Literature Review
The purpose of the study intended to examine the effects of vocabulary learning through task-based instruction on EFL vocational high school students. Literature review in this chapter contained three parts: The first part included vocabulary
learning; the second part was vocabulary instruction, the third part covered task-based instruction in vocabulary learning.
Vocabulary Learning
The Nature of Vocabulary
Vocabulary was the center for learners to learn language; however, it was ignored by language teachers and researchers in the second language classrooms and in the second language pedagogy as well as research (Coady, 1997; Graves & Fink, 2007; Jiang, 2004; Nation, 1990; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Richards, 1976;
Summers, 1987; Zimmerman, 1997a). Vocabulary was also an important predictor for language proficiency. Since vocabulary was so critical that Gass (as cited in Altman, 1997) said that we couldn’t but value the research on the nature of vocabulary itself.
She mentioned that the nature of vocabulary itself has contained three parts－
morphemes, organization, and use. For example, Larsen-Freeman (as cited in Brown, 2001) and Nation (2002a) advocated that learners knowing a word should include its
form (grammar), meaning (semantics), and use (pragmatics). At the same time, Nation (2002b) underscored that learners knowing the form of a word should include spelling, pronunciation, and word parts, especially knowing word parts like prefixes and
suffixes which helped learners know more unfamiliar words. Next, Read (2004) stated that the acquisition of L2 vocabulary knowledge should include a word’s semantic features and its characteristics of syntax, collocation, morphology, phonology, pragmatics, and orthography. Researchers also highlighted how significant word families were (Laufer, 1997; Nation, 2002a, 2004; Schmitt & Meara, 1997; Schmitt &
Zimmerman, 2002), so they advocated that knowing a word should include knowing its word family. That is, vocabulary knowledge included knowing word families which could increase learners’ vocabulary size. Researchers (Carlisle, 1995; Hunt and Beglar, 2002, 2005; Schmitt, 1998) pointed out vocabulary knowledge had at least six types including (1) othography, (2) word formation via affixes, (3) collocation and word phrases, (4) minor and non-concrete meaning, (5) associations, and (6) grammatical patterns. In particular, Hunt and Beglar (2002; 2005) believed that the above mentioned first four types of vocabulary knowledge were necessary for EFL learners to understand foreign language and become professional readers. Hunt and Beglar have claimed “if these four types of knowledge are developed for the high frequency and general academic words of English, learners will be in a better position
to deal successfully with texts from a wide variety of disciples” (p. 33).
According to Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams (2003), knowing a word could utilize stress to tell different words and a word was usually made up of one or more syllables. In addition, EFL learners’ English proficiency is generally limited and the beginners even couldn’t pronounce a word properly. Therefore, Zhou (2006) has claimed that pronunciation was primitive for learners to learn languages and it had to do with listening, speaking, and reading skills. In order to possess communicative competence, many experts argued that pronunciation was indispensable for learners to communicate with others. And the communicative competence lied in learners who had good pronunciation in order to make speakers (learners) understood by others easily (Brown, 2001; Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin, 2003; Derwing, 2006;
Jones, 2002; Zhou, 2006).
Additionally, in regard to vocabulary, Schmitt (2000) emphasized that it was necessary for language learners to have both abilities in using lexical chunks and producing language by syntactic production. That is, pragmatic fluency was built up on realizing the correct lexical phrase in the correct syntactic condition. Moreover, Nilsen and Nilsen (2003) underlined that it was meaningless if words existed separately. Also, Bensoussan (1983) pointed out that a number of teachers had the same conclusion about learners’ vocabulary learning which learners could understand
the meaning of every word in sentences but they couldn’t understand the sentences’
meaning. The major reason was because learners lacked of the concepts of syntax and sentence structure. In other words, only vocabulary knowledge was not enough for learners to understand the meaning of sentences. Learners also should know the relationship between words and syntax which were closely related.
In addition, Thornbury (2002) regarded grammar as an instrument for conveying meaning. Not only vocabulary but also grammar could communicate meanings. Thus, he has emphasized that communicative competence was built up on the combination between grammar and vocabulary to let learners reach the
communicative purpose. His claim was similar to what Larsen-Freeman (2002) has contended “…grammar affords speakers of a particular language a great deal of flexibility in the ways they can express propositional, or notional, meaning and how they present themselves in the world” (p. 104). Also, Pennington (2002) pointed out teachers should spend more time on grammar teaching in which teachers should be
“… [d]evoted to semantic structure of the lexicon and of connected discourse, and to the way words are selected to fulfill contextual requirement” (p. 92).
Besides, Ellis (2003a) has claimed that promoting learners’ language
proficiency and accuracy depended on the learning and acquisition of target grammar which could make it become easier to internalize grammatical system of target
language. The book, Language Files (2001), mentioned that by combining the grammar concept of constituent (groups of words), learners could distinguish groups of words in a sentence or even a reading passage. Nation (2002a) has contended that knowing a word should involve knowing its part of speech and knowing its
grammatical patterns how to use. He also referred to a lot of linguists who confirmed vocabulary has been playing a vital role in grammar. Concerning the constituents, it was very similar to what Brown (2001) said “grammar”. That is, grammar was about how a sentence was formed. For instance, modifiers, phrases, clauses, verbs and noun systems, word order and so on were all correlated to grammar. Due to the importance of both vocabulary and grammar, they should be combined together in teaching.
Sinclair and Renouf (1991) said that “vocabulary fleshes out the structures, introduces variety and promotes practice of the structure in question” (p. 143). In particular, Ho (2005) found that learners learning English grammar helped them understand English structure and grammar improved their reading, writing, and communication abilities.
Hinkel and Fotos (2002) pointed that learners in many EFL classrooms regarded grammar learning as the major method. They also claimed that learners had to focus on what grammarians underlined “parts of speech.” Thus, they have considered that learners learned target language, no matter in written passages or rules’ development for the purpose of the use of translation, must learn parts of speech.
No matter in ESL or EFL classrooms, learners spent a great deal of time to learn vocabulary that was essential. For L2 or EFL learners, what should they know and learn to improve their language proficiency? Nation (2002a) proposed four principles for learners as the norm of vocabulary learning. Firstly, learners have to pay attention to the typical qualities of vocabulary learning such as how to learn vocabulary and what vocabulary learners should learn. Secondly, learners have to know what should learn and its learning order. Thirdly, learners should know the vocabulary learning procedures like meaning-based input, language-based learning, meaning-based output, and fluency development. Finally, learners had to examine their own vocabulary learning progress. As stated in the aforementioned first principle, Xiao (1998) in his book, How to Learn English, pointed out readers’ reading comprehension depended on how much understanding to the vocabulary size, syntax, and background
knowledge.
Based on Nation’s principles, a lot of researchers have considered that learners in vocabulary learning were worth spending time on learning affixes, stems, and high-frequency words (Coady, 1997; Graves & Fink, 2007; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2007;
Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987). Besides, knowing the meaning of affixes like suffixes and knowing the base forms of words, learners would feel more at ease to know their meanings when they encountered new words (Laufer, as cited in Schmitt, 2000).
Morphology helped learners memorize vocabulary words because learners were introduced the lists of affixes and stems with their meanings (Nattinger, 1991). In fact, morphology knowledge has explained learners’ vocabulary knowledge in detail; if learners could understand English morphology, they could identify a great number of vocabulary words in reading paragraphs (Mochizuki & Aizawa, 2000; Schmitt &
Meara, 1997). As to morphology, the knowledge of affixes, roots, and stems could aid learners to learn unfamiliar words or help learners guess unfamiliar words from context (Nattinger, 1989; Richards, 2000; Schmitt & Meara, 1997). Also, affixes could be divided into inflectional suffix, derivational prefix, and derivational suffix (Fromkin & Rodman, 1998; Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2003), and learners could learn words much easier if they master words’ affixes.
Receptive and Productive Knowledge in Vocabulary Learning
Nation (1990) considered that productive knowledge of vocabulary contained understanding a word and producing a word. Both receptive and productive
knowledge of vocabulary were important, but receptive knowledge of vocabulary was easier to learn than productive knowledge. In other words, learners needed to spend more time on productive knowledge of vocabulary (Hsu, 2005; Mondria & Wiersma, 2004; Nation, 2002a; Waring, 1997). Schmitt (2000) explained that receptive
knowledge was correlated to learners who could recognize a word while they were
encountering it; also, receptive knowledge was related to reading and listening.
Learners could generate a word by themselves while they were writing or speaking that was called productive knowledge. In particular, Nation (1990) showed that productive knowledge of vocabulary was connected with learners who were able to pronounce, write, spell, and use a word. Additionally, he reported that it would be helpful for learners to have sufficient receptive vocabulary which could help them employ some of knowledge in use. However, even though learners could understand a great deal of receptive vocabulary, it was not enough if they didn’t know how to extend the receptive vocabulary to use. Therefore, instructors had to notice the
situation and design activities regarding productive vocabulary learning for learners to practice which would encourage learners to learn those words and use words
(Horowitz & Gordon, as cited in Nation, 1990). An experimental study by Mondria and Wiersma (2004) has examined the views of vocabulary learning from a lot of foreign language instructors, that is, “… words that are learned both receptively and productively are better retained receptively than words that are learned just
receptively” (p. 79). Learning vocabulary productively could result in a great deal of receptive retention and learning vocabulary receptively could result in a certain amount of productive retention. Hsu’s (2005) study found that the difference between receptive and productive vocabulary tests from learners had significant difference and
learners’ performance on receptive vocabulary knowledge was better than that of their productive knowledge. Obviously learners learning vocabulary in productive aspects were more difficult than learners learning vocabulary in receptive ones.
The Significance of Vocabulary in Language Learning
Richards (2000) stressed that vocabulary and lexical items were the most important part for learners to learn a second language and to know how to communicate with others. Actually, people couldn’t engage in communication or discourse if they didn’t use vocabulary as a basis. Therefore, vocabulary knowledge was a major concern for L2 or EFL learners, so teachers should consider the limitation of teaching time and decide what kind of vocabulary knowledge would be more justified to be taught.
Vocabulary knowledge was vital that it was one of the major factors for readers to obtain information from contexts or articles (Bensoussan, 1983; Hsieh, 2000; Hunt
& Beglar, 2005; Nation & Coady, 1991; Zimmerman, 1997a). Bensoussan (1983) also maintained that vocabulary knowledge was one of the major considerations
influencing learners’ reading. Besides, Laufer (1997) and Qian (1999) have emphasized that vocabulary knowledge was positively essential for learners’ L2 reading. However, Huang’s (2004) study found that learners’ vocabulary knowledge was not enough because learners, no matter they were studying in senior high or
vocational high in Taiwan, didn’t achieve the vocabulary threshold of 3000 words. In particular, vocational high school students were able to accumulate only 426 word families which meant their vocabulary storage was quite limited and the study about vocabulary storage in reading comprehension aspect also found they were the least efficient readers among senior high, vocational high, and comprehensive university students. Moreover, concerning vocabulary development in relation to reading, Schmitt (2000) has asserted that teachers in vocabulary learning classes could help their students to preview vocabulary before a reading class because previewing
vocabulary could raise learners’ reading comprehension ability when reading a text; or teachers could allow their students to look up dictionaries for the unknown words in the context to aid them to have a good reading comprehension while they were reading, regardless of the interruption of the reading processing. Laufer (1997) emphasized that insufficient vocabulary capacity or storage would block learners’
reading comprehension. Qian (2002) underscored that “the more words a learner knows, the more likely it is that he or she will have a greater depth of knowledge for theses words” (p. 517). Also, Nation (2002a) and Lin (2005) pointed out that learners increasing vocabulary size was mostly from reading, so teachers cannot but pay more attention to reading passages to help learners learn more vocabulary from reading texts.
Strategy Use in Relation to Vocabulary Learning
Another significant aspect correlated with learners’ vocabulary learning was learning strategy use for both native speakers and EFL students alike. In particular, vocabulary learning in learning strategies was the most popular for learners’ language learning (Hsu, 2005; Nattinger, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Concerning vocabulary learning strategy, guessing vocabulary from context was a good way for learners to find out unknown words and their meanings (Carter & McCarthy, 1991;
Nation, 2002a; Nation & Coady, 1991; Nattinger, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Schmitt, 2000).
For instance, Nation (2002b) advocated that guessing from context could bring learners confidence and make them become a sensitive guesser when they were looking for possible clues from the context. Besides, Oxford (1990) contended that guessing was indispensable for reading. When learners applied guessing strategy in their reading, it was unnecessary for them to comprehend all of the details from the context. They could employ linguistic clues such as prefix, suffix, and word order to guess meanings as those linguistic clues were useful to help them to comprehend the meanings of unknown words in context. Besides, using dictionary was also another vocabulary learning strategy that could bring learners many benefits. First, dictionary could aid learners for vocabulary learning and context understanding (Grabe & Stoller, 1997; Hsieh, 2000). Second, dictionary could help learners to find out different parts
of speech, spelling, meanings, collocations, pronunciation, frequency of words, and word parts of the target words (Hu, 2006; Nation, 2002b;Yang, 2005). Third, in an activity, using dictionary could help EFL learners to comprehend and produce words easily (Summer, 1989). Fourth, it could help learners to understand parts of speech, collocations, and sentence patterns of target words (Nation, 1990). In short, it was primordial for learners to use dictionary to improve vocabulary learning (Hunt &
Beglar, 2002; Nuttall, 1982; Schmitt, 1997; Summers, 1989; Yang, 2005).
In addition to dictionary use, vocabulary learning by using translation strategy was also necessary and helpful (Hunt & Beglar, 2002; Liao & Chiang, 2003; Prince, 1996), because translation could bring L2 learners the advantages like saving time, understanding text easily, and communicating efficiently (Liao, 2005; 2006; Stibbard, 1998). In L2 classroom, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) stressed on vocabulary
acquisition or reading for details. Namely, learners used translation strategy to acquire L2 language that was a useful way. Hinkel and Fotos (2002) have reported that EFL learners who had to rely on translation to learn English and memorize English vocabulary as well as grammar rules. Similarly, O’Mally and Chamot (1990) highlighted that translation which was the most efficient and economical way for learners to convey meanings. Learners adopted translation strategy for acquiring L2 vocabulary or reading for detail that really could achieve the learning effects. Carter
and McCarthy (1991) reported that a better method for learners to gain vocabulary efficiently was language teachers who taught their students vocabulary by way of meaning and meaning’s links. Stibbard (1998) in his research has found that written translation could be as a studying supplement and it was suitable for learners to develop their prudence, accuracy, and critical reading because translation was the best way for learners to understand what authors have written down in a text. In addition, he stressed that translation could be employed “as a time-saving and efficient
classroom management tool, as a valuable study-aid and as a way to promote
thoughtful communication and can at the same time be developed into a useful skills, relevant to learners’ everyday lives” (p. 75). Similarly, Thornbury (2002) thought that translation maybe was most efficient way for teachers to let their students know the meanings of words or sentences.
Vocabulary Instruction
Since vocabulary was an imperative part of language learning (Chiang, 2006;
Zimmerman, 1997b), a great deal of instruction time should be devoted to teaching vocabulary words. However, Carter and McCarthy (1991) found that language teachers, linguists, and applied linguists didn’t value vocabulary study at all. Until recent years, more and more scholars (Brown, 2001; Hu, 2006; Nilsen & Nilsen, 2003, Schmitt, 2000; Richards & Renandya, 2002) have started to pay more attention to
vocabulary study and instruction.
Chen (2001) contended that successful vocabulary instruction could make learners learn foreign language easier and arise learners’ interests to maximize their learning. Besides, Lin (2005) considered that before teachers taught learners
vocabulary, they should take account of learners’ level and choose proper teaching method as well as skills. Additionally, teachers had to notice some principles and strategies for vocabulary instruction. First of all, teachers could design many meaningful activities which were related to authentic language situations to allow students for repeated practice. Next, teachers should choose high-frequency words to teach but vocabulary instruction should include “word for production” and “word for recognition” items. Moreover, teachers should cultivate students’ English vocabulary learning strategies and let learners have a lot of opportunities to meet English
vocabulary.
Many researchers pointed out that during the classes of vocabulary instruction, teachers could (1) teach students high-frequency words (Nation, 2004), (2) explain words’ meanings and teach learners strategies like guessing unknown words from context clues (Hsu, 2005; Hunt & Beglar, 2002), (3) teach word parts such as prefixes, suffixes, and stems to facilitate learners to remember words (Kucan, Trathen, Straits, Hash, Link, Miller, & Pasley, 2007; White, Power, & White, 1989), (4) teach learners
to use dictionaries (Grabe & Stoller, 1997; Graves & Fink, 2007; Schmitt, 1997), and (5) teach learners spelling and pronunciation (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 2003; Hebert, 2002; Huang, Yu & Yang, 2006; Jones, 2002). Besides, it was not grammar rules but vocabulary items were the best indicator for successful reading (Laufer, 1997). Thus, Nation (1990) has underlined that teachers could focus on specific vocabulary and vocabulary learning strategies on condition that the teachers’
purpose in the classes were to strengthen learners’ reading vocabulary. Even though learners would encounter unknown vocabulary in the reading articles and maybe often bring the interruption during the reading process, the interruption process was actually unavoidable and it could promote the future texts reading without interruption when reading texts were going to a further stage. Moreover, in vocabulary instruction, teachers were necessary to teach students collocations. When learners have learnt collocational groups, they would be alert to some limitations of the vocabulary of a language (Lewis, 1997; Nation & Newton, 1997; Nattinger, 1989, 1991).
Gong and Luo (2003) emphasized that when teachers were designing teaching tasks, teachers should not only consider what students should do but also consider what students were able to do and how to do. Above all, teachers still needed to consider their students who should be required proper language proficiency and then they were able to achieve their task goal about what the teachers have set up.
Task-based Instruction and Language Learning
Task-based Instruction and Language Learning