereas learning from context is usually incidental to the task at hand, and seeks to aid learners in deepening their knowledge of already known words.” Meara (1995, cited in Critchley 1998) also claims that presenting vocabulary in list form is an efficient study method in which students can learn large numbers of words in a short time. Hulstijn (2001) also maintains that if learners are supposed to have access to a rich L2 lexicon that is the foundation of fluent communicative ability, it is necessary to include procedures such as regular rehearsal of words, rote learning, and training in automatic word recognition as one component of vocabulary learning, especially for beginning and intermediate-level learners.
Synthesizing the research findings presented in this section, one can come to the point that, in general, the majority of the research findings [e.g., Laufer and Shmueli (1997), Qian (1996), and prince (1996)] provide support for the superiority of decontextualizing vocabulary learning techniques (e.g., using bilingual word lists) over contextualized techniques (e.g., learning words in context). Only in one study, (Khuwaileh, 1995), the results supported the use of contextualizing techniques for vocabulary learning. As far as the ideas of the authorities on the subject of vocabulary learning are concerned, a synthesis of the views presented in this section also lends support for the appropriateness of using decontextualizing techniques of vocabulary learning/teaching rather than contextualized techniques [e.g., Waring (1995), Critchley (1998), and Hulstijn (2001)], especially for beginners. Ianacone (1993) is an exception in this regard because, as stated above, he argues that vocabulary lists, as a decontextualizing technique, are isolated and isolating, they are artificially constructed and lack context and, as a result, are not capable of inspiring motivation to learn. Having a look at the syntheses of the research findings and ideas, one can conclude that there is still a sort of discrepancy involved. And, as the results of Qian's (1996) comprehensive review of research comparing the learning of L2 words in lists and in contexts, in general, fails to show significant effects for one method over the other, one can come to an understanding of the necessity of further research in this area.
Statement of the problem
The present study intended to touch upon a relevant aspect of the two major approaches of vocabulary learning/teaching. It investigated the effect(s) of two vocabulary teaching/learning techniques, that is, rote memorization of word lists (a decontextualizing technique) and sentence-making practice (a contextualizing technique) on learning English vocabulary as a foreign language.
Based on the points mentioned in the above paragraph, one can state the following research question: Is sentence-making practice (as a contextualizing technique) superior to rote memorization of word lists (as a decontextualizing technique)?
Objectives and significance of the study
Compared to grammar and pronunciation, vocabulary (usually viewed as a third language subskill) has attracted little investigation in second language research (Meara, 1982; Gitsaki, 1992; Prince, 1996). A reason which has been stated for this lack of research interest is that, unlike grammar and pronunciation, vocabulary is not clearly defined by rules and is therefore not easily operationalized for research purposes.
Moreover, for a relatively long period of time vocabulary was viewed as a language subskill that develops in parallel with a major language skill, such as reading and writing (Taylor, 1997). Krashen (1987) also claimed that vocabulary is something learners pick up while improving their reading skills. All that the teachers need to do is provide enough comprehensible input to the learners and “vocabulary acquisition will in fact take care of itself” (Krashen, 1987, p. 81).
All the above-noted points reveals the fact that vocabulary acquisition is in desperate need of investigation in both second and foreign language learning situations. As stated earlier, there are two general approaches to vocabulary teaching/learning (direct and indirect) with their respective techniques. In the direct approach to vocabulary teaching/learning decontextualizing techniques such as word lists, and flash cards are employed. And in indirect approach, contextualizing techniques like listening and reading practice and speaking and writing practice are utilized. A review of the related literature revealed the fact that there is no consensus of opinions on the superiority of direct approach to vocabulary teaching/learning over the indirect approach or vice versa.
The present study holds significance in that it has tried to shed more light on this issue by focusing on two techniques which are widely used in direct and indirect approaches to vocabulary teaching/learning. The purpose of this study is to investigate the superiority of sentence-making practice, i.e., a type of speaking and writing practice on vocabulary items (a contextualizing technique) over rote memorization of word lists (a decontextualizing technique) or vice versa and their effect(s) on learning English vocabulary as a foreign language in a situation like Iran.
Method
Participants
The researcher, who was a teacher of the Iran Language Institute (the ILI), employed fifty male level 2 students (within the age bracket 15-30) attending the Iran Language Institute classes. These students belonged to two classes which were randomly chosen from among 11 level 2 classes and the two classes were treated as intact groups. The classes met for two hours a day, two days a week. The reason for the selection of these students was that they are considered beginners at the ILI teaching system and vocabulary items are presented to them in their textbooks through paired associates, that is, word lists in English along with their translations in Persian.
Procedures
One of the classes (N = 24) served as the control group in which students worked on the vocabulary items through sentence-making practice both in written and spoken form (a contextualizing technique). It should be mentioned that this method of vocabulary teaching/learning is the common method of vocabulary teaching/learning in almost all levels at the ILI. The other class (N = 26) served as the treatment group in which students tried to learn the words through rote memorization of word lists. The students did not have any sentence-making practice in this class. However, they had a lot of practice on the memorized words once every two sessions. In fact, in these sessions the researcher asked the students the meaning of the words appearing in the word lists both in English and in Persian. The type of questions asked had the following general formats: “What does ‘............’ mean in Persian?”, “What does ‘.........’ mean in English?”, “What is a synonym for ‘...........’ in English?”, and “What is an antonym for ‘..........’ in English?” The reason behind choosing these types of questions was that they provided the students with different ways of associating words with their corresponding meanings. The word lists were also recycled so that the students would have practice over the words previously learned and would receive a lot of feedback on their learning of the words. Simply put, the students were asked the meaning of the words which appeared in word lists belonging to previous units as they proceeded to other units in the book.
It should be noted that the students, both in the treatment group and the control group, had access to word lists and the only difference was that in the treatment group they had a lot of structured practice on mastering word meanings through rote memorization.
Materials
In order to conduct this study a vocabulary test was constructed based on the vocabulary items presented to students in the first ten units of the book. The test was administered to the participants both as a pretest, to see if they were homogeneous enough to start the study, and as a post test, to measure the difference between the achievements of the two groups with respect to the type of vocabulary teaching/learning technique employed in each group. The reliability of the test was estimated using KR-21 method of estimating reliability after it was administered as a pretest to both groups. The index obtained for reliability was 0.84 which revealed that the test was a reliable measure. It should be reiterated that the KR-21 method of estimating reliability is, in fact, the application of a formula for determining the internal-consistency reliability (homogeneity) of a data collection instrument (e.g., a multiple-choice test) from a single administration (Riazi, 1999).
The validity of the test was also taken care of based on a number of considerations. Since, as mentioned above, the test was constructed based on the first ten units of the book and the researcher had done his best to include a representative sample of vocabulary items of each of these ten units in it, it enjoyed a high level of content validity. To have a numerical index of validity, the researcher assigned a general proficiency score to each participant at the end of the study and correlated these scores with their scores on the post test. This type of validity is, in fact, a type of criterion-related validity where the researcher’s subjective judgments of the students’ overall proficiency is employed as a criterion (Farhadi, et al., 1994). The coefficient of correlation obtained through this method was 0.81 which again supported the validity of the test to a great extent. The reason behind using this method of estimating validity was that since the participants were beginners, the constructed test could not be correlated with any standardized test of proficiency.
In order to see if the two types of vocabulary teaching/learning techniques used in each group would have any immediate effects on the students’ learning vocabulary, the researcher constructed another test of vocabulary which was specific in its type. The test was composed of two parts. In part one, which itself had three sub-parts, the participants were asked to provide the meaning of some vocabulary items either in Persian or English.
In sub-part one, they were given 20 Persian words for which they were asked to provide the English meanings. In sub-part two, they were given 20 English words for which they were required to provide the Persian meanings, and in sub-part three, they were given 20 English vocabulary items for which they were asked to provide English synonyms and antonyms (10 items each).
In part two, the students were asked to make appropriate sentences using 20 words provided to them. This second test was also administered to both groups of participants in session nine, that is, three sessions before the mid-term exam. The reason why it was administered before the mid-term exam was that all participants, regardless of their respective groups, were believed to memorize word lists for the exam and if the test had been administered after the mid-term exam, it could have come up with mixed results. This second test was also constructed carefully such that a representative sample of vocabulary items extracted from the first ten units (half of the content of the textbook usually covered before the mid-term exam) were included in it. This being so, the content validity of this test was also guaranteed to some extent.
The reliability of the rote memorization test was calculated using KR-21 formula. The obtained index was 0.91 which is indicative of a high level of reliability. The reliability of the sentence-making test was also computed through the same formula and the obtained index was 0.74 which is an acceptable index of reliability. The validity indexes of the two tests were also calculated through correlational procedures using proficiency scores assigned to the participants and their scores on the two tests. The validity index of the rote memorization test was 0.77 and that of sentence-making practice test was 0.73 which are regarded as acceptable validity indexes.
It should also be stated that all the three tests, namely, the first test (used as both pre- and post-test) and the second test were administered to the participants of both groups as surprise tests, that is, unexpectedly so that the results obtained would not be distorted with any possible external factors such as the participants’ test-wiseness and the researcher’s bias.
Data collection and analysis
In order to begin the study and in order to make sure that the two groups were homogeneous enough to start the study, the researcher administered the pre-test to both control and treatment groups unexpectedly in the second session. The descriptive statistics of the pre-test appears in the following table.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the pre-test
NO |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
SD |
47 |
7 |
37 |
22.24 |
7.33 |
An independent t-test was then run to see if the two groups performed significantly different on the pre-test or not. It should be reminded that a t-test is a statistical test which is employed to make sure whether significant (non-chance) differences can be found between two means or not (Riazi, 1999). The results obtained from this statistical analysis revealed that the two groups did not differ significantly in their performance on the pre-test at 0.05 level of significance. Table 2 displays this finding.
Table 2: Independent t-test comparing the performance of the two groups on the pre-test
See pdf
The second test, namely, the test which directly tapped the ability of the participants with respect to the type of vocabulary learning/teaching techniques used in each group was also administered to the participants. The following tables present the descriptive statistics of the two parts of the test which in fact functioned as two separate tests.
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of the rote memorization test
No |
Min |
MAX |
Mean |
SD |
47 |
16 |
58 |
35.87 |
12.35 |
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of the sentence-making test
No |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
SD |
47 |
4 |
18 |
11.70 |
3.50 |
As it was explained in the procedures section above, as far as the rote-memorization test was concerned, the subjects were expected to produce, in writing, the meaning of the words which they had memorized. The words appeared in a list, some in Persian and some in English and the subjects were asked to provide their memorized meanings in English and Persian, respectively. For instance, "What does create mean in Persian?" or "What does vazidan (a Persian word transcribed in English) mean in English?". Of course, in order to make the words appear in a list, a very easy format such as create = ………, and vazidan = ………. was used.
With respect to the sentence-making test, it should be noted that the sentences made by the participants in the sentence-making test were scored by two independent raters, the researcher and one of his colleagues. It was merely done so that the results of the study would be kept safe from the researcher’s possible bias. The scores assigned to the participants, of whom each had two scores, where then correlated to find the degree of correlation (i.e., inter-rater reliability) between them. The coefficient of correlation obtained was 0.94 which revealed that the two raters had almost similarly scored the sentences made by the participants.
In order to see if the two groups performed statistically different on the two tests, the raw scores obtained from the administration of the test were subjected to two separate independent t-tests at 0.05 level of significance. The tables below show the results of these two t-tests.
Table 5: Independent t-test comparing the performance of the two groups on the rote memorization test
Variable |
No. of Cases |
Mean |
SD |
S. E. of Mean |
Df |
2-tail
Sig. |
Exp. |
23 |
39.95 |
12.84 |
2.677 |
45 |
0.025* |
Cont. |
24 |
31.96 |
10.71 |
2.186 |
|
|
Table 6: Independent t-test comparing the performance of the two groups on the sentence-making test
Variable |
No. of Cases |
Mean |
SD |
S. E. of Mean |
Df |
2-tail
sig. |
Exp. |
23 |
11.74 |
3.48 |
.726 |
45 |
0.94 |
Cont. |
24 |
11.67 |
3.60 |
.734 |
|
|
p < 0.05
As it can be seen from Table 5, the experimental group had performed significantly better than the control group on the rote memorization test. Table 6 also shows that the experimental group performed better than the control group on the sentence-making test (the mean of the experimental group was 11.74 while that of control group was 11.67). But the difference is quite marginal and it can not be claimed that it is statistically significant.
The post-test was finally administered to both experimental and control group at the end of the study. The descriptive statistics of this test are summarized in the following table.
Table 7: Descriptive statistics of the post-test
No |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
SD |
48 |
7 |
40 |
32.05 |
7.33 |
In order to see whether the treatment given to the experimental group had caused any significant change in this group and to see if the participants in this group had performed significantly different on the post-test, another independent t-test was run. The results obtained from this statistical test is presented in table 8 below.
Table 8: Independent t-test comparing the performance of the two groups on the post-test
Variable |
No. of
Cases |
Mean |
SD |
S. E. of
Mean |
Df |
2-tail
Sig. |
Exp. |
22 |
33.32 |
6.53 |
1.392 |
46 |
0.272 |
Cont. |
26 |
30.96 |
7.91 |
1.552 |
|
|
p < 0.05
The above table indicates that the experimental group had outperformed the control group on the post-test too, but the difference is not statistically significant enough. A comparison of the t-test tables may make one wonder why the number of participants, i.e., the number of cases as indicated in these tables, differs from one administration to another. The reason, as stated earlier, is that all the three tests were administered quite unexpectedly to the participants as surprise tests and in each administration a few of them were absent, which is quite natural and normal.
Results and discussion
With respect to the results obtained from the analysis of data pertaining to the pre- and post-test, one can conclude that although the difference between the means of the treatment group and the control group was not statistically significant, the treatment given to the treatment group had affected this group to some extent.
The interesting findings of this study can mainly be attributed to the results of the administration of the second test which was composed of two tests: rote memorization test and sentence-making test. As stated above, the experimental group had outperformed the control group quite significantly on the rote memorization test. There is, in fact, a mean difference of eight points between the means of the two groups. It reveals that the treatment given had affected the experimental group so that the participants in this group could easily recall the meanings of the words.
The results obtained from the administration of the sentence-making test are also quite noticeable. As noted above and shown in table 6, the experimental group had a better performance on this test as compared to the control group, though the difference was marginal. The significance of this finding doubles when one pays attention to the fact that the students in the control group had a lot of sentence-making practice both in written and spoken form in class while the students in the experimental group did not have any such practice. This finding might imply that good recall of the meaning of vocabulary items might have helped students in the experimental group to make appropriate sentences and that the students in the control group did not perform as well as they were expected to on this test simply because they could not recall the meanings of the words which is a basic requirement for making sentences using such words. Another reason which can be claimed regarding the low performance of subjects in the control group, and which is, in fact, the more plausible reason is that these students usually copy sentences from dictionaries when they are assigned to make sentences based on vocabulary items. Such being the case, they do not actually make sentences to have real practice in sentence-making. In cases when they make sentences of their own in the spoken form, due to the over-crowdedness of the ILI classes and the shortage of time, the teachers can not attend to every student individually and the mistakes made by students usually go unnoticed. Even when the students receive feedback from the teachers and their mistakes are corrected, they do not pay enough attention to the correct form of sentences.
The results of this study are in line with that of Qian (1996) who suggests that for some language learners decontextualized L2 vocabulary learning with feedback is more effective than contextualized vocabulary learning without feedback. He also challenges the assumption that contextualized vocabulary learning always leads to better retention and recall. The findings of the research project undertaken by Laufer and Shmueli (1997), based on which words glossed in L1 were shown to be always better retained than those glossed in L2 also lend support to the findings of the present study. The results of this study can further be supported by Waring (1995) who has questioned the appropriateness of contextualized methods of vocabulary learning for all learners. He contends that beginners require a body of basic vocabulary items before they can start learning from context since they do not have enough knowledge of the words and the text is too difficult for them. Further support for the findings of the present study is furnished by Nation (1994) and Hulstijn (2001) who believe that direct approaches of vocabulary learning are more useful, especially for beginning and intermediate learners.
The appropriateness of the use of word lists, as employed in the experimental group of this study, is also recommended by Meara (1995, reported in Critchley, 1998) who maintains that presenting vocabulary items in list form is an efficient study method in which students can learn very many words in a short time.
The results of this study, though limited in scope, suggest that presenting vocabulary items in word lists rather than in context is better for beginning learners. Consequently, attempts should be made to provide beginners with English textbooks in which English words associated with their Persian meaning are presented.
Conclusion
Since a good knowledge of vocabulary has a great effect on the learners’ improvement of other aspects of language such as reading comprehension, listening comprehension, speaking, and writing, especially at beginning levels, due attention should be paid to choosing and implementing appropriate vocabulary teaching/learning techniques in language classes. Based on the results obtained from this study, one can conclude that rote memorization of word lists as a decontextualizing or direct technique of vocabulary teaching/learning is better than sentence-making practice as a contextualizing or indirect technique, particularly for learners at the beginning levels of language instruction.
References
Allen, V. F. (1983).Techniques in teaching vocabulary. New York: Oxford University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991).Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Critchley, M. P. (1988). Reading to learn: Pedagogical implications of vocabulary research. The Language Teacher, 22(12), 15-19.
Farhady, H., Jafarpur, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Language skills testing: From theory to practice. Tehran: SAMT Publications.
Gitsaki, C. (1992). Vocabulary teaching and learning in Greece. Unpublished MA dissertation. University of Wales, Bangor, UK.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2000). Current research and practice in teaching vocabulary. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Ranandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice(pp. 258-266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ianacone, J. A. (1993). Vocabulary lists: The ambuscade of word study. The English Journal, 82(8), 41-45.
Khuwaileh, A. A. (1995).Words and context in EFL. Grazer Linguistic Studien, 44, 27-36.
Krashen, S. D. (1987).Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Prentice Hall International.
Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC JOURNAL, 28(1), 89-106.
Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101-135.
Luppescu, S., & Day, R. R. (1993).Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 263-287.
Meara, P. (1982).Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. In.V. Kinsella (Eds.), Cambridge language teaching surveys 1,(pp. 100-126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (Ed.). (1994). New ways in teaching vocabulary. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Oxford, R., & Crookall, D. (1990).Vocabulary learning: A critical analysis of techniques. TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), 9-30.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus Translation as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80 (4),478-493.
Qian, D. D. (1996). ESL vocabulary acquisition: Contextualization and decontextualization. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 120-142.
Read, J. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,24, 146-161.
Riazi, A. M. (1999). A dictionary of research methods: Quantitative and qualitative.
Iran, Rahnama Publications.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seal, B. D. (1990).Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 296-311).Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Taylor, R. P. (1997).Vocabulary learning and teaching in Japan: A preliminary investigation of student learning strategies and teacher classroom practices. Retrieved September 20, 1998 from http://www.hum.nagoya-cu.ac.jp/~taylor/publication/vocab.html
Waring, R. (1995). Second language vocabulary acquisition: Linguistic context and vocabulary task design. Retrieved June 9, 1999 http: www1. harenet.ne.ip/~waring/papers/BC.html
