International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org SEMANTIC VERSUS THEMATIC LEXICAL TEACHING
METHODS AND VOCABULARY ACQUISITION OF IRANIAN
EFL LEARNERS
Shima Rostam Shirazi
Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
E-Mail: [email protected]
Mohammad Reza Talebinezhad
Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza, Iran
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sajad Shafiee (Corresponding author)
Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of three various types of clustering (i.e.,
semantic, thematic, and haphazard clustering) in the vocabulary acquisition and recall of
English as a foreign language (EFL) students as well as the putative role of gender in this
regard. To achieve these aims, 50 Iranian native speakers of Persian, including 25 males and 25
females, whose linguistic homogeneity had been confirmed through the Oxford Placement Test
were selected as the participants of this study. To make sure that the participants had no prior
knowledge of the targeted words, the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht & Wesche, 1993)
was also administrated. Three separate lists of vocabulary based on their clustering type were
then prepared and employed each of which included eight new English words along with their
Persian equivalents. These lists were given to the participants in three steps separately. In each
step, the participants were required to read the new words along with their Persian equivalents
for a specific amount of time and then be immediately tested on them. Each correctly guessed
answer received one point. The obtained data were then subjected to an analysis of variance and
an independent samples t-test to see if the observed differences were meaningful. A Post hoc
Scheffe test was later run to shed more light on these differences. The results demonstrated a
statistically significant difference in the immediate posttest in favor of thematic clustering over
haphazard and semantic clustering. That is, the performance of participants (both males and
females) was improved when vocabulary was presented in thematic cluster. The present study
could have implications for language teachers, materials developers, and educators in general:
thematic clustering of lexical items ought to be prioritized over semantic or haphazard clustering
of the vocabulary items chosen to be taught to L2 learners.
KEYWORDS: Thematic clustering, Semantic clustering, Haphazard clustering, Vocabulary
acquisition
1
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org INTRODUCTION
Learning vocabulary, as the most unmanageable component in the process of language learning
and particularly in the process of second language learning, is really a demanding task which
according to Montrul (2001) “involves much more than learning sound-meaning pairings; it also
involves learning how lexical information is morphologically expressed and syntactically
constrained” (p. 145). Therefore, language learners should experience various tasks such as
extensive reading as well as explicit instruction (Schmitt, 2008) in order to enhance their
vocabulary knowledge. Through explicit instruction, teachers provide students with lists of words
or pictures that are most related to particular situations or topics. Introducing words in groups is
among the strategies or techniques used by teachers for direct vocabulary instruction and it seems
to enhance vocabulary learning. In this method, which is called clustering, words are grouped in
various ways. Words within a cluster share a common super-ordinate concept and can be
grouped or related to each other semantically or thematically.
Most English textbooks in use in the context of Iran introduce lexical items in semantic clusters
and curriculum writers attempt to select, for each lesson, a set of semantically clustered words
that fit specific situations and tasks or that express different notions. It seems that curriculum
writers along with EFL program designers assume that this way of organizing and presenting new
vocabulary items will benefit learners as it will help them to build semantic networks and
relationships and consequently will facilitate and accelerate learning including both acquisition
and recall. Whether words can be learned better, stored deeper, and remembered easier when
presented semantically, thematically, or even unrelated is the concern of many researchers and
remain still controversial.
The present study was an attempt to compare the effects of two different methods of teaching
vocabulary items including semantically-related or thematically-related vocabulary presentation
on lexical acquisition and recall of Iranian EFL learners to find out which one facilitates
vocabulary learning more. Additionally, this study investigated to what extent short-term
memory and long-term memory can reserve the words of different sets. Since gender appears to
have an effect on the retention and recall of the learned words, the study also aimed to investigate
its role in this regard, that is, to see whether these ways of presenting lexical items have a
statistically significant relationship with gender’s retention of vocabulary items.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Vocabulary learning has a key role in second language acquisition (SLA). It is quite necessary for
second language (SL) learners to acquire at least hundreds of words in order to be able to
communicate in the target language at the most basic level. Second language learners should be
able to communicate more effectively and comprehend a broader range of input from the target
language through learning a good range of new vocabulary. Bogaards (2001) reminds that for
many learners, language learning is the same as knowing a large number of words by heart. So it
should not be denied that words constitute a major part of a language. With this in mind, it is
necessary to help learners to effectively store and retrieve words in the target language (Sokmen,
1997), and this compels the use of effective pedagogical methods in teaching vocabulary.
2
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Semantic clustering as a vocabulary learning strategy
Semantic field theory is based on the assumption that vocabulary is cognitively organized by
interrelationships and networks between words. In a sense that the mind classifies vocabulary by
making connections in meaning; these connections in meaning are called semantic fields
(Channell, 1981). He interprets this to mean that words that are close in meaning are literally
located closer to each other in the mental lexicon. Based on this theory since vocabulary is
organized in the mind into groups of words that are linked in meaning, it should be presented to
students in groups of semantically related words to facilitate learning (Channell, 1981). Jullian’s
(2000) article supports this notion as an effective method of classroom presentation for second
learners. Semantic categories are linguistically based and thematic clusters are cognitively based.
Although these two types of clusters will not be mutually exclusive, the slight different between
them is still apparent. Variable word class can be considered as one other defining characteristic
of a thematic cluster.
Tinkham (1994) claims that authors and planners of ESL programs who are following a more
learner-centered approach select vocabulary items based on the communicative needs of the
learners, and then organize their programs into units to reflect situations in which students have
to use English. In this approach, the vocabulary items needed to express notions, functions and to
fit tasks tend to be presented as they are in the structure-centered approach that is they are
grouped into semantic clusters.
Channell (1981) suggests using semantic field theory (Lehrer, 1974) and componential analysis
(Nida, 1975) in order to facilitate vocabulary acquisition. Semantic field theory describes the
vocabulary of language as existing in interrelating networks and relationships that is semantic
fields as opposed to long lists of random words. She suggests that since the mind seems to
categorize vocabulary based on semantic similarity, categorizing vocabulary into semantic fields
will help the learner acquire it more easily. While semantic clusters fall into categories like nouns
and verbs, thematic clusters contain a mixture of verbs, adjectives, adverbs and nouns.
Thematic clustering as a vocabulary learning strategy
Based on psychological union, thematic clustering is intended to make an association between a
set of related words and a shared thematic concept. Both the interference theory and the
distinctiveness hypothesis fail to predict the impact of thematic clustering. Despite the fact that
researchers are interested in similar words in a number of studies in relation to interference, there
are some conflicting issues. For example, a cluster of words like frog, green, swim, and slipper
has not been their interest when they probe for evidence for interference. On the other hand,
clusters of words like car, raceway, team, champion, and drive which are not similar have not
attracted the researchers, favoring the distinctiveness hypothesis.
Al-Jabri (2005) expressed that "lexical semanticists, when investigating the way speakers
organize words in their mental lexicons, propose that speakers subconsciously organize words in
frames or schemas with reference to the speaker’s background knowledge rather than in semantic
fields" (p.48). On the basis of associative strength, clustering of this kind are cognitively rather
than linguistically derived, and therefore would seem fit most easily into learning centered
3
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org second language acquisition programs which are most interested in learning process than with
linguistic analysis. Within frame semantics as labeled by Fillmore (1985), “speakers can be said
to know the meaning of the word only by first understanding the background frames that
motivate the concept that the word encodes. Within such an approach, words or word senses are
not related to each other directly, word to word, but only by way of their links to common
background frames and indications of the manner in which their meanings highlight particular
elements of such frames” (cited in Fillmore & Atkins, 1992, p. 77).
According to Brewer and Nakamura (1984), schema theory explains how old information
possessed by the learner influences the learning of new information. It aims to explain the way
different types of knowledge are learned and people’s interpretation of the world from a
psychological. This theory is among the most intellectually exciting areas in cognitive
psychology. Brewer and Nakamura (1984) remark that the idea that schemas are unconscious was
rejected by psychologists and philosophers who claim that psychology data are restricted only to
conscious rather than unconscious phenomena. Behaviorists also rejected the same idea. They
claim that the data of psychology are restricted to observations of overt behaviors. But after much
discussion, the idea has now been universally accepted.
Generally speaking, schemas help us by organizing our knowledge, assisting with recall, and
guiding our behavior. They help us make sense of current experiences and interpret situations.
Much research has been done studying the schema theory to show that information which is
schema-related is recalled better than schema-unrelated information.
Since there are still contradicting conclusions with regards to the best type of clustering, the
current study was set up as an attempt to uncover the superiority of three different clustering
techniques (i.e. semantic, thematic, and haphazard), and to examine the role of gender in this
regard.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study, hence, was set up to answer the following research questions:
1. Does semantic clustering of vocabulary items affect lexical acquisition and recall of
Iranian EFL learners?
2. Does thematic clustering of vocabulary items affect lexical acquisition and recall of
Iranian EFL learners?
3. Is there any difference between semantic and thematic clustering of English vocabulary in
their effectiveness on lexical acquisition and recall of Iranian EFL learners?
4. Is there any difference between males and females with respect to the type of vocabulary
clustering?
METHODOLOGY
The present study was conducted as an experimental and quantitative hypothesis testing study to
investigate the effectiveness of thematic versus semantic clustering of L2 vocabulary on lexical
4
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org acquisition and recall of Iranian EFL learners. Additionally, this study investigated to what extent
males and females behaved differently regarding understanding and retrieving of semanticallyoriented or thematically-oriented vocabulary items. That is, it compared the performance of male
and female language learners in terms of these different ways of clustering of words.
Participants
The participants of this experiment were 50 native speakers of Persian, including 25 males and 25
females, aged 18 to 30. Based on the central limit theorem (CLT), contemplating this number of
participants led into obtaining normal distribution; therefore, it was possible to conduct different
types of parametric tests with 25 participants in each group. The participants were selected from
among the students who were studying English as a foreign language at Jahad Daneshgahi
English Language Center based on the results of the Oxford Placement Test (OPT). The OPT
(2007) was employed as a homogenizing tool for the sake of the linguistic homogeneity of the
participants.
Materials and instrumentation
Since the aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of three types of vocabulary
clustering techniques in vocabulary acquisition and recall of EFL learners, three lists of words as
the materials of the study were prepared each of which represented a particular clustering. The
selected words for the first list were semantically related and included eight coordinate English
words under the headword ‘occupations’ and shared a common semantic relationship. Given the
nature of semantic classes, the words in the semantic set shared the same word class, with all
eight terms being noun. They were also accompanied by the Persian equivalents.
The second list contained eight semantically unrelated words in English accompanied by the
Persian equivalents. The word class of these words was not held constant. The third list was
arranged based on eight English words related thematically and accompanied by their Persian
equivalents. These words were categorized under the theme of marriage-related terms and
included words of various syntactic classes.
The study also adopted three instruments for data collection. The first one was the Oxford
Placement Test (2007) to check the homogeneity of the participants in terms of their language
proficiency. The widely used placement test, the reliability of which has been reported in a
colossal number of studies, contained 50 items in multiple choice formats assessing students’
knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension. It also included an optimal
writing task estimating students’ ability regarding productive skills. The whole test was designed
to be administered in 65 minutes. The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) developed by
Paribakht and Wesche (1993) as the second instrument in this study was administrated as the
pretest to make sure that the participants had no prior knowledge of the targeted words. The
internal consistency measure of the reliability of the test was calculated to be .84. Three short gap
filling exercises as the last instrument were also taken from Intermediate Vocabulary by Thomas
(1986) and employed as the posttest in this study.
5
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Procedure
To achieve the aims of the study, some steps were taken. To have a homogeneous group, the OPT
was firstly administrated at Jahad Daneshgahi English Language Center and 50 native speakers
of Persian, including 25 males and 25 females whose linguistic homogeneity was confirmed on
the basis of the test result, were selected from among the intermediate students who were
studying English as a foreign Language there. Following the guidelines in the test booklet, those
learners whose score was above 47 were confirmed as intermediate learners and were selected for
the purpose of the study.
The second step was administrating the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale Test (VKS) as a subsidiary
assessment tool. This test, containing eighty vocabulary words, was employed as the pretest and
presented to the participants to find out which vocabulary items the learners did not know. The
scores obtained from this test were not included in the study since they did not affect its process.
Each participant was then given six pages having the list of semantically-related, thematicallyrelated, and haphazard English words accompanied by their Persian equivalents and the short gap
filling exercises. This step was undertaken in two phases including studying phase and recall
phase. In the first phase, the participants were required to study the first page consisting of the list
of eight semantically-related English words accompanied by their Persian equivalents for a total
of four minutes, that is, 30 seconds per item. They were advised to study carefully using every
possible strategy to learn new lexical items in the list. The participants were also informed that
they would be having an immediate recall test on the same vocabulary items. After four minutes,
the students had to stop studying and then, the immediate recall phase began in which each
participant was required to turn to the following page that included a short gap filling exercise.
In this stage, the participants were required to fill in the gaps of the short reading by applying the
appropriate words from the previous page they had studied some minutes ago. In order to
eliminate any chance of memorizing the list as a whole rather than learning them, the participants
were informed that the required words in the short reading had been arranged in a different
sequence. Exactly the same was done for thematic and haphazard English clusters. The
researchers afterwards identified, scored, and calculated all the answers given by the students to
the short gap filling exercises in a sense that each correct answer of a lexical item was considered
as one point. Since there were eight lexical items in each type of clustering list, the total score in
every list was 8 points. The data gathered through this procedure were later subjected to the
statistical procedure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results of the first research question
The first addressed research question in this study was:
1. Does semantic clustering of vocabulary items affect lexical acquisition and recall of
Iranian EFL learners?
To find an acceptable answer for this question, the researcher identified, calculated, and scored
all the correct answers given by the students in the short gap filling exercises prepared for
estimating the participants’ knowledge of semantically related words. These exercises were
6
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org selected from the Intermediate Vocabulary by Thomas (1986). Each given correct answer was
considered as one point so the total score in each list was 8.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics: The Immediate Posttest Results Relating to the Semantically-Clustered Words
Valid
50
N
Missing
0
Mean
3.10
Std. Error of Mean
.132
Mode
3
Std. Deviation
.931
Variance
.867
Range
3
Minimum
2
Maximum
5
As it is shown in the above table, the mean of the scores for the short gap filling exercises on
semantically clustered words was 3.10. That is, most of the participants provided just less than
half of the required words. The participants guessed at maximum 5 words correctly and at
minimum 2 words. This indicated that they were not able to work as successfully as expected in
this part. The following table provides some extra information in this regard.
Table 2: Frequency Table: The Immediate Posttest Results Relating to the Semantically-Clustered Words
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent
Percent
2
14
28.0
28.0
28.0
3
22
44.0
44.0
72.0
Valid 4
9
18.0
18.0
90.0
5
5
10.0
10.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
According to the above table, out of 50, 14 participants had two correct answers, 22 participants
had three correct answers, nine participants had four correct answers, and five participants had
five correct answers.
Results of the second research question
The second research question that was posed in the study was:
2. Does thematic clustering of vocabulary items affect lexical acquisition and recall of
Iranian EFL learners?
To obtain an answer to this question, the frequency of correct answers in the short gap filling
exercises was calculated for each student separately. For every correct answer that the students
provided, one point was given to them. The points were then added and the final score was given.
The average of all scores was thereafter determined. The required words were thematically
oriented.
7
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table 3: Descriptive Statistics: The Immediate Posttest Results Relating to the Thematically-Clustered Words
Valid
50
N
Missing
0
Mean
4.90
Std. Error of Mean
.186
4a
Mode
Std. Deviation
1.313
Variance
Range
Minimum
Maximum
1.724
5
3
8
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.
Based on the above table, the participants approximately provided 5 correct answers for the 8
existing blanks in the exercises organized thematically. To be specific, the mean of all provided
correct answers was equal to 4.90 which was above the mean score obtained in the semantically
related set of words. Here, the maximum and the minimum number of given correct answers were
8 and 3 respectively, that is, there were some exercises which were filled in by the students
completely correct. It seems that the students acquired and recalled more words when the lexical
items were presented to them in thematic cluster and therefore worked more successfully.
Table 4: Frequency Table: The Immediate Posttest Results Relating to the Thematically-Clustered Words
Valid
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Frequency
8
14
9
14
4
1
50
Percent
16.0
28.0
18.0
28.0
8.0
2.0
100.0
Valid Percent
16.0
28.0
18.0
28.0
8.0
2.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
16.0
44.0
62.0
90.0
98.0
100.0
The next tables pertain to what the participants did in the haphazard list of words.
8
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table 5: Descriptive Statistics: The Immediate Posttest Results Relating to the Unrelated-Clustered Words
N
Valid
50
Missing
0
Mean
3.12
Std. Error of Mean
.142
Mode
3
Std. Deviation
1.003
Variance
Range
Minimum
Maximum
1.006
4
1
5
Regarding the unrelated set of lexical items, as shown above, the participants at most filled in
four intended blanks and at least one blank correctly. The mean score was 3.12 which was
slightly above that in the semantically related group and still blow that in the thematically related
group.
Table 6: Frequency Table: the Immediate Posttest Results Relating to the Unrelated-Clustered Words
Valid
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Frequency
2
11
21
11
5
50
Percent
4.0
22.0
42.0
22.0
10.0
100.0
Valid Percent
4.0
22.0
42.0
22.0
10.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
4.0
26.0
68.0
90.0
100.0
Regarding the above table which has a detailed look on the distribution of unrelated words
guesses by the participants correctly, one correct answer goes to two students and five correct
answers go to five answers. The same number of students (n = 11) recalled 2 and 4 answers
respectively and the rest (n = 21) remembered three correct answers.
Results of the third research question
The next research question that the researchers addressed in this study was:
3. Is there any difference between semantic and thematic clustering of English vocabulary in
their effectiveness on lexical acquisition and recall of Iranian EFL learners?
For this question, the means of scores that were achieved by the participants in the three groups
of semantic, thematic, and haphazard texts were compared to see if there was any statistically
significant difference among them.
9
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table 7: One-Sample Statistics: The Means in the Three Types of Cluster
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std.
Std.
Lower
Upper
N
Mean
Deviation
Error
Minimum
Maximum
Bound
Bound
Semantic
50
3.10
.931
.132
2.83
3.41
1
5
Thematic
50
4.90
1.313
.186
4.53
5.27
3
8
Unrelated
50
3.12
1.003
.142
2.83
3.41
1
5
Total
150
3.71
1.392
.114
3.49
3.94
1
8
After comparing the means, it was found that the participants had different reactions towards the
three types of clustering of vocabulary. According to the table, the largest deviation and mean
refers to the time when the participants were examined on the thematically oriented words. That
is, the participants had the best achievement and recalled more words when lexical items were
thematically organized and presented. When examined semantically, the participants had the
lowest recall and achievement. That is, the semantically related group seemed to be the least
effective technique.
The variation was clear among the participants when they were tested on the effect of the three
types of clustering and this could be assessed for more accurate results by another inferential test.
That is, in order to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference among the
three groups or to explore the impact of type of clustering on the vocabulary acquisition and
recall of Iranian EFL learners, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run based on which
the existing differences among the three groups were revealed to be statistically significant.
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Table 8: ANOVA: Results of the Immediate Posttest
Sum
of
Df
Mean
F
Squares
Square
105.613
2
52.807
42.405
183.060
147
1.245
288.673
149
Sig.
.000
To be specific, there was a statistically main effect for the clustering types (semantic, thematic, or
unrelated) that had been used for estimating the acquisition and recall of new lexical items. In
other words, the observed differences were meaningful at 0.05 level of significance and one can
be 95% sure that these differences were not obtained accidentally. In order to test which type of
clustering had the most important effect on the acquisition and recall scores, post-hoc
comparisons were employed to identify the detailed difference among the three types. The
following table revealed the main location causing this effect.
10
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table 9: Multiple Comparisons: Dependent Variable: Results of the Immediate Posttests
Mean
Difference (I-J)
(I) groups
(J) groups
Std. Error
Sig.
Turkey
HSD
semantic
thematic
unrelated
thematic
-1.800*
.219
.000
unrelated
semantic
unrelated
semantic
thematic
-.020
1.800*
1.780*
.020
-1.780*
.219
.219
.219
.219
.219
.995
.000
.000
.995
.000
The findings of the post-hoc test indicated, in multiple paired comparisons, that the differences
were at the highest level when comparing the participants’ scores in the thematic and the
semantic lists and in the thematic and the haphazard lists. In other words, there was a statistically
significant difference between the gained scores in the thematic and the semantic lists as well as
in the thematic and the haphazard lists. This led to the conclusion that the thematic clustering was
the most effective strategy for vocabulary presentation to the EFL learners.
Results of the fourth research question
The last investigated research question in this study was:
4. Is there any difference between males and females with respect to the type of vocabulary
clustering?
To detect the relationship between the gender and the type of vocabulary clustering, the
performance of both males and females in the exercises examining the learners’ knowledge of
words that had been presented to them in sematic, thematic, and haphazard clusters were
separately considered.
N
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics: Female Performance on Tests
Semantic
Thematic
Unrelated words
Valid
25
25
25
Missing
Mean
0
3.32
0
5.56
0
3.08
Std. Error of Mean
.206
.201
.223
Median
3.00
6.00
3.00
Mode
3
6
3
Std. Deviation
1.030
1.003
1.115
Variance
1.060
1.007
1.243
Minimum
2
4
1
Maximum
5
7
5
a. Gender = female
11
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org As shown in the above table, the females (n = 25) acquired and recalled the most when words had
been presented to them in thematic cluster. The score means of females in semantic, thematic,
and haphazard sets of lexical items were 3.32, 5.56, and 3.08 respectively. The most number of
words were acquired and recalled when presented thematically, less when presented semantically,
and the least when presented in a haphazard manner. The females at least remembered one word
(in unrelated set of words) and at most 7 words (in thematic set of lexical items). None of them
could fill in all the blanks correctly.
N
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics: Male Performance on Tests
Semantic
Thematic
Unrelated words
Valid
25
25
25
Missing
Mean
0
2.88
0
4.24
0
3.16
Std. Error of Mean
.156
.254
.180
Median
3.00
4.00
3.00
Mode
3
4
3
Std. Deviation
.781
1.268
.898
Variance
.610
1.607
.807
Minimum
2
3
2
Maximum
4
8
5
a. Gender = male
Considering males, they had the best performance in the exercises organized thematically and the
worst in the exercises organized semantically. Both males and females worked successfully in the
thematically-oriented set of lexical items. They at least guessed and remembered two correct
answers and there was a case in which males even completed the text completely correctly. The
score means obtained for the semantic, thematic, and haphazard sets of words were 2.88, 4.24,
and 3.16 respectively. The results revealed that males and females performed quite reverse in the
exercises including the semantic and haphazard sets of lexical items. The females’ knowledge of
the words organized semantically was more than the males’ and on the other hand, the males’
knowledge of the words organized haphazardly was more than the males’. After investigating the
males’ and females’ performance separately, their score means from the three different groups of
exercises needed to be compared to detect whether the males differ from the females in this
regard and whether this difference (if any) was statistically significant.
Table 12: Group Statistics: Males’ and Females’ Mean Scores
Gender
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Semantic
female
25
3.32
1.030
.206
Thematic
male
female
25
25
2.88
5.56
.781
1.003
.156
.201
male
Female
25
25
4.24
3.08
1.268
1.115
.254
.223
Male
25
3.16
.898
.180
Unrelated
words
12
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Considering semantic clustering of vocabulary, the data included in the table indicated that the
female participants acquired and recalled more words than the male participants and their mean
scores therefore differed from each other. In terms of another type of vocabulary clustering, that
is, thematic clustering, there was again difference in the performance of both genders. In this
case, females worked more successfully and their final achieved points were therefore higher
than those of males. The last group of clustering relates to the haphazard lexical items and the
findings in this case were quite reverse and indicated that the achieved scores by the females
were lower than the males. The mean scores of males and females were here 3.16 and 3.08
respectively. To see the meaningfulness of these differences, an independent t-test was
conducted.
Semantic
Thematic
Unrelated
Table 13: Independent Sample Test: Males’ and Females’ Mean Scores
t-test for Equality of Means
T
D
Sig.
Mean
Std. Error
95%
Confidence
f
(2Difference
Difference
Interval
of
the
tailed)
Difference
Lower
Upper
Equal
1.702
4
.095
.440
.258
-.080
.960
variances
8
assumed
4.083
4
.000
1.320
.323
.670
1.970
8
-.279
48
.781
-.080
.286
-.656
.496
As the above table shows, although there was a difference between males and females in terms of
their mean scores from both the exercises with required semantically-oriented words and
unrelated words, this difference did not reach statistical significance. In other words, the females
and males did approximately have the same memory of words thought to them beforehand.
Considering thematically-oriented words, this difference did however reach statistical
significance.
In the remaining part of the current section, the obtained results are discussed and compared with
the results of previous studies. The results obtained for the first research question revealed that
the means of the semantically related words was 3.10. To be specific most of the participants
provided just less than half of the required words. Consequently, the first hypothesis which was
semantic clustering of vocabulary items does not affect lexical acquisition and recall of Iranian
EFL learners was supported in this study.
Based on the result achieved for the second research question concerning with thematically
related words, the mean was equal to 4.90, which was above the mean score obtained in the
semantically related set of words. Besides, there were also some exercises which were filled in by
the students completely correct. Therefore, the results showed thematic clustering of vocabulary
items affected lexical acquisition and recall of Iranian EFL learners. Considering the result
achieved in the analysis of haphazard set of lexical items, the mean score was 3.12, which was
slightly above that in the semantically related group and still blow that in the thematically related
13
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org group. To be more specific, the participants at most filled in four intended blanks and at least one
blank correctly.
The results obtained from the third research question indicated that among the means of scores
achieved by the participants in the three groups of semantic, thematic, and haphazard texts, the
largest deviation and mean refer to the time when the participants were examined on the
thematically oriented words, that is, the participants had the best achievement and recalled more
words when lexical items were thematically organized and presented. When examined
semantically, the participants had the lowest recall and achievement in a sense that the
semantically related group seemed to be the least effective. Based on a one-way ANOVA, the
observed differences among the three groups were meaningful at 0.05 level of significance and
one can be 95% sure that these differences were not obtained accidentally. The results of this
study generally proved that those exposed to thematically related sets of words outperformed
those exposed to semantically related words which is in line with Tinkham’s (1993, 1997) point
of view when he claimed that providing learners’ vocabulary with thematic clusters was a more
effective method of instruction than semantically clustered sets. Learners can learn words that
belong to the particular topic or theme better than those vocabularies that are semantically
clustered.
The findings of this research determined that learning new words in semantic clusters required
more time to be learned completely and it also needed more learning trials which is in total
agreement with many researchers (Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Higa, 1963; Laufer, 1989; Nation,
2000; Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Waring, 1997) who argue that learning similar words which share
numerous common elements and a super-ordinate concept are difficult because these words will
interfere with each other and have a negative impact on their retention.
There are different reasons why words presented in unrelated clusters were retained more
efficiently than those presented in semantically related sets. According to Aitchison (1996),
McCarthy (1990), and Meara (1983), although vocabulary items appear to be organized in the
mental lexicon around semantic bonds, learning of new vocabulary items might pursue a different
path of mental processing. McLaughlin (1990) also claims that semantic fields are the final
outcomes of the learning process while they represent aspects and features of what is already
known. Additionally, the findings of the study confirm the empirical studies by Iranian
researchers such as Marashi and Azarmi (2012) who showed that presenting words in
semantically unrelated clusters and in an intentional learning method were more effective for
students’ vocabulary achievement compared to the other methods and Mirjalili et al. (2012) who
indicated that the students generally recalled the highest number of words from the unrelated
clusters.
Moreover, the results of the present study are in line with two psychological theories including
theory of interference and the distinctive hypothesis discussed earlier (Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003;
Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Waring, 1997). It can be argued that presenting L2 learners with
vocabulary items grouped in semantic clusters actually impedes vocabulary learning.
14
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org The most surprising result gained from the data in this study showed that gender can be
considered as an effective variable in this respect as there was difference between two groups of
males and females in the retention and recall of vocabulary items. The score means of females in
semantic, thematic, and haphazard sets of lexical items were 3.32, 5.56, and 3.08 and of males
were 2.88, 4.24, and 3.16 respectively, that is, they both had the best performance on the
thematically-clustered words tests.
Considering semantic and unrelated clustering of vocabulary, although there was a difference
between males and females in terms of their score means, this difference did not reach statistical
significance. In terms of thematic clustering of vocabulary, the results revealed that there was
significant difference between the males’ and females’ scores. In the end, the researchers came to
this conclusion that in the process of different types of vocabulary learning clustering, female
students excelled male students and the last hypothesis which stated that there was a statistically
significant relationship between gender and the type of vocabulary clustering was consequently
supported in this study. In theory, this finding of present study is in line with that of Zhuanglin
(1989) and of Larsen-Freeman (2000) and in practice, with conclusions by some researchers such
as Wu Yi’an, Liu Runqing, (1996) who believed that female students obviously acted better than
male students in terms of language learning.
CONCLUSION
Since any language emerges first as words, using various effectual strategies and techniques for
better and more rapid acquisition and recall of new lexical items are then of crucial importance.
Presenting vocabulary in groups and clusters has been proved to be among the factors or
strategies that lead to better acquisition of words.
The results and the statistical analysis of the data in the immediate posttests of this study
indicated that there were statistically significant differences among the three types of vocabulary
clustering techniques and this led to the assumption that vocabulary clustering in presentation of
new words had an effect on vocabulary acquisition and immediate recall of foreign language
learners of English. To be specific, the findings revealed that all the three vocabulary instruction
techniques which were used in this study were effective in the learners’ vocabulary acquisition
and recall, but since thematic clustering for presenting new words to the learners of foreign/
second language had the most positive effect compared to semantic clustering and haphazard
grouping of the words, it can be concluded that it was the most effective method for Persianspeaking EFL learners’(both males and females) vocabulary knowledge. Semantic clustering of
the lexical items was shown to be on the other hand the least effective.
As the classroom has been the most important context, or sometimes the only one, for foreign
language learners to acquire a new language where a large portion of input is expected to be
available, providing enough comprehensible input providing learners with thematically clustered
words can be of great importance. Reading and listening to appropriate texts can serve as the
supportive techniques in this regard and can give great insight to the language learners.
15
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org What could perhaps impose limitations on the results obtained in this study include the limited
number of words in each word list (i.e. eight words), the limited number of participants in each
group, and the idiosyncratic learning styles of the learners which could not be under the control
of the researchers. Yet, the results might be applied (though by caution) in many language
learning settings in Iran.
REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. (1996). Taming the wilderness: Words in the mental lexicon. In G.M. Anderman &
M.A. Rogers (Eds.), Words, words, words: The translator and the language learner (pp.
15-26). Great Britain: Multilingual Matters.
Al-Jabri, S.S. (2005). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on learning English
vocabulary by Saudi students. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Bogaards, P. (2001). Lexical units and the learning of foreign language vocabulary.Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 23, 321-343.
Brewer, W. F., & Nakamura, G. V. (1984).The nature and functions of schemas. In R. S. Wyer &
T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (vol. 1) (p 119-160). Hinsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Channell, J. (1981). Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching.ELT Journal,35(2), 11522.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Semantic fields and semantic frames. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222254.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK
and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp.
75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Finkbeiner, M., & Nicol, J. (2003). Semantic category effects in second language word learning.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(03), 369-383.
Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 170-175.
Jullian, P. (2000). Creating word-meaning awareness.ELT Journal, 54(1), 37-46.
Klein, S. (2007). Achieving gender equity in technical education through education. New York:
Sage Publications.
Laufer, B. (1989). A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: Deceptive transparency. AILA
Review, 6, 10-20.
Lehrer, A. (1974). Semantic fields and lexical structure. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Marashi, H., & Azarmi, A. (2012.) The comparative effect of presenting words in semantically
related and unrelated sets in intentional and incidental learning contexts on Iranian EFL
learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, 1 (2),
71-89
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, pp.113-128.
Meara, P. (1983). Vocabulary in a second language: Volume 1. London: CILT.
16
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 1-­‐17 Rostam Shirazi, Sh., et al EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Mirjalili, F., Jabbari. A. A., & Rezaei, M. J. (2012). The effect of semantic and thematic
clustering of words on Iranians vocabulary learning. American International Journal of
Contemporary Research, 2(2), 214-222.
Montrul, S. (2001).Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 145-151.
Nation, I. S. P. (1997). L1 and L2 use in the classroom: A systematic approach. TESL Reporter,
30, 19-27.
Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. TESOL
Journal, 9(2), 6-10.
Nida, E. A. (1975). Componential analysis of meaning. Mouton: The Hague.
Paribakht, T.S., &Wesche, M.B. (1993).Reading comprehension and second language
development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 2(1), 929.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language
teaching research, 12 (3), 329-363.
Sokmen, J. A. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In N. Schmitt &
M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 237-257).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tinkham, T. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language
vocabulary. System, 21(3), 371-380.
Tinkham, T. N. (1994). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second
language vocabulary. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Illinois.
Tinkham, T. (1997). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second
language vocabulary. Second Language Research, 13(2), 138-163.
Thomas, B. J. (1986). Intermediate vocabulary. England: Longman Group Limited.
Waring, R. (1997). The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: A replication. System,
25(2), 261-274.
Wu, D. Yi’an, Zh., Liu, Zh., & Runqing, L. et al. (1996). Learner factors and learning
achievement: A study of the effect of factors affecting English language learning. Beijing:
Foreign Language teaching and Research Press.
Zhuanglin, H. (1989). Linguistics: An introduction. Beijing: Peking University Press.
17