Major Findings of the Current Study
The results revealed that although the three groups’ input was equal, different effects were produced. More specifically, the keyword method can enhance learners’ learning of word meaning, but it is not as effective as phonics in helping students remember word spelling.
On the other hand, phonics instruction can promote learners’ spelling abilities, but it is not as useful as the keyword method in helping students remember word meaning. The combined keyword-phonics method is effective in promoting students’ learning of both word meaning and spelling at the same time, and the combined effectiveness can also be extended after a one-week delay.
Concerning the overall performance of the three groups, it is concluded that the combination of the keyword method and phonics instruction contributes to a beneficial effect on the elementary school students’ learning of English vocabulary, not only in the aspect of remembering word meaning but also in enhancing their spelling abilities.
Pedagogical Implications
Based on the experimental results of the current study and the comparisons with previous studies, the findings of the present study lead to several implications for pedagogical practice. First of all, combining the keyword method and phonics instruction enhances students’ learning of both word meaning and spelling. The findings of the current study lead us to believe that combining these two methods is beneficial in helping elementary school students learn English
102
vocabulary.
Second, other aspects of vocabulary learning beside word meaning and spelling are worth teaching and learning. The present study found that the keyword method was helpful in enhancing students’ learning of word meaning and that phonics instruction could enhance students’ spelling abilities. Combining these two methods was beneficial in facilitating students’ both abilities. However, there are more aspects of vocabulary learning besides word meaning and spelling. Since no single method can cover all aspects of vocabulary learning at the same time, other vocabulary learning strategies should be introduced to students, such as using word analysis strategies (prefixes, roots, and suffixes), guessing from the context, teaching words as part of a semantic field (word categories), and so forth.
Third, the researcher observed that the students in the keyword method group talked with each other about the keywords and their images of the target words during the treatment instruction and during the break time. The learners proposed that they were interested in generating their own keywords and images. Many students recommended that there were other keywords and images they thought were easier to remember and were closer to the sounds of the target words. However, Levin (1983) found that for beginning learners, teacher- or researcher-provided keywords and images were better than self-generated ones. This is why the researchers of this study provided the keywords and the interactive images used in the training sessions. However, it was found through this study that the fifth graders were able to generate their own keywords and images. It is suggested that teachers can provide opportunities for students in the
Lin & Cheng: The Combined Effects of Keyword Method and Phonics
fifth grade or higher to come up with their own keywords and images in the use of the keyword method. Nonetheless, since the quality of images used in the image link has been identified by Beaton and his colleagues (2005) as a critical factor determining the effectiveness of the keyword method, teachers should ensure the quality of student-generated keywords and images before they are used.
Fourth, some oral feedback was obtained from some students concerning how many words should be taught in one session during the experiment. Specifically, after the testing sessions, some students complained that learning 10 words for each 40-minute learning session was too overwhelming. They suggested that seven words would be a more appropriate number. Thus, it is suggested that six to seven words for each 40-minute learning session may be the optimal number of words.
Finally, although the results of this study showed that the provision of an acoustic link via an L1 keyword was helpful for students to remember word meaning, teachers should take measures to prevent the potential negative effect of the keyword method on students’ pronunciation accuracy. For example, in this study, the instructor always presented the correct pronunciation of the target word before introducing the keyword. In addition, the participants were constantly reminded that the keyword should only be used as a memory aid, not as a correct model for word pronunciation.
Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research Although the current study supports the combination of the keyword method and the synthetic phonics instruction on enhancing elementary school students’ vocabulary learning, several limitations
104
of the present study should be noted. First, all the participants were from the same elementary school. Although the participants’
performance might reflect the learning results of the vocabulary learning methods, it is not representative of all the Taiwanese elementary school students. Therefore, in order to generalize the results to a larger population, it is suggested that for future research, students from different elementary schools can be recruited as participants.
Second, the delayed effectiveness of the learning methods can be investigated beyond a one-week interval. The retention effect of the keyword method, phonics instruction, and the combined keyword-phonics technique on vocabulary learning was examined in the present study. The values of engaging both verbal and visual coding in use of the keyword method enabled the students to remember the target words even after a one-week interval. Similarly, the merit of graphophonic cues assisted the students in becoming capable of retrieving the spellings of the target words from long-term memory. However, it is an open question regarding whether the delayed efficacy can remain for longer intervals. Future research studies thus can lengthen the interval to examine the retention effects of the three methods on vocabulary learning.
Third, in the present study, how students with different proficiency levels reacted to these three treatments was not examined.
To further investigate the learning effects of the keyword method, phonics instruction, and the combined keyword-phonics method on the students’ vocabulary learning, future studies might include students with different proficiency levels. Given that different learners
Lin & Cheng: The Combined Effects of Keyword Method and Phonics
have different prior knowledge and ways of learning English, different learning effectiveness may exist for students with different proficiency levels.
Fourth, the productive recall tests used in this study assessed students’ spelling abilities. However, whether or not students can orally produce the target word is another type of productive performance. In fact, many English teachers in Taiwan are concerned that the imprecise sound representation of the keyword (e.g., 麻辣雞 for mirage) might affect the pronunciation accuracy of beginning EFL learners. Thus, it is recommended that future studies can investigate the effect of the keyword method on word pronunciation.
Finally, future studies can investigate how students perceive different vocabulary learning methods. Individual students may have different reactions to the different vocabulary learning strategies. The current study investigated the effects of the three methods on students’ vocabulary learning, without examining the students’
perceptions of those treatments. Thus, researchers in future studies can examine students’ perceptions of different vocabulary learning methods. The findings can help teachers determine what vocabulary learning methods will be appropriate for their students.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Andrew, B. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential.
American Educator, 25, 24-28, 47.
106
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemonics in second-language learning.
American Psychologist, 30, 821-828.
Atkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 126-133.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158-173.
Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phonemic awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
Baumann, J. F., & Duffy, A. M. (1997). Engaged reading for pleasure and learning: A report from the National Reading Research Center. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.ebsco.com
Beaton, A. A., Gruneberg, M. M., Hyde, C., Shufflebottom, A., &
Sykes, R. N. (2005). Facilitation of receptive and productive foreign vocabulary learning using the keyword method: The role of image quality. Memory, 13, 458-471.
Brewster. J., Ellis, G., & Girard, E. (2002). The primary English teacher’s guide. England: Longman.
Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chang, J. (2003). Developing fourth graders' word recognition and spelling abilities in English. Unpublished master’s thesis.
National Taipei Teachers College, Taipei.
Chen, M. C. (2003). Mnemonic keyword instruction. Journal of Nan
Lin & Cheng: The Combined Effects of Keyword Method and Phonics
Kai, 1(1), 119-125.
Chu, H. M. (2002). Assessing EFL learners’ decoding skills. English Teaching & Learning, 26(3), 35-57.
Desrochers. A., Gelinas, C., & Wieland, L. D. (1989). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of German nouns and their grammatical gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 25-32.
Dretzke, B. J., & Levin, J. R. (1990). Building factual knowledge about the U.S. presidents via pictorial mnemonic strategies.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 152-169.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001).
Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read:
Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 71, 393-447.
Ellis, N. C., & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43(4), 559-617.
Fisher, P. E. (1993). The sounds and spelling patterns of English:
Phonics for teachers and parents. Morrill: Oxton House.
Fuentes, E. (1976). An investigation into the use of imagery and generativity in learning a foreign language vocabulary (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 2694.
Gruneberg, M. M., & Pascoe, K. (1996). The effectiveness of the keyword method for receptive and productive foreign vocabulary learning in the elderly. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 102-109.
Guey, C. C. (2000a). A special approach to mnemonic of English
108
words for Chinese learners based on information processing paradigm. Social Science Quarterly, 2(1), 155-182.
Guey, C. C. （桂慶中）(2000b). <智慧字彙書（理論與方法）> [The Smart Book on English Vocabulary (Mnemonics)]. KaoHsiung:
Language Learning Cultural Company Limited.
Johnston, R. S, & Watson, J. (2005). The effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment, a seven year longitudinal study. Published by the Scottish Executive Education Department. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/sptrs-00.asp Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 759-788). New York: Longman.
Hall, J. F. (1989). Learning and memory. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Harris, L. A. & Smith, C. B. (1976). Reading instruction: Diagnostic teaching in the classroom (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston:
London.
Huang, T. L. (黃自來) (1999). <中學英語教師對見字識音的認知研 究> [A study on high school English teachers’ perceptions of phonics] Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp.35-50). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co.
Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1997). Where is the phonics? Making the case (again) for integrated code instruction. The Reading Teacher, 10(5), 690-700.
Lawson, M., & Hogben, K. (1998). Learning and recall of
Lin & Cheng: The Combined Effects of Keyword Method and Phonics
foreign-language vocabulary: Effects of a keyword strategy for immediate and delayed recall. Learning and Instruction, 8(2), 179-194.
Levin, J. R. (1983). Pictorial strategies for school learning: Practical illustrations. In C. B. Mccormick, G. E. Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 213-237). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Levin, J. R., Pressley, M., McCormick, C. B., Miller, G. E., &
Shriberg, L. K. (1979). Assessing the classroom potential of the keyword method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 583-594.
Li, L. (1986). Children’s use of the keyword method to learn simple English vocabulary words. In Tang, C., Huang, B., & Liao, C.
(Eds.) The 3rd Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 281-293). Taipei: The Crane.
Liu, I. M. (1977). Application of imagery mnemonics: Acquisition of English vocabulary. Science Development, 11(5), 987-999.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Fulk, B. J. M. (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the keyword method: Effects on recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 92-96, 107.
Mastropieri, M. A., Sweda, J., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). Putting mnemonic strategies to work in an inclusive classroom.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 15(2), 69-74.
Ministry of Education （教育部）(2003). <92 年國民中小學課程綱 要> [General Guidelines of Grades 1-9 Curriculum for
Elementary and Junior High School Education] Retrieved
110
September 20, 2008, from
http://www.edu.tw/eje/content.aspx?site_content_sn=4420 National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Norbert, S. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Paivio, A., & Desrochers, A. (1979). Mnemonic techniques in second-language learning. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 33, 17-28.
Pressley, M. (1982). Elaboration and memory development. Child Development, 53, 296-309.
Pressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (1981). The keyword method and recall of vocabulary words from definitions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 72-76.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61-91.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., Hall, J. W., Miller, G. E., & Berry, J. K.
(1980). The keyword method and foreign word acquisition.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 163-173.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., Nakamura, G. V., Hope, D. J., Bispo, J. G.,
Lin & Cheng: The Combined Effects of Keyword Method and Phonics
& Toye, A. R. (1980). The keyword method of foreign vocabulary learning: An investigation of its generalizability.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 635-642.
Rhona, S. J. (2004). Accelerating the development of reading, spelling and phonemic awareness skills in initial readers. Reading &
Writing, 17, 327-357.
Rohwer, W. D., Raines, J. M., Eoff, J., & Wagner, M. (1977). The development of elaborative propensity in adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23, 472-492.
Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 221-238.
Slavin, R. E. (2007). Educational psychology: Theory and practice.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Taguchi, K. (2006). Should the keyword method be introduced in tertiary foreign language classrooms? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(1), 22-38.
Theresa, A. R. (2006). Teaching phonics in the context of children’s literature or spelling: Influences on first-grade reading, spelling, and writing and fifth-grade comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 690-713.
Wang, A. Y., Thomas, M. H., Inzana, C. M., & Primicerio, L. J.
(1993). Long-term retention under conditions of intentional learning and the keyword mnemonic. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 545-547.
Wittrock, M. C. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction.
Educational Researcher, 8, 5-11.
Xue, Y., & Meisels, S. J. (2004). Early literacy instruction and learning in kindergarten: Evidence from the early childhood
112
longitudinal study—kindergarten class of 1998-1999. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 191-229.
Zhang, Z., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). Exploring effects of the keyword method on limited English proficient students’ vocabulary recall and comprehension, Reading and Instruction, 39(3), 202-221.