THE EFFECT OF WORD LISTS ON VOCABULARY RETENTION OF IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS: WITH A FOCUS ON GENDER

Transcription

1 THE EFFECT OF WORD LISTS ON VOCABULARY RETENTION OF IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS: WITH A FOCUS ON GENDER Amir Reza Nemat Tabrizi Department of English Language Teaching and Literature, Payame Noor University, I. R. of Iran arnemati@pnu.ac.ir Mohammad Hajeb Department of English Language Teaching and Literature, Payame Noor University, I. R. of Iran hajeb_pnu@yahoo.com Address for correspondence: arnemati@pnu.ac.ir ABSTRACT The present study aimed at running an investigation of the effect of word lists on the retention of the second language vocabulary among Iranian learners. Ninety intermediate level EFL learners in Tabriz took part in the study and were divided into two experimental (30 males and 30 females) and one control groups (15 males and 15 females). The study was run in Mehrghan Institute in Tabriz for 10 sessions of 30 minutes. Participants were given a list of some English words in a column and their synonyms, antonyms and Persian counterparts in the next through which L2 learners discover the meaning of unknown words, and integrate and consolidate newly acquired vocabulary. One month after finishing the treatment, learners in the experimental and control groups received the post posttest of vocabulary to be checked against their vocabulary retention. The findings show that the applications of word lists have significant impact on retention of vocabulary among Iranian EFL learners. so, the participants in the experimental group perform better than the control group. Also, there is no significant difference between genders who received word lists. KEYWORDS: retention, vocabulary development, word list INTRODUCTION The role vocabulary knowledge plays in the development of the second language could not be neglected. Crystal (1995) asserts that vocabulary of any language is the Everest of that language (p.71). The significance of vocabulary knowledge in the development of the SL has also been considered in syllabus design and lexical approach is a good example of such a perspective. Although taking a discrete- point view toward language and focusing on its vocabulary system separately, could be considered as one of the offshoots of behaviorism and structuralism and was mainly concerned with in the Audio Lingual Method, giving less priority to vocabulary 384

2 knowledge for the sake of other language components could lead to drastic problems for the SL learners (Brown, 2005). Moreover, vocabulary strategies are techniques through which L2 learners discover the meaning of unknown words, and integrate and consolidate newly acquired vocabulary (Nyikos & Fan, cited in Cohen & Macaro, 2007). Ellis (1995) argues that vocabulary knowledge is a predicator of learners discourse comprehension, which allows grammatical rules to be patterned in the learners mind. Having inadequate vocabulary hampers learners reading comprehension in a way that makes it more likely that the learners will face difficulties in the path of academic achievement. As such, vocabulary learning and teaching is a central activity in the L2 classroom. One way in which vocabulary learning can be fostered is through the use of learning strategies. These strategies are consciously or unconsciously learned techniques for processing information in order to enhance learning, comprehension and retention (O Malley & Chamot, 1990). Therefore, teaching and learning vocabulary is of paramount importance and requires special attention. There are different types of vocabulary learning strategies cited in the literature e.g. Schmidt (1997) categorized these strategies into: Memory Strategies, Social Strategies, Cognitive Strategies, Meta-cognitive Strategies and Analysis of Affixes and Roots strategy (i.e. lexical/morphological decomposition). He, then, in the form of a questionnaire, asked English language learners to identify from among those strategies the ones they themselves deployed. He noticed that word lists could be an effective measure for the EFL/ESL learners in developing their vocabulary depth and breadth. LITERATURE REVIEW As an integral part of the communicative competence, the vocabulary component of language teaching is no more a neglected area. Numerous studies conducted on the role of different practices and techniques and their contribution to word knowledge have marked a renewed interest in this important component of second language learning since mid-1980s. Indeed, lexical competence is considered as the heart of the communicative competence (Long & Richards, 1997) and language use (Lewis, 1993; Zimmerman, 1997). Moreover, a wide vocabulary background is helpful in building a sound foundation for reading acquisition which is the cornerstone of the academic achievement of language learners (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997). Similarly, vocabulary acquisition and practice is regarded as the ''primary thing in learning a language'' (West, 1930, p. 514), without which learning will not take place (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Regarding the central role vocabulary plays in the process of learning a language, Lewis (1993) talks of language to consist of ''grammaticalized lexis'' rather than ''lexicalized grammar'' (p. 89). O'Dell (1997), similarly, prefers to give the pride of place in the EFL syllabus to lexis, rather than grammar, notions or functions (Gass & Selinker, 1994; McCarthy, 1990; Moon, 1997; O'Dell, 1997; Vermeer, 1992), since we learn the first language in the same way (Meara, 1995). 385

3 Considering the importance attached to the retention of the presented items in the history of vocabulary instruction, the ''Levels of Processing'' (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) favored to talk of three stages of perceptual processing while considering memory: physical or sensory analysis, pattern recognition, and stimulus elaboration and enrichment. Craik and Lockhart (1972) consider the last level to play the most significant role in the long-term retention of the items presented, since it is in charge of manipulation, more elaboration, and deeper processing of those items. The first two levels lead to shallower types of processing and therefore storage in the short-term memory. The last level, though, is responsible for a much deeper processing and an improvement in memory, since the participants can draw on their cognitive structures and previous semantic knowledge to create a more ''persistent trace'' (p. 677). Craik and Lockhart (1972) suggested that these levels are in line with what is believed about short-term stores (STS) and long-term stores (LTS), since STS is assumed as being chiefly acoustic or articulatory and LTS semantic. As a result, sensory and phonemic manipulations of vocabulary items give out a temporary trace of what has been conducted. On the other hand, semantic-associative manipulation of those items creates a more permanent sketch of them. It is often observed that one technique practiced in classes to teach vocabulary is listing unknown words on the board with their translations in L1 placed in an adjacent column. Some aspects of this strategy are mentioned by Yongqi Gu (2003). First, he found answers to the question that how many exposures and repetitions are needed for learning through lists. He ascertained that word pairs in a list can be learned surprisingly within a short time. The next issue concerns the optimal number of vocabulary that can be studied and learned at one time. He declared that learning depends on the level of difficulty of words. In the case of easy words, lists containing 100 or more would be appropriate. Yongqi Gu described the importance of the rote method (list learning method) as follows: Quantities of initial vocabulary can be learned both efficiently and quickly by methods such as rote learning which are not always considered to be repeatable. It may be dangerous to underestimate such capacity (p. 7). A word list is a sheet of paper where students write the L2 words along with their L1 definitions or translations to one side of each word. As Oxford and Crookal (1990) mention, ''The assumptions that undergird this technique appear to be that learners do not need much, if any, context to learn vocabulary, and that rote memorization is perfectly adequate'' (p.10). Proponents of the word list technique believe that working with word lists is one of the most effective ways of acquiring L2 vocabulary (Meara, 1995; Nation, 1995). In a study carried out by Shillaw (1995), the results revealed that the reason for success in a semester-long project was due to using word lists. On the other hand, other researchers argue that to acquire the complex nature of words, learners need to encounter words in several meaningful contexts. According to some experts such as Baumann and Kameeuni (1991), and Blachowicz and Fisher (2000), methods which provide 386

4 learners with opportunities to process words by making connections between what they already know and what they have learned are effective strategies. Personalizing a new word depends on making semantically meaningful connections between learners' schema and what they have recently learned. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM First problems which seem to frustrate EFL learners related to the acquisition of lexical items and different vocabularies. Second language learners often complain about the amount of the lexical items and difficulties involved in learning second language vocabularies and they need to learn irrespective of the problem they face in understanding idiomatic expressions, jargons, technical words, and the like. Next, Vocabulary development constitutes a notoriously difficult area of foreign language learning and teaching because, retention of the previously learned items is difficult. Running a research on the ground of comprehension and retention of second language vocabulary via employing one of the techniques of constructionist-oriented learning, word lists could be of paramount importance and might be helpful for both teachers and learners of English in our context, Iran. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Based on the statement of the problem the following research questions were raised: 1- Does word lists have any significant effect on vocabulary retention Iranian EFL learners? 2- If word lists has an impact on vocabulary retention among Iranian EFL learners, which gender benefits more? Research Hypotheses Considering the research questions above the following null hypotheses were formulated: H0.1. word lists have no significant impact on vocabulary retention among Iranian EFL learners. H0.2. There is no significant difference between the genders concerning the impact of word lists on retention of vocabulary among Iranian EFL learners. METHODOLOGY Participants The participants of the study were 90 intermediate level male and female students at Mehrghan Institute in Tabriz. These participants were chosen from 150 intermediate students according to their performance in a sample NELSON proficiency test in 2013 which was first piloted with 30 students with similar characteristics to check its reliability and then the test was implemented to the study. It should be mentioned that the pilot sample was female and male students of the same 387

5 (intermediate) level in English language proficiency studying at Mehrghan institute which had the same teaching materials as the under study language school. Materials The data for the present study was collected by means of two tests as follows: a NELSON test and validated researcher-made vocabulary test which was as both pretest and posttest of vocabulary development. Procedure The first phase of this study was the pilot phase during which 30 intermediate students with similar features to the target sample took all the assessment instruments comprising the sample NELSON used for homogenizing and validated researcher-made vocabulary test which was as both pretest and delayed-posttest of vocabulary development. In the second phase of this study the participants were selected. First, the piloted NELSON was administered to 150 intermediate students to homogenize them regarding their general English proficiency. Out of 150 students, 90 students (45 males and 45 females) whose scores had fallen one standard deviation above and below the mean shaped the main participants of the study. The selected participants were randomly assigned to three groups, a female experimental group (30 persons), a male experimental group (30 persons), and a control group with 30 students (15 males and 15 females). It s worth mentioning that due to the nature of the convenient random selection of the samples the discarded students were attending the classes, but their scores on the pretest and posttests were not included in the study. Then the treatment period began. Considering the fact that the syllabus of the language school had to be covered during the semester, ten sessions of 30 minutes were allocated to the experiment in the experimental groups. Therefore, the classes of control and experimental groups received the same hours of instruction and practice. Also the researcher himself taught all the groups. Both experimental and the control groups enjoyed the same course book, materials, vocabularies, and passages. In the experimental groups, word lists were introduced to the learners and they were asked to take part in the practicing phases in order to get familiar with the concept of word lists and bilingual comparisons. In all the class session the learners in the experimental groups worked with these verbal input modes for 30 minutes. Every session, participants were given a list of some English words in a column and their synonyms in the next. Second, participants were given a list of some English words in a column and their Persian counterparts in the next. Third, students were given a list of English words in a column and their antonyms in the next. They were asked to study the synonyms, Persian counterparts and antonyms after each session. 388

6 The learners in the control group did not receive any specific training on the word lists; however, they enjoyed the same materials to practice and received the feedback from the teacher. Instead they worked with other methods of learning vocabulary in the foreign language. One month after the session, the learners in the experimental and control groups receive the posttest of vocabulary which aims at finding out the vocabulary retention among the learners. In this phase both control and experimental groups were asked to answer the correct choice for the 30-item vocabulary test RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Pilot Study of NELSON Test To homogenize students at intermediate level, the piloted NELSON test was used. This test was comprised of two parts including reading (20 items) and vocabulary (10 items).the results represented that the mean was and the SD was 2.64.The reliability of the test then was calculated as 0.81 based on Kr-21 method which is an acceptable reliability. Table 1: Calculations of NELSON Pilot Study Results: Total Numbers: 30 Mean (Average): 21.7 Standard deviation: 2.64 Variance(Standard deviation): 6.97 Subjects-Selection Statistics The NELSON general language proficiency test was administered to 150 students. Based on the mean (19.83) and SD (2.96) 90 students whose scores fell within one SD above and below the mean were selected. The KR-21 reliability index for the NELSON test was.96. Based on the descriptive statistics the students whose scores fell between /-2.96 ( ) or (17-23), were selected as the main sample of the study. NELSON General Language Proficiency Test An independent t-test was run to compare the experimental and control groups NELSON test in order to prove that the two groups enjoyed the same level of general language proficiency prior to the main study. The experimental (M = 21.92; SD = 1.95) and control (M = 21.67; SD = 2.23) groups showed almost the same means on the NELSON test. Table 2: Descriptive Statistics; NELSON by Groups Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Experimental Control

7 The results of the independent t-test (t (88) =.54, P >.05; R =.058 it represented a weak effect size) indicates that there was not any significant difference between experimental and control groups mean scores on the NELSON test. Thus it can be concluded that the two groups enjoyed the same level of general language proficiency prior to the main study. Table 3: Independent Samples t-test; NELSON Test by Groups Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-Mean Std. Error95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Vocabulary Pre/Post Test The vocabulary test employed in this study was piloted before the main study in order to estimate the reliability of the test and quality of its items though item analysis. The piloted vocabulary test enjoys a KR-21 reliability index of.83. Table 4: Pilot Study of Pretest of Vocabulary N Mean Std. Deviation Variance KR-21 Pilot Vocabulary Nine of the items which showed poor item facility (IF) or item discrimination (ID) indices were revised for the main study. It should be noted the IF values between.37 to.63 and ID values equal to or higher than.40 were considered as good items. Pretest of Vocabulary An independent t-test was run to compare the experimental and control groups pretest of vocabulary in order to prove that the two groups enjoyed the same level of vocabulary knowledge prior to the main study. The experimental (M = 14.90; SD = 3.19) and control (M = 14.13; SD = 3.63) groups showed almost the same means on the pretest of vocabulary. Table 5: Descriptive Statistics; Pretest of Vocabulary by Groups Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Experimental Control The results of the independent t-test (t (88) = 1.02, P >.05; R =.109 it represented a weak effect size) indicates that there was not any significant difference between experimental and control groups mean scores on the pretest of vocabulary. Thus it can be concluded that the two groups enjoyed the same level of vocabulary knowledge prior to the main study. 390

8 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Table 6: Independent Samples t-test; Pretest of Vocabulary Test by Groups Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means for Equality of Variances F Sig. T Df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error tailed) Difference Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Investigating the Hypotheses The first hypothesis was set as; word lists have no effect on the retention of vocabulary among Iranian EFL learners. An independent t-test was run to compare the experimental and control groups posttest of vocabulary in order to probe the effect of word lists on the retention of vocabulary among Iranian EFL learners. The experimental (M = 22; SD = 4.49) groups showed a higher mean than the control (M = 17.10; SD = 4.20) group s posttest of vocabulary. The results of the independent t-test (t (59) = 15.63, P <.05; R =.89) indicates that there was a significant difference between experimental and control groups mean scores on the posttest of vocabulary. The experimental groups-after receiving the word lists outperformed the control group on the posttest of vocabulary.so the first hypothesis is rejected. Figure 1: Posttest of Vocabulary by Group Second hypothesis was set as; there is no significant difference between the genders concerning the impact of two word lists on the retention of the vocabulary learning among Iranian EFL learners. 391

9 An independent t-test was run to compare the male and female subjects mean scores on the posttest (retention) of vocabulary in order to probe which gender benefited more from word lists. The female (M = 22.83; SD = 4.59) and male (M = 21.17, SD = 4.30) showed almost the same means on the posttest of vocabulary. The results of the independent t-test (t (58) = 1.45, P >.05; R =.18 it represented a large effect size) indicates that there was not any significant difference between male and female subjects mean scores on the validated posttest of vocabulary.so the second hypothesis is supported. Figure 2: Posttest of Vocabulary by Gender Discussion All of these findings are in line with the findings of other researchers recorded in the literature: In terms of the first finding which concerns the positive impact of word lists on the EFL learners vocabulary development the findings are supported by the previous findings (Gass, 2003; Ozcan, 2012b; Schneider, et al, 2002; Schmitt's, 1997; Sunderland, 2010). A number of studies have examined receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of learners, and have reached different conclusions: Boyle (1987) determined that, exceptionally, boys are superior to girls in the comprehension of heard vocabulary. Similarly, Scarcella and Zimmerman (1998) found that men performed significantly better than women in a test of academic vocabulary recognition, understanding, and use. In Lin and Wu (2003), Lynn et al. (2005), and Edelen-bos and Vinjé (2000), males also outperformed females in vocabulary knowledge in the foreign language. By contrast, in Nyi-kos (1990, cited in Sunderland, 2000, p. 206) study women performed better than men in a memorization test of German vocabulary. 392

10 To sum up, it can be concluded that employing word lists in teaching vocabulary items to the EFL students in the Iranian context proved positively effective. The study also supported the fruitful and rewarding effect of the word lists instruction in the retention of vocabularies for the learners in the EFL classrooms. Gender, however was not found to be a highly relevant factor affecting retention of vocabularies in the learners mind. CONCLUSION The present study aimed at running an investigation of the effect of word lists on retention of second language vocabulary among Iranian learners. The foremost objective behind the present study, therefore, was to see the relationship between second language vocabulary and retention of English words. The findings of the present study firstly revealed that word lists have significant impact on retention of vocabulary among Iranian EFL learners. So, the outcome of the posttest data analysis clarified that the participants in the experimental group significantly outperformed the subjects in the control group. Here it could be concluded that in case the learners are exposed to word lists, they can learn lexical items better and, therefore, could promote their second language learning development. Secondly, the findings of the study assert that there is no significant difference between the groups (neither male nor female) who received word lists. It confirms that gender factor cannot be considered a significant parameter in developing second language vocabulary affected by word lists. Limitations of the Study Limitations are those conditions beyond the control of the researcher and in the present study the researcher was faced with the following limitations: One challenge which the researcher faced includes individual differences. Learner differences in the retention and retrieval of the presented input stem mostly from attitudinal factors which are neuroanatomical functioning of brain, cognition, learning styles, personal experiences, and the organization of episodic memories in the brain and mind of a learner. The other challenges are motivation. Motivation is a factor that encourages a person to perform and succeed at the task at hand. The researcher did not have any information about the learner s motivation to study. REFERENCES Baumann, J. F., & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. In J. Flood, J.M. Jenson, D. Lapp, & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the language arts (pp ). New York: Macmillan. Blachowicz, C., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Boyle, J. P. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning, 37, Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11,

11 Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability ten years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, Edelenbos, P., & Vinjé, M. (2000). The assessment of a foreign language at the end of primary (elementary) education. Language Testing, 17, Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Catherine Doughty and Michael H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp ). Oxford: Blackwell. Grace, C. (2000). Gender differences: Vocabulary retention and access to translations for beginning language learners in CALL. The Modern Language Journal, 84, Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon. Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lin, J., & Wu, F. (2003). Differential performance by gender in foreign language testing. Poster for the 2003 annual meeting of NCME Chicago. Long, M. H., & Richards, J. C. (1997). Series editor's preface. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. ix-x). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynn, R., Fergusson, D., & Horwood, L. J. (2005). Sex differences on the WISC-R in New Zealand. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meara, P. (1995). The importance of early emphasis on L2 vocabulary. The Language Teacher, 19(2), Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, I. S. P. (1995). The word on words: An interview with Paul Nation. Interviewed by N. Schmitt. The Language Teacher, 19(2), 5-7. O'Dell, F. (1997). Incorporating vocabulary into the syllabus. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L., & Crookal, D. (1990). Vocabulary learning: A critical analysis of techniques. TESL Canada Journal, 7(2), Özcan, M. (2012b). Retention and retrieval of unidirectional, paired-associate verbal input. English Language Teaching, 5(11), Scarcella, R., & Zimmerman, C. (1998). Academic words and gender. ESL student performance on a test of academic lexicon. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne Jr. L. E. (2002). What is learned under difficult conditions is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2),

12 Sunderland, J. (2010). Theorizing gender perspectives in foreign and second language learning. In R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Ed.), Gender perspectives on vocabulary in foreign and second languages (pp. 1-22). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Vermeer, A. (1992). Exploring the second language learner lexicon. In L. Verhoeven & J. H. A. L. de Jong (Eds.) The construct of language proficiency (pp ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. West, M. (1930). Speaking-vocabulary in a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 14, Yongqi Gu, P. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7 (2), Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instructions make a difference? An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31,