A Comparative Study of Glossing, Contextualized, and Decontextualized Instruction in Iranian EFL Learners’ Short-term and Long-term Vocabulary Retention

(1)

University of Mohaghegh Ardabili Faculty of Literature and Humanities

Department of Foreign Languages

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of

M.A.in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

A Comparative Study of Glossing, Contextualized, and Decontextualized Instruction in Iranian EFL Learners’ Short-term and Long-term Vocabulary Retention

By:

Javad Khodadoust

Supervisor:

Vali Mohammadi (Ph.D.)

Advisor:

Afsaneh Saeedakhtar (Ph.D.)

December 2019

(2)

University of Mohaghegh Ardabili Faculty of Literature and Humanities

Department of Foreign Languages

A Comparative Study of Glossing, Contextualized, and Decontextualized Instruction in Iranian EFL Learners’ Short-term and Long-term Vocabulary Retention

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of

M.A. in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

By:

Javad Khodadoust

Approved as: ………..

Signature Responsibility

Degree Name

Supervisor & Chairman (Ph.D.)

Vali Mohammadi

Advisor (Ph.D.)

Afsane Saeedakhtar

Referee (Ph.D.)

Reza Abdi

December 2019

(3)

A Comparative Study of Glossing, Contextualized, and Decontextualized Instruction in Iranian EFL Learners’ Short-term and Long-term Vocabulary Retention/

By: Javad Khodadoust Supervisor: Vali Mohammadi (Ph.D.) Graduation date:

3 December 2019 Number of pages: 116

Abstract

The present study compared the effectiveness of contextualized, decontextualized, and glossing on learners’ short-term and long-term vocabulary retention in a FL learning context.

To carry out the study, grade high school students at intermediate language proficiency were selected from four intact 66 male 3^rd grade high school students at intermediate language proficiency were selected from four intact classes. A proficiency test was administered to all participants to assure their homogeneity in proficiency level. Then the participants were randomly assigned to four groups including three experimental groups, i.e., the decontextualized group, the contextualized group, the glossing group, and the control group.

After receiving five sessions of the treatment, a vocabulary test as the posttest was administered to all the four groups once in order to assess their short-term retention and once 16 days later as a delayed posttest to assess their long-term retention of vocabulary. Two separate ANOVAs were run on the collected data which lent weight to the positive effect of the present study on the students’ long-term retention of vocabulary. The result indicated that the experimental groups outperformed the control group. Also, regarding the short-term retention, no significant difference was found between the experimental groups and the control group. Finally, it is highly recommended that language teachers and syllabus designers introduce this contextualized instruction to the learners to encourage a more interactive way to make sense of the text and consequently improve the students’ long-term

(4)

retention of vocabulary.

Key words: contextualized, decontextualized, glossing, short-term and long-term retention

Dedication

(5)

To my dear family who always encouraged me to study

Acknowledgements

(6)

I wish to express my gratitude to many people for their contribution in various ways to the completion of this thesis. I am thankful to many wonderful people who have dedicated their time, energy, and knowledge to help me achieve this goal.

First and foremost, I should thank my dear professor Dr. Vali Mohammadi, who guided me patiently. I would also like to acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Afsaneh Saeedakhtar.

(7)

Abstract

The present study compared the effectiveness of contextualized, decontextualized, and glossing on learners’ short-term and long-term vocabulary retention in a FL learning context. To carry out the study, grade high school students at intermediate language proficiency were selected from four intact 66 male 3^rd grade high school students at intermediate language proficiency were selected from four intact classes. A proficiency test was administered to all participants to assure their homogeneity in proficiency level. Then the participants were randomly assigned to four groups including three experimental groups, i.e., the decontextualized group, the contextualized group, the glossing group, and the control group. After receiving five sessions of the treatment, a vocabulary test as the posttest was administered to all the four groups once in order to assess their short-term retention and once 16 days later as a delayed posttest to assess their long-term retention of vocabulary. Two separate ANOVAs were run on the collected data which lent weight to the positive effect of the present study on the students’ long-term retention of vocabulary. The result indicated that the experimental groups outperformed the control group.

Also, regarding the short-term retention, no significant difference was found between the experimental groups and the control group. Finally, it is highly recommended that language teachers and syllabus designers introduce this contextualized instruction to the learners to encourage a more interactive way to make sense of the text and consequently improve the students’ long-term retention of vocabulary.

Key terms: contextualized, decontextualized, glossing, short-term and long-term retention

(8)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ... I List of Tables ... VI List of Figures ... VII List of Abbreviations ... VIII Chapter One: Introduction Page 1.1. ... P

reliminary Remarks ... 1

1.2. ... S tatement of the Problem ... 4

1.3. ... R esearch Questions... 5

1.4. ... R esearch Hypotheses ... 6

1.5. ... P urpose of the Study ... 6

1.6. ... S ignificance of and Justification for the Study ... 7

1.7. ... D efinition of Key Terms ... 8

1.7.1. Contextualized method ... 8

1.7.2. Decontextualized method ... 9

1.7.3. Glossing ... 9

(9)

III

1.8. Limitations and Delimitations ... 10

Chapter Two: Literature Review 2.1. Introduction ... 12

2.2. Intentional/Explicit or Decontextualized Vocabulary Learning ... 12

2.2.1. Word lists ... 14

2.2.2. Flashcards ... 15

2.2.3. Dictionary Use ... 16

2.3. Semi-Contextualized Techniques ... 18

2.3.1. Word Grouping ... 18

2.3.2. Word or concept association ... 20

2.3.3. Visual imagery... 21

2.3.4. Aural imagery ... 23

2.3.5. Keyword ... 24

2.3.6. Physical response... 25

2.3.7. Physical sensation ... 26

2.3.8. Semantic mapping ... 26

2.4. Contextualized Learning ... 28

2.4.1. Components of contextualization ... 30

2.4.2. Underlying mechanisms in contextualization ... 30

2.5. Glossing ... 32

2.6. Vocabulary and Retention... 34

2.7. Importance of Vocabulary Learning in Language Education ... 35

2.8. Empirical Background ... 37

(10)

IV Chapter Three: Methodology

3.1. Introduction ... 42

3.2. Participants ... 42

3.3. Instruments ... 43

3.3.1. Proficiency test ... 43

3.3.2. Posttests ... 43

3.3.3. Reading Material and Target Words ... 44

3.4. Procedure ... 45

3.5. Data Analysis ... 46

3.5.1. Scoring procedure ... 46

3.5.2. Date analysis procedure ... 46

3.6. Design ... 46

Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Results 4.1. Introduction ... 48

4.2. Testing Normality Assumption ... 48

4.3. KR-21 Reliability Indices ... 49

4.4. Comparing Groups’ Means on PET Test ... 49

4.5. Exploring First Null-Hypothesis ... 51

4.6. Exploring Second Null-Hypothesis ... 53

4.7. Discussion ... 57

4.7.1. Research question 1 ... 57

4.7.2. Research question 2 ... 59 Chapter Five: Conclusion

(11)

V

5.1. Introduction ... 63

5.2. Conclusions ... 63

5.3. Pedagogical Implications ... 65

5.4. Suggestions for Future Research ... 66

References ... 69

Appendices Appendix A: Proficiency test ... 86

Appendix B: Reading text ... 89

Appendix C: Comprehension check questions ... 90

Appendix D: Vocabulary test ... 92

(12)

VI List of Tables

Page

Table3.1. Number of Participants ... 43

Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics; Testing Normality of Data ... 49

Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistics and KR-21 Reliability Indices ... 49

Table 4.3. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances; PET Test by Group... 50

Table 4.4. Descriptive Statistics; PET Test by Groups ... 50

Table 4.5. One-Way ANOVA; PET Test by Groups... 51

Table 4.6. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances; Short-Term Vocabulary Test by Group ... 52

Table 4.7. Descriptive Statistics; Short-Term Vocabulary Test by Groups ... 52

Table 4.8. One-Way ANOVA; Short-Term Vocabulary Test by Groups ... 53

Table 4.9. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances; Long-Term Vocabulary Test by Group ... 54

Table 4.10. Descriptive Statistics; Long-Term Vocabulary Test by Groups ... 54

Table 4.11. One-Way ANOVA; Long-Term Vocabulary Test by Groups... 55

Table 4.12. Scheffe’s Post-Hoc Comparison Tests; Long-Term Vocabulary Test by Groups... 56

(13)

VII List of Figures

Page

Figure 2.1. Semantic Map for Russian Words Concerning Classroom Objects and People ... 27

Figure 4.1. Means on PET test by groups ... 51

Figure 4.2. Means on short-term vocabulary test by groups... 53

Figure 4.3. Means on long-term vocabulary test by groups ... 56

(14)

VIII

(15)

IX

List of Abbreviations

ANOVA: A One-Way Analysis of Variance

CLI: Contextualized Language Intervention

DLI: Decontextualized Language Intervention

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

ELT: English Language Teaching

FL: Foreign Language

ILH: Involvement Load Hypothesis

L1: First Language

L2: Second Language

LS: Learning Strategy

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TEFL: Teaching English as a Foreign Language

TOEFL: Test of English as a Foreign Language

PET: Preliminary English Test

(16)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

(17)

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GLOSSING, CONTEXTUALIZED, AND DECONTEXTUALIZED INSTRUCTION 1

Chapter One Introduction 1.1. Preliminary Remarks

Vocabulary development is considered as one of the most important aspects of foreign language (FL) or second language (L2) learning and teaching (e.g., Hunt &

Beglar,2005; Knight, 2011). Acquisition of vocabulary items is also the basis for communication in FL/L2 contexts and an essential part of mastering a L2 (Schmitt, 2008). In line with aforementioned claims, Wilkins (as cited in Milton, 2009) noted that “without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed” (p. 111).As such, Laufer (as cited in Nugraheni, 2018) asserted that without understanding the text's vocabulary, text comprehension will not be possible, either in one's native language or in a FL. So, accompanying a rich pool of lexical items is both a priority and a challenge for FL/L2 learners.

When FL/L2 learners face reading passage, their lack of vocabulary knowledge, as a linguistic constraint (e.g., Rassaei, 2017; Yusuf, Sim, & Su’ad, 2014) is the main problem in reading text comprehension. If these-called reading text contains many new items, FL/L2 learners quickly become obsolete (Grabe & Stoller, 1997 as cited in Nugraheni, 2018) and refuse to continue reading the passage. Also, FL/L2 learners/teachers are accounted with the disconcerting experience of trying to recall, without success, a word which has only been recently encountered and applied, or an item which has been in schema for a long time, but seems to elude them when it is needed. Therefore, in order to deal with these challenges, FL/L2 learners need multiple exposures to L2 vocabulary in various contexts through a variety of vocabulary instruction techniques and strategies (e.g., Nation, 2011; Schmitt, 2008). These vocabulary techniques can assist FL/L2 learners to cope with unfamiliar words

Commented [D1]: Bring your running head in one line.

(18)

(Harley, 1995), recall them promptly over long term, and apply the acquired words in communicative contexts correctly (e.g., Nagy, 2005; Read, 2004).

With regards to vocabulary learning and acquisition, there are many factors which can affect it. Although some instructors may think that vocabulary learning/teaching is easy, acquiring new vocabulary items has always been a real challenge for the learners (Schmitt, 2008). In other words, vocabulary can be learned in many different procedures each of which with its pros and cons (Schmitt, 2000). Students are always looking for most practical and effective methods of increasing the chance of gaining new items into their long-term memory, but losing of recently acquired item is a common problem which most of the learners face. They usually find it disappointing that they forget new items soon after learning them (Rahimi

&Shojaee, 2008). The teachers are also akin to be informed that which methods instructional programs may better help the acquisition of so many vocabulary items. In this regard, one of the innovative methods for vocabulary teaching based on the communicative approaches is to use context to help learners to guess the meaning of unknown words. This method is in contrast to the decontextualized vocabulary teaching technique which isolates the word from any communicative context. For example, learning vocabulary by using word lists and flashcards is considered a decontextualized teaching technique. It is believed that without context, learners will focus more on the memorization of word meanings and pronunciation (Oxford & Crookall, 1990). Also, in line with Oxford and Crookall, Brown (2001) claimed that in improving learners’

attention and retention toward the language, contextualization is needed such as giving story lines, familiar situation and characters, and daily real-life conversations. Besides, Gutlhom (2006) believed that providing a related situation leads the learners to learn best since they are able to focus their attention on the meaning rather than on literal meaning of every single word.

(19)

However, which method is more effective for learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) is still a matter of controversy; especially for young EFL learners since there have been only a few studies on vocabulary for this group of learners. In addition, there is a lack of research on the effects of contextualized and decontextualized vocabulary teaching on learners 'short-term and long-term retention of word meaning in the Iranian EFL classroom context.

Moreover, in respect to the foremost effective and sensible vocabulary learning approaches, Hulstijn (2003) introduced two effective learning strategies (LS) employed by learners in vocabulary learning, i.e., specifically incidental and intentional or direct study. In incidental LS learners learn vocabulary implicitly or by chance as they get engaged in alternative learning experiences like reading and listening activities. On the other hand, intentional strategy is employed by learners to learn new vocabulary directly, e.g., by reading and memorizing it, learning it by using a dictionary, etc. He also suggested that one way to incorporate incidental vocabulary learning is using marginal glossing, i.e., giving information on important words through leaning definitions or synonyms. Two important reasons were mentioned for using glossing. First, it enhances reading comprehension and makes vocabulary learning easier (Nation, 2001). Second, a number of studies have provided evidence for the positive effect of glossing on incidental vocabulary learning (e.g., Kim & Gilman, 2008; Rott, 2005; Yoshii, 2006).

To sum up, despite the considerable amount of recent studies comparing contextualized and decontextualized vocabulary instruction, there is still a lack of research comparing the effectiveness of decontextualized, contextualized, and glossing on vocabulary learning in a FL learning context. To bridge this gap, the present study attempted to investigate the effectiveness

(20)

of these three types of vocabulary instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ short-term and long-term vocabulary retention.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Even though a number of studies have been conducted on vocabulary retention over the last decades, there is still no consensus of findings to specify how to gain this goal, especially in the classroom context. In Iranian EFL learning context, even though students are aware of the important role of vocabulary knowledge in mastering a FL, many of them learn vocabulary passively (Nagy, 2005).They find the teacher’s rationalization for the meaning or definition, pronunciation, spelling, and grammatical functions boring. They often have a passive role during vocabulary learning practices in the classroom, just listening to their teacher. That is, they mostly rely on decontextualization strategies. Also, most of them complain about the heavy burden of words. When reading or listening, they encounter many unfamiliar vocabularies and it is difficult for them to figure out the target message. That is, their limited vocabulary knowledge does let them comprehend the meaning of text in the target language. Due to such a limited vocabulary repertoire, they cannot rely on the strategy of guessing the meaning from context or using context cues. At the same time, Iranian EFL learners often complain about forgetting the meanings of new vocabulary items soon after learning them and look for effective methods to increase chances for retaining new words in the long-term memory (Rahimi&Shojaee, 2008). In line with the aforementioned statements, Laufer (as cited in Nugraheni, 2018) believed that many learners match English words with their equivalents in the first language. Instead of learning the meaning in context, they focus on literal meaning of single words. As a result, it is a big obstacle for learners to comprehend a reading text while they know the literal meaning of every single word.

(21)

Another problem is that some EFL teachers think that intentional vocabulary learning through explicit teaching is more beneficial than incidental vocabulary learning. Nevertheless, the number of vocabulary items that teachers present in the classroom is quite limited (Tang

&Nesi, 2003). In addition, deeper aspects of vocabulary (e.g., collocations) are more difficult to be taught explicitly comparing to aspects such as word meanings and word forms. Form and meaning are the first lexical aspects to be learned. Increase in exposure and repetition of an item would result in development of knowledge of lexical aspects (Webb, 2007). Accordingly, to get access to the depth of vocabulary knowledge (Nassaji, 2004), learners must be presented with tasks such as extensive reading with repeated exposure to new vocabulary.

In sum, one of the basic challenges which EFL learners face, especially Iranian EFL learning and teaching context, is their unfamiliarity with useful vocabulary learning strategies such as context cues. That is, they lack strategic competence (Kafipour, 2010). According to Schmitt (2008), learners favor relatively shallow, less cognitively-demanding strategies such as decontextualization techniques. Considering the aforementioned challenges and the determining role of vocabulary learning in successfully enhancing communication competence and literacy skills, the present study attempted to investigate the effects of decontextualization and contextualization as effective approaches to vocabulary learning and retaining new words in long-term memory of Iranian EFL learners and compare them with glossing.

1.3. Research Questions

The present study aimed to investigate the effects of three VLSs (i.e., decontextualization, contextualization, and marginal glossing) on short-term and long-term retention of vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. Therefore, the following research questions are addressed:

(22)

Q1: Are there any significant differences among contextualized, decontextualized, and glossing techniques in Iranian EFL learners’ short-term vocabulary retention?

Q2: Are there any significant differences among contextualized, decontextualized, and glossing techniques in Iranian EFL learners’ long-term vocabulary retention?

1.4. Research Hypotheses

Based on the research questions of the study, the following null hypotheses were formulated.

H01: There are no significant differences among contextualized, decontextualized, and glossing techniques in Iranian EFL learners’ short-term vocabulary retention.

H02: There are no significant differences among contextualized, decontextualized, and glossing techniques in Iranian EFL learners’ long-term vocabulary retention.

1.5. Purpose of the Study

The importance of vocabulary learning and VLSs, in Oxford and Scarcella’s (as cited in Nugraheni, 2018) words, comes from the fact that they “make learners more independent of the teacher and serve as useful tools that can be used both inside and outside of the class” (p. 236).

Leeke and Shaw (2000) also argue that since vocabulary knowledge plays a crucial role in language learning at higher educational level, it is important for learners to be equipped with effective strategies. In regard to the vocabulary and most effective VLSs, researchers proposing the importance of learners’ exposure to vocabulary in context claimed that the learners need to be exposed to the target vocabulary in various contexts at least a certain number of times provided that they are not exposed to too many unknown words at a time (e.g., Chin 2002;

Hulstijn 1992; Schmitt, 2008). On the other hand, other researchers (e.g., Qian, 1996; Webb, 2007; Nist & Olejnik, 1995) proposed that vocabulary is better learned through its definition in

(23)

isolation from or in addition to the context as can be found in dictionary or the teachers’

explanation. They proposed that the good quality definition of vocabulary is important because the various contexts in which the learners encounter the unknown words hardly lead the learners to get the exact meaning and the range of the usage of the words (Webb, 2007). Therefore, there has been a controversy over the more effective way of teaching vocabulary and contextualized versus decontextualized. By now, many studies were conducted concerning glossing and its critical role as an effective strategy for facilitating learners’ vocabulary knowledge and encouraging learners to self-study (e.g., Jacobs et al,. 1994; Kim & Gilman, 2008; Rott, 2005;

Yoshii, 2006).

Finally, keeping in mind the aforementioned points, the present study attempted to expand the current understanding of initial word learning and long-term word retention by exploring how it is affected by these three variables: contextualized, decontextualized, and glossing.

1.6. Significance and Justification of the Study

Regarding the implicit and explicit approaches to vocabulary teaching and learning, a question which has not been replied to date is whether the direct approach such as learning lexical items through word lists is superior to the incidental approaches such as guessing the meaning from the context or not. There are a number of studies addressing the same issue, but most of which have come up with mixed results. For decontextualized vocabulary teaching, learners learn words and meanings from word lists, flashcards, and dictionaries. Nielsen (2010) stated that decontextualized teaching technique should be employed with beginner learners’ to enhance vocabulary knowledge. Some evidence also showed that decontextualized teaching technique helps learners deal with words effectively in a limited time by using memorization

(24)

(Fitzpatrick, 2008; Takahashi, 2011; Unaldi & Bardakci, 2013). Therefore, some of these studies revealed the superiority of contextual learning over translation learning and vice versa.

In line with whatever mentioned earlier about vocabulary learning, Hulstijn (2003) asserted that it is widely believed in the applied field of language pedagogy that most vocabulary, in L1 as well as in L2, is acquired incidentally as the by-product of reading and listening activities not explicitly geared to vocabulary learning. In addition, it is widely believed that little vocabulary is acquired intentionally, through activities aimed at deliberately committing lexical information to memory and keeping that information readily accessible.

Keeping in mind the importance of incidental VLS, one way of incorporating incidental vocabulary learning is using marginal glossing. Glossing generally defined as a short definition of unfamiliar words provided in different parts of a text in order to assist reading comprehension and vocabulary learning(Nation, 2001). Many studies have reported the positive effect of glosses on incidental vocabulary learning (e.g., Jacobs et al., 1994; Kim & Gilman, 2008; Rott, 2005;

Yoshii, 2006).

To clear the path, the present study aimed to examine the advantages and disadvantages of decontextualized and contextualized vocabulary leaning along with glossing and their effects on the learners’ vocabulary recall.

1.7. Definition of Key Terms

In this section, the fundamental concepts involved in this study are clarified and defined.

1.7.1 Contextualized method. Contextualized method is a vocabulary teaching and learning method in which unfamiliar words are put in a context and the students are encouraged to guess the meanings (Strategies for Teaching Vocabulary, 2008). It is inferred that new target English vocabulary will be presented within sentences or even stories. Considering that the

(25)

students might spend most of the time in guessing words, teachers must be consistently guiding the students to keep finding out the meanings of unfamiliar words by guessing from their context (Strategies for Teaching Vocabulary, 2008). Contrasted with decontextualized method, the employment of dictionary is something to be limited during the implementation of the contextualized method. In addition, peer discussion on how the students apply strategies in finding out vocabulary meanings is also an essential thing. It aims at enriching the students’

knowledge to guess meanings through their peers’ learning experiences so that they can guess words even more effectively.

1.7.2. Decontextualized method. There are several vocabulary learning techniques which are considered as the decontextualized method, for instance, flashcards, synonym and antonym, and word list memorization (Hague, 1987). However, the current research employed the word list memorization activity as decontextualized method. decontextualized method is a vocabulary learning activity which requires the learners to memorize vocabulary in a form of word-for-word (Nation, 2001). Further, in this method, the existence of a dictionary is essential as learners are required to look for the meanings of the target word.

1.7.3. Glossing. As Nation (1990) suggested, glossing is “a method of providing the definition/explanation about an unknown word or concept while students are reading for comprehension” (p. 44).

Glossing refers to the summarized meaning of words in a text, usually presented as notes in the margin or between the lines of a text. It helps the reader to understand difficult or unfamiliar words in the text. It can be interpretations, explanations, or translations of words (Richards & Schmidt, 2010). In this study, glossing is operationalized as bringing the meaning of new words in L1 in the margin of the text.

(26)

1.8. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

Considering the nature of the educational research, the present study faced some limitations which may affect the results as well as the interpretation of the findings. On the other hand, delimitation was imposed by the researcher to narrow down the scope of the study.

The study had two limitations. First, the absence of some learners during the sessions of the treatment was not taken into account. Second, due to the small size of population (only 65 learners participated the project); therefore, any generalization should be made cautiously due to the small number of participants.

As delimitations of the study, the affective factors such as anxiety, learners’ attitude towards L2 leaning, etc. were ignored. Second, all participants of the study were male.

Therefore, gender may act as an intervening variable. Third, different levels of proficiency were not taken into account; only intermediate learners were selected as the participant. Finally, merely vocabulary acquisition was taken into account and other language skills (e.g., speaking and reading) were not considered.

(27)

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GLOSSING, CONTEXTUALIZED, AND DECONTEXTUALIZED INSTRUCTION

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

(28)

Chapter Two Literature Review 2.1. Introduction

This chapter is divided into three main sections followed by some sub-sections. The first section includes the decontextualized and contextualized vocabulary learning, intentional/explicit or decontextualized vocabulary learning, the semi-contextualizing techniques, and an exhaustive review of literature about contextualized learning, components of contextualization, and the underlying mechanisms in contextualization will be elaborated on. Having discussed the previews terms, in the second section, the glossing and L2 vocabulary learning will be presented.

In the third section, a brief look at vocabulary retention and the importance of vocabulary in language education will be discussed. Finally, the last sections will review the previous studies conducted on the same issues.

2.2. Intentional/Explicit or Decontextualized Vocabulary Learning

Intentional/explicit vocabulary learning is an approach to vocabulary instruction and learning where the lexical things of the target language are learned with an unequivocal center on form and meaning(De Ridder, 2002; Khezrlou& Ellis, 2017; Schmitt, 2008)by means of synonyms, antonyms, word substitution, multiple choice items, scrambled words, and crossword puzzles (Akubulut, 2007). In intentional/explicit vocabulary instruction, new words that FL/L2 learners have to be compelled to understand are first diagnosed then given to the learners for the primary time (Hunt & Burglar, 1998). Intentional/explicit vocabulary learning remains in contrary to incidental/implicit vocabulary learning, where FL/L2 learners are provided with adequate opportunities for extensive reading (Choi, 2016; Chun, Choi, & Kim, 2012; Hunt &

Beglar, 1998; Nation, 1999).Along these lines, they are allowed to figure out the significance of new words from the relevant hints (Ahmad, 2011). In incidental/implicit vocabulary learning, the

(29)

focal point of the learning action is not on learning words (Huckin & Coady, 1999); rather, it is

“on understanding the message of the oral or written exchange” (Akbulut, 2007, p. 501).

In other words, incidental vocabulary learning needs L2 learners to amass unknown target words accidentally as a results of participating them in different learning activities, like reading for pleasure or for gaining information (Choi, 2016; Huckin & Coady, 1999)or for language use, and focusing learners’ attention on the message to be conveyed rather than the linguistic structure (Wesche & Paribakht, 1999) whereas, intentional/explicit vocabulary learning is prompted once learners are pre-informed of a retention test after completing a reading task (Huckin & Coady, 1999; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), and the objective is to gain the structure and meaning of a word (De Ridder, 2003).The deliberate/explicit vocabulary learning, as well as incidental word acquisition, can each prompt to the mastery of word knowledge (Barcroft 2009;

File & Adams 2010; Nation, 2013); however, the findings of studies reveal that deliberate learning is a more beneficial method of vocabulary learning (Nation, 2011, p. 535) than incidental learning. Nation (2011) believed that explicit word learning is probably perfect “for learning the more salient aspects of word knowledge, particularly the form-meaning link” (p.

535). However, according to Schmitt (2008),sole dependency on deliberate/explicit and constraints on use that may be best learned through meeting items in context" (p. 42); thus, contextual aspects of word knowledge like collocations can be acquired incidentally/implicitly(Nation, 2011).In general, vocabulary learning results in developing techniques and approaches that pave the way for learners in gaining countless words and afterward helping them to hold learning may rarely "provide the knowledge of grammar, collocation, associations, reference, the words longer. As the present study investigated the effects of the VLSs, i.e.,decontextualized, contextualized, and glossing, on enhancing

(30)

L2learners’ vocabulary learning and fostering their short and long-term word storage, intentional/explicit vocabulary learning was stressed here as a vast vocabulary learning technique to learn new items through form-meaning relationship, and to help L2learners to recall and utilize the unknown words for a longer period of time. Furthermore, research has indicated that L2 vocabulary learning through extensive reading “often suffers from small gains, slow process, and requires repeated encounters” (Yoshii, 2014, p. 19); therefore, adding an intentional component such as glosses in a reading activity can encourage language learners to deliberately learn new words (Yoshii, 2014) and can promote greater efficiency to incidental vocabulary learning (Khezrlou & Ellis, 2017; Laufer, 2005; Schmitt, 2008).

Here, the three technique that seem to be the most decontextualizing i.e., word lists, flashcards, and conventional dictionary use, will be elaborated on in more details.

2.2.1. Word lists. One of the most prominent means of trying to increase students’

vocabulary knowledge is the use of word lists, a technique which does not necessarily involve any direct instruction by the teacher (Oxford & Crookell, 1990).In general, such lists are eliminated from any communicative context, that is, their relationship to the context in which the words will (one would hope) sooner or later be encountered is not directly proven (Deeba, 2018).

L2 word lists are sometimes presented alone, without any native language L1 equivalents. This kind of list can be named an unpaired list (Oxford & Crookell, 1990).

Also in agreement with the above statements, Nation (2001) believed that paired lists are easier to learn if the learners generates their own associations between the L2 and L1 equivalents (see the discussion of word association below), if the L2 and L1 words are obvious cognates, if the new L2 word is easily pronounceable and thus provides an acoustic hook for the learner, or if the L2 word provides a well-recognized part of speech (Oxford, 1990b).

(31)

Nevertheless\, many researchers believe that this technique is not very effective. For example, Piribabadi and Rahmany (2012) reasoned that earning vocabulary through word lists needs to be updated. Some claimed that students who learn vocabulary without contexture unable to remember it for a long time. Oxford and Crookall (1990) found that students who learn vocabulary items following the word list methods often overlook the words though they retain and seat for the vocabulary test later in classes.

2.2.2. Flashcards. Flashcard is seen as a vehicle to assist teacher in the process of teaching. Scrivener (2005) suggested that “flashcard is ELT jargon for pictures (diagrams, words, etc.) that you can show to students, typically something you can hold up when standing infront of the whole class” (p. 333). Teacher can employ flashcard in learning new vocabulary.

Komachali and Khodareza (2012) suggested that the first introduction of recent words can be used by glossary however later most students continue to utilize them to do a review. According to Grillo and Dieker (2013), flashcard can facilitate and support learners in learning process.

Flashcard can assist learners because picture and explanation in the cards have learners to remember new vocabulary items much easier. Grilloand Dieker (2013) stated that the learners may have an opportunity by the study stack cards to put key vocabulary items into their memory storage with support of a mnemonic device and practice.

The flashcard technique has at least three components including writing down (copying) the L2 word on the front of a card, writing the meaning of word in L1 on the back, and then using the card to become get familiar with the new word and its meaning. The flashcard thus represents unauthorized L2-L1 word list divided into units, every one containing one new word or expression in both L2 and L1 forms. The imitating component (considering that the flashcard

(32)

is created by the learners and not bought as part of a set) might provide a small amount of kinesthetic advantage to some learners (Oxford & Crookall, 1990).

According to Nugraheni (2018), flashcards are one of the most practical methods to use for studying and memorizing new vocabulary items. One can use flashcards to learn just about any information for any class, such as vocabulary, mathematical equations and formulas, terms and definitions or main ideas and subject matters.

Brown (2000 as cited in Komachali and Khodareza 2012) explained that one of the major advantages of flashcards is that they are easily taken almost anywhere and studied once one has a free moment. Flashcard is also able to students not bored in learning new vocabulary because pictures or words in flashcard are entertaining. As a leaning aid, another advantage of flashcard according to Inayah (2010) is that in learning new vocabulary, flashcards are useful and effective method to help students to faster their learning process. Flash cards are easy to hold anywhere, so, o, we have a tendency to don't got to carry significant books such a lot as a result of it's inconvenient. Aliponga and Johnston (2013) explained that playing with word card games where they have to generate a sentence with a randomly chosen word from their collection, allow the students to do extensive reading with graded readers at their level to allow them to encounter some of their high frequency words they are studying.

2.2.3. Dictionary use. Conventional "dictionary lookup" is another typically decontextualized technique. The theory underlying this technique is that the concept that a reference work containing the meanings of recent words assists the learner. World Health Organization would otherwise does not suggest that of knowing what those words meant, which the physical action of wanting up the word somehow helps learners keep in mind the meanings

(33)

The studies showed that some learners try to memorize the entire L2 dictionary, one page at a time. This explicit use of the dictionary is analogous to memorizing infinitely long, decontextualized word lists. It is notably doomed to failures, except perhaps for those few learners with so-called photographic memories (Oxford & Crookall, 1990).

Consulting a dictionary while reading is a kind of dictionary use which some teachers feel promotes vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. Many students look up every single word which they do not know and thus fail to use their existing ability to make inferences based on contextual clues. Swaffar (1988) cited several researches indicating that access to dictionaries or glosses hinder the performance in reading (Swaffar, 1988). Relying on a dictionary as the primary mean to extent vocabulary does not work because good readers do not consider the definition of individual words as they read (Hague, 1987). In other words, mere definitional knowledge is not used in the process of comprehending a text (Stahl, 1983).

Bilingual (Ll-L2) dictionaries are usually employed by beginning and intermediate language learners. Prolonged dependence on bilingual dictionaries results in development of proficiency in the new language (Baxter, 1980), maybe by maintaining the conscious connection between the L1 and the L2 and thus inhibiting the students from thinking in the L2. Moreover, such dictionaries do not distinguish among shades of meaning in a way that would advance learners' comprehension.

The alternative to the bilingual dictionary is the monolingual (L2-L2) dictionary.

Monolingual dictionaries are usually designed for linguistic communication users; however, they are sometimes too tough for beginning and intermediate L2 learners. Nevertheless, recent advances in authorship have resulted in new varieties of monolingual dictionaries designed specifically for lower-level L2 learners as well. For instance, a number of the newer non-native

(34)

English learners' monolingual dictionaries provide careful explanations for syntax, pronunciation, and usage constrains caused by culture or vogue. Such dictionaries present definitions written during a simplified and controlled vocabulary, similarly as specific samples of some words in context (Carter, 1987). As described earlier, despite the fact that most dictionaries lack context and are less useful for remembering vocabulary, these new dictionaries provide a greater degree of contextual clues and could be more beneficial to learners of all levels.

2.3. Semi-Contextualized Techniques

There are a number of semi-contextualized techniques to learn vocabulary such as words grouping, word or concept association, visual imagery, aural imagery, keyword, physical response, physical sensation, and semantic mapping. Some of the context comes from associations with alternative words or word-sounds (e.g., in word grouping, word or thought association, and to a degree in aural imagery), whereas in alternative instances the context is additional extra-linguistic (e.g., in visual imagery, physical response, and physical sensation).

2.3.1. Word grouping. This technique involves dividing an extended glossary into new, shorter lists by categorizing or re-categorizing the target language words according to one or more important attributes. Accordingly, some extent of context is formed. Word grouping establishes new sets of words that connect as a result of some common theme or characteristic, not like the commonly unorganized, decontextualizing word lists discussed earlier. The reason behind this is that grouping makes vocabulary learning easier by reducing the number of distinct components and, in optimal situations, connecting new target language material with concepts that the learners already know in their native languages.

Groupings done based on type of word (e.g., nouns, adjectives, etc.), grammatical form (e.g., irregular verbs of a certain kind), topic (e.g., words regarding weather), practical function

(35)

(e.g., terms for things that build a automotive work), language perform (e.g., apology, request, demand), similarity (e.g., warm, hot, tepid, tropical), difference or opposition (e.g., friendly /unfriendly), the manner one feels regarding one thing (e.g., like, dislike), and so on. Language textbooks sometimes put new vocabulary into thematic groups and word grouping is usually by teachers in the language classroom context.

Crow's linguistics fields approach involves grouping words according to their semantic relationships and emphasizes general instead of specific meanings. as an example, students are rewarded for knowing that ugly and indecent convey similar meanings, even if they will not apprehend that one in every of these best describes personal look, weather, or disposition (Swaffar, 1988).

A technique called semantic features analysis, semantic grids, or componential analysis (Hague, 1987) is known as a special kind of word grouping. This technique requires learners to list across the top of a grid, i.e., a set of words, such as man, woman, child, dog, landscape, house, furniture, dress, present, voice, etc., and then get the learners to list a set of features, e.g., nice, attractive, splendid, sweaty, at the down side of the grid. Inside the grid, learners rate each word (with a + or a -) according to the presence or absence of each attribute, thus creating a matrix of ratings and in effect forming groups of words for each attribute. Such grids, while potentially very beneficial for upper intermediate and advanced learners who have already gotten a considerable knowledge of vocabulary, have been criticized as suggesting a static, prescriptive model for teachers and learners as not being particularly natural and as difficult because learners could not have encountered the vocabulary items in sufficiently varied contexts to be able to rate semantic features appropriately (Porter & Williams, 1983). Despite such potential disadvantage, semantic grids could be very beneficial.

(36)

The importance of word grouping is usually increased by labeling the groups, as in weather words, girl's clothing items, Russian verbs of motion, and helpful vocabulary for going to the store (Oxford, 1990b). Mechanical aids can also be employed, such as grouping specific kinds of words in one section of a language learning notebook. A number of games good for word grouping are found in Maley and Duff (1982), as well as in the many other compilations of games for language learning (Crookall, 1990) grouping ideas.

2.3.2. Word or concept association. Word or concept association tasks, also called

"elaboration", entail making associations between the new word or concept and the words or concepts which already exist in the learner's mind (Oxford & Crookall, 1990). It is believed that as long as these associations are purposeful to the learner, they will strengthen the learner's existing schemata and at a similar time make the new word more accessible (Oxford & Crookall, 1990).

The associations are often simple or complex, ordinary or strange, as long as they are salient to the learner. The learner of English probably associates bread with butter using semantic, auditory, and possibly visual associations. Likewise, the learner of German may notice it useful to associate English words wise and shaft with the new word to be remembered, Wissenschaft (knowledge). Associations can also be seen within the type of a multipart development, moving from one concept to another, such as school-book-paper-tree-country-earth (Wright, 1987).

Word association involves in making a connection among items listed in a finite group of new words, thus providing the basis for subdividing and rearranging the group based on certain associative attributes, such as part-whole. Alternatively, word association will reflect a lot of divergent thinking, during which the learner creates new associations between a brand new word,