ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY
AT CENTRAL TEHRAN
GRADUATE SCHOOL
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign
Language (TEFL)
The Comparative Effect of Integrated, Isolated,
and Intentional with Synonym Generation
Vocabulary Instruction on EFL Learners’
Writing
Advisor:
Kourosh Akef, Ph.D.
Reader:
Nacim Shangarffam, Ph.D.
By:
Ashraf Joze Vaziri
Spring 2013
In The Name of the Supreme Being
To my dear Mom & Dad
And
Siblings
Acknowledgements
The process I went through for composing this thesis helped me achieve many things I
had always dreamed of. I thank God for supporting me all the time.
I would like to express my gratitude to a number of individuals without whose
support I could have never accomplished my research. First and foremost, I really want
to express my heartfelt appreciation to my advisor Dr. Kourosh Akef whose
knowledge, kindness, and unconditional support had paved the way to the completion
of this thesis.
My sincere thanks also goes to my reader, Dr. Nacim Shangarffam, who
kindly read my thesis word for word and unceasingly gave me her wise and
invaluable comments.
My warm thanks to Dr. Mania Nosratinia who took the trouble to read and
review this research as the external reader.
I am beholden to Najm institute for giving me the chance to carry out my
research. I thank my colleagues, Mrs. Soleymanian and Mrs. Dehghani, who assisted
me in rating the papers of the participants and also all the students who really
cooperated in conducting this research.
Last but never least, I wish to appreciate my dear mother, my father, my
siblings and my friends for their love, care, faith, encouragement and spiritual
support not just during this study but in every phase of my life.
IV
Abstract
This study was an attempt to investigate the effect of Isolated, Integrated and Intentional
with Synonym Generation vocabulary instruction on writing skill among Intermediate
EFL learners. For this purpose, 77 male and female learners within the age range of 1522 were chosen from a total number of 100 intermediate learners studying at Najm
institute through administering a piloted Preliminary English Test (PET). The 77
learners were then divided into three experimental groups and each of the groups was
taught vocabulary through one of the three procedures of Integrated, Isolated, and
Synonym Generation vocabulary instruction. At the end of the study, the participants in
all groups were given a writing test. One-way ANOVA on the posttest led to the
rejection of the null hypothesis, thereby demonstrating that the learners in the Integrated
and Synonym Generation groups benefited significantly more than those in the Isolated
group in terms of improving their writing ability.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title page
I
Acknowledgements
IV
Abstract
V
Table of contents
VI
List of Tables
IX
List of Figures
X
CHAPTER I: Background and Purpose
1
1.1 Introduction
1
1.2 Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study
4
1.3 Statement of the Research Question
5
1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis
5
1.5 Definition of Key Terms
6
1.5.1 Integrated vocabulary instruction
6
1.5.2 Intentional vocabulary learning with synonym generation
6
1.5.3 Isolated vocabulary instruction
6
1.5.4 Writing
7
1.6 Significance of the Study
7
1.7 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
8
CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature
11
2.1 Introduction
11
2.2 What is vocabulary?
11
2.3 The importance of vocabulary
12
2.4 Vocabulary learning and different techniques
15
2.4.1 Incidental vocabulary learning
15
2.4.2 Dictionaries and vocabulary learning
15
2.4.3 Note-taking and vocabulary learning
16
2.4.4 Rote Rehearsal and vocabulary learning
16
2.4.5 Mnemonics: Focusing on memory
17
VI
2.4.6 Word-formation: Focusing on form
18
2.4.7 Semantic networks: Focusing on meaning
19
2.4.8 Person-dependent vocabulary learning strategies
19
2.5 Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary
20
2.5.1 Inferring from context
20
2.5.2 Explicit teaching
21
2.5.3 Integrate new words with the old
21
2.5.4 Promote a deep level of processing
22
2.6 L2 vocabulary Instruction
22
2.6.1 Incidental and intentional vocabulary learning
24
2.6.2 Integrated and isolated vocabulary instruction
27
2.7 The results of previous researches
29
2.8 Writing
32
2.9 Writing skill: An overview
33
2.9.1 Defining and Tackling the problems of teaching and learning writing
34
2.9.2 Goals and significance of writing
36
2.10 Conclusion
39
CHAPTER III. Methodology
40
3.1 Introduction
40
3.2 Participants
40
3.3 Instrumentation
41
3.3.1 Proficiency Test Used for Homogenization
41
3.3.2 Writing post-test
42
3.3.3 Materials
42
3.3.4 Rating Scale
43
3.4 Procedure
44
3.4.1 Isolated FFI Treatment
46
3.4.2 Integrated FFI Treatment
47
3.4.3 Intentional with Synonym Generation Treatment
47
3.5 Design
48
3.6 Statistical Analysis
48
VII
CHAPTER IV: Results and Discussion
50
4.1 Introduction
50
4.2 Participant Selection
50
4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics of PET Piloting
51
4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics of PET Administration
52
4.2.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Writing Scores of the three groups on PET
Administration
54
4.2.4 Dividing the participants into three groups
56
4.3 Posttest
58
4.4 Testing the hypothesis
60
4.5 Post HocTests
61
4.6 Discussion
63
CHAPTER V: Conclusion, Implications, and Suggestions
65
5.1 Introduction
65
5.2 Restatement of the problem
65
5.3 Pedagogical Implications
67
5.3.1 Implications for EFL Teachers and EFL Learners
68
5.3.2 Implications for EFL Syllabus Designers
69
5.4 Suggestions for further research
70
REFRENCES
71
Appendix A: PET
82
Appendix B: Sample vocabulary tasks
95
Appendix C: Posttest
103
Appendix D: Writing Rating Scale
104
VIII
List of Tables
Page
Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Piloting
51
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Administration
52
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the scores of the selected 77 students on the PET
53
Table 4.4 Frequencies of the scores of the selected 77 students on the PET
53
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the scores given by the three raters on the PET
writing section
54
Table 4.6 Correlation among pre-test rater 1, rater 2 and rater 3
55
Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics of the writing scores of the participants
56
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of three experimental groups’ writing scores
57
Table 4.9 Tests of Homogeneity of Variances
58
Table 4.10 One-Way ANOVA of the mean scores of the three groups in writing test
prior to the treatment
58
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of the scores given by the three raters to the posttest
59
Table 4.12 Correlations among post-test rater1, rater 2 and rater 3
59
Table 4.13 Descriptive Statistics of three experimental groups
60
Table 4.14 Test of Homogeneity of Variances
60
Table 4.15 One-Way ANOVA of the mean scores of the three groups in their post-test
writing
61
Table 4.16 Multiple Comparison subsets of the post-test total
62
Table 4.17 Homogenous subsets of the post-test total
62
IX
List of Figures
Page
Figure 4.1 Histogram of the scores obtained on the PET piloting
51
Figure 4.2 Histogram of the scores obtained on the PET Administration
52
Figure 4.3 Histogram of the scores of the 77 students on the PET
54
Figure 4.4 Histogram of the writing scores (pre-test total) of three groups
56
Graph 4.1 Means of the pre-test total scores of three groups
57
Graph 4.2 Means of the Post-test Total scores of the three groups
63
X
CHAPTER I
Background and Purpose
1.1 Introduction
Human beings without using vocabulary cannot convey meaning and communicate with
each other in a particular language. Vocabulary learning is at the heart of language
learning and language use (Laufer, 1997) and also it is related to knowledge and
language acquisition (Blachowicz, Fisher & Watts-Taffe, 2005).
It is crystal clear that if students find ways to establish bonds between components
of language, they become more motivated to learn and they take steps toward the notion
of language as a whole. Blachowicz, Fisher and Watts-Taffe (2005) stated “In the areas
of reading and language arts, vocabulary instruction is critical to the improvement of
comprehension and written expression” (p. 2).
Experienced teachers of foreign or second language are well informed about the
importance of vocabulary and good strategies (Allen, 1983). So they try to plan and find
appropriate instruction to help English language learners to master vocabularies better.
Brand (2004) indicated “Vocabulary instruction is a way to develop students’ speaking,
reading and writing lexicons. Having students with high and rich vocabulary knowledge
is not the goal; the goal is: develop strategies for this to development” (p. 99).
Different teachers may choose various instructions to teach vocabulary. Norris
and Ortega, 2000 (as cited in Andrew File & Adams, 2010), proposed that form-focused
instructions are beneficial and helpful for language learning. From Spada’s (1997) point
of view, “form-focused instruction (hereafter referred to as FFI) will mean any
pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners' attention to language form either
implicitly or explicitly” (p. 73). One of the form-focused instructions is integrated
1
instruction. According to Spada and Lightbown (2008), integrated refers to the
instruction that is provided within the context of communicative activities. Ellis (2001)
stated that the focus of integrated approach is on linguistic form (in this case vocabulary
items) takes place in the communicating meaning.
In contrast to integrated form-focused instruction, Spada and Lightbown (2008)
also discussed about isolated instruction. In isolated form-focused instruction such as
content based instruction and communicative language teaching, attention to form in
instructional segments separated from communicative language practices. According to
Andrew File and Adams (2010), in an isolated approach, learners just focus on the
features of a particular vocabulary items in isolation, whereas, in an integrated approach
their main focus is directed at understanding the meaning in the text.
In addition to integrated and isolated FFI explained before, Barcroft (2009) stated,
intentional vocabulary learning refers to learning new vocabularies while aimed to do
so, namely when a learner studies a list of second/foreign language vocabularies or
doing activities of workbook. Schenelling (1987) also indicated that in order to achieve
high level of recall; spelling corrections, synonym generation and relevance feedback
are valuable. Moreover, Presley, Levin, and Michener, 1982 (as cited in Barcroft, 2009)
stated that one strategy that can be used in intentional vocabulary leaning is synonym
generation, a semantically oriented task. To produce synonym; one must activate
semantic properties of a word.
Different researchers or various experienced teachers may have several ideas
about each of these vocabulary instructions and they may find some or one of them as a
useful and appropriate way to take into consideration. Mathison and Freeman (1998; as
cited in Allington, Johnston, & Day, 2002) reported some advantages of integrated
instruction, to name some, one can say that, it increases understanding, overall
2
comprehension and retention. However, Laufer (2005) and Paribakht and Wesche
(1997) stated that isolated FFI is better than the integrated one.
Furthermore, Ciftci and Uster (2009) concluded that teaching vocabulary in
context concerning both use and function of words is much more helpful compare to
sticking just to dictionary meaning. Besides, Day (1991) and Rot (1999) by comparing
intentional and incidental learning came to conclusion that although incidental
vocabulary learning does occur, intentional gains more retention (as cited in Hoshino,
2010).
Writing involves a number of different abilities, some of which are never fully
achieved by many students even in their native language. L2 writers have to pay
attention to the higher level skills of planning and organizing, as well as to the lower
level skills of spelling, punctuation, word choice, and so on. The difficulty becomes
even more profound if their language proficiency is weak (Richards & Renandya,
2002).
From different researchers’ point of view like: Astika (1993), Engber (1995),
Raimes (1985), and Santos (1988) effective use of vocabulary is one of the most
important factors in composition quality (as cited in Lee & Muncie, 2006). Fulwiler
(2003) stated that individuals’ knowledge, personal discipline, creativity and too many
other factors are judged through their writings.
According to Lee and Muncie (2006) it is necessary for writing teachers to
encourage students’ vocabulary production, especially in the early stages of composition
writing instruction.
As, building vocabulary and using their developing vocabulary is an ongoing
process (Brand, 2004) and many vocabulary learning may be neither incidental nor
3
intentional (Barcroft, 2009) distinguishing the best or better to say an appropriate
instruction is not easy.
1.2 Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study
Vocabulary is the basis of language; so teachers or even material developers can never
undervalued its importance in learning a target or foreign language (Hoshino, 2010). So,
vocabulary teaching or learning has one of the mind-boggling issues among language
teaching experts and students. According to Langer (2001), one of the issues that
affected the students’ experiences with English language; are various approaches to skill
instruction.
According to Boyle (1984), Chang (2005), Chang and Read (2006), lack of
vocabulary knowledge seems to cause the most worry to EFL learners. Since one of the
Iranian EFL students’ problems is vocabulary knowledge, it’s a matter of serious
concern among educated people. And their quest for finding suitable remedies is getting
more intense. According to Laufer (2005) vocabulary learning has been mistreated by
the focus-on-form researchers. In conclusion, focusing on various kinds of focus-onform instructions may enrich vocabulary teaching (Ellis, 2001).
According to Lee and Muncie (2006), there has been no research about the
relationship between learners’ vocabulary encountered in reading and its use in writing
that may affect learners’ language proficiency. In addition, Read (2000) stated that
despite the recent growth of interest in the acquisition of lexical phrases, no one has
investigated the effects of explicit instruction on learners’ productive use of these items
(as cited in Lee & Muncie 2006).
Bowen, Madsen and Hilferty (1985) maintained that writing is the most
demanding skills. It needs more efforts than speaking, while at the same time rule4
bound and error-prone. Lack of appropriate and useful vocabularies, make foreign
language writing most difficult (Leki & Carson, 1994; Uzawa & Cumming, 1989).
Regarding the above-mentioned issues, different researchers or even different
experienced teachers may have various beliefs about this fact that which instruction is
better. But, the researcher of this study aimed to compare three: isolated, integrated and
synonym generation vocabulary instructions in three similar contexts in order to explore
which one can be better. She also investigated all three experimental groups’ effects on
writing proficiency and examined which of them was more helpful and useful for
writing skill.
In line with what has been discussed so far, the goal of this study was to
investigate the effect of isolated, integrated and synonym generation vocabulary
instructions on EFL learners’ writing.
1.3 Statement of the Research Question
To tackle the problem of this research, the researcher intended to provide answer to the
following question:
Q1. Is there any significant difference among the effect of integrated, isolated and
intentional with synonym generation vocabulary instruction on EFL learners’ writing?
1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis
In order to investigate the above mentioned research question, the following research
hypothesis was formulated:
H0: There is no significant difference among the effect of integrated, isolated and
intentional with synonym generation vocabulary instruction on EFL learners’ writing.
5
1.5 Definition of Key Terms
To avoid any ambiguity over the specific meaning of the independent and dependent
variables of this study, they are defined below.
1.5.1 Integrated vocabulary instruction
In an integrated approach, focus on linguistic form (in this case vocabulary items),
whether planned or incidental, occurs in the context of communicating meaning (Long
& Robinson, 1998; Ellis, 2001). Spada and Lightbown (2008) stated “in a reading
lesson, this kind of focus on form would occur while students were engaged in reading
a second language text (in other words, while their primary focus was directed at
understanding the meaning in the text)” (As cited in Andrew File & Adams, 2010; p.
222).
1.5.2 Intentional vocabulary learning with synonym generation
“Intentional instruction of vocabulary skills for students includes teaching students to
use dictionaries and reference sources, context clues, synonyms, antonyms,
homophones, homographs and figurative language” (Harris Williams, 2008; p. 17).
1.5.3 Isolated vocabulary instruction
Spada and Lightbown, 2008 declared: “In isolated FFI, attention is given to form in
instructional segments that are separate from communicative language practice but are
still carried out in courses that are primarily meaning focused, for example, contentbased instruction and communicative language teaching” (As cited in Andrew File &
Adams, 2010; p. 222).
6
1.5.4 Writing
“Writing ability involves activities of setting goals, generating ideas, organizing
information, selecting appropriate language, making a draft, reading and reviewing it,
then revising and editing” (Hedge, 2000, p. 302). In this study, learners’ writing ability
was operationally defined by the scores the candidates obtained through taking
Preliminary English Test (PET) writing section which was scored based on Fluency,
Central idea, Relevance, Organization, Grammar, Vocabulary, Coherence and
Mechanics. The writing test and its pertinent rating scale are described in the third
chapter and presented in Appendix A and D.
1.6 Significance of the Study
Vocabulary knowledge is known to play a key role in the individuals’ proficiency in
both first and second language and effective learning of new English vocabularies
seems to be one of the major aims to be gained by all learners. McCarthy (1990) with
regards to the vocabulary in EFL language courses pointed out: “It is the experience of
most language teachers that the single biggest component of any language course is
vocabulary. No matter how successfully the sounds of L2 are mastered, without words to
express a wide range of meaning, communication in L2 cannot happen in any
meaningful way.” (p. 4). According to Wallace (1982), “not being able to find the word
you need to express yourself is the most frustrating experience in speaking another
language” (p. 9). Laufer (1986) stated: “No language acquisition, whether first, second
or foreign, child or adult can take place without the acquisition of lexis…grammatical
rules in themselves, unless they relate particular sounds to particular meanings, are only
abstractions with insufficient communication value” (p. 69).
7
Although some studies have indicated that an integrated instruction during a
reading lesson improve vocabulary learning, some others stated that isolated vocabulary
instruction have also unearthed positive results (Andrew File & Adams, 2010). In
addition, very few of mentioned researches on vocabulary instruction were based on
research in a classroom setting, and therefore their results are not applicable to
classroom situation (Higa, 1963; Tinkham, 1993; and Wring, 1997; as cited in Hoshino,
2010).
Similarly, Grabe and Kaplan (1996) also believed that the need for writing in
today’s society is much more extensive than is generally conveyed. Raimes (1983) also
believed that writing help students to learn.
Since vocabulary knowledge is known to be an important factor of general
English and correlated with both writing and reading comprehension (Anderson &
Freebody, 1981; Coady, 1997; as cited in Lee & Muncie, 2006), researchers are paying
more attention to the needs of vocabulary instructions.
If this study manages to show an effective vocabulary instruction, both teachers
and English language learners may get some steps closer to finding of a remedy for poor
vocabulary knowledge of EFL learners. It may also provide empirical evidence for
choosing the appropriate vocabulary instruction regarding the nature and need of Iranian
EFL learners. It can also contribute to the field of material design to consider the
appropriate activities when preparing textbooks for vocabulary.
1.7 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
Limitations:
To conduct this study, the researcher faced different limitations which have to be taken
into consideration while attempting to generalize its findings, including:
8
1. The number of male and female intermediate students in the language school in
which the researcher conducted the study was not equal in the experimental groups and
gender was an intervening variable in this research.
2. The test for homogenizing the participants at the outset was conducted in two
different sessions as the language school in which the researcher conducted the
research could not accommodate over 70 testees in one setting. Although the
researcher tried as much as she could to control the external factors affecting the two
settings, there may have been effects out of her knowledge which could have impacted
the two settings differently and thus influencing the results of this test administration.
3. Due to the limited number of intermediate students, they could not be selected
randomly.
4. Since the course book of the institute in which the research conducted was:
“Top Notch 3B”, the researcher used just the vocabularies of the mentioned book and
she was not allowed to use extra sources.
Delimitations:
The researcher set the following delimitations to narrow down the focus of study and
make the findings of her study more generalizable:
1. The researcher deliberately selected intermediate level participants for this
study, because elementary students could not be able to participate effectively in the
process of writing due to their limited language competence and advanced learners
might not have been very much impacted by the vocabulary instructions on which the
researcher focused during the course.
2. In order to practice vocabularies, the researcher asked participants to write one
or two paragraphs about the topic of the lesson at the end of each session in class not at
9
home; with the aim of controlling other factors that may affect their proficiency to use
new vocabularies in their writings.
10