背誦字表對於單字學習與閱讀的影響

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master’s Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 背誦字表對於單字學習與閱讀的影響. The Effects of Memorizing Word Lists on Vocabulary Learning and Reading. 指導教授：陳秋蘭博士 Advisor: Dr. Chiou-lan Chern 研究生：林詩雅 Tina Shih-ya Lin. 中華民國九十八年七月 July, 2009.

(2) 中文摘要本研究旨在探討背誦字表對於單字學習的效用，也試圖探究背誦字表對於全民英檢閱讀成績的效用。此外，本研究更進一步探究字表提供例句與否，對於學生的單字學習及全民英檢閱讀成績結果，是否產生差異。本研究的研究對象為台灣某偏遠地區國立高職三班學生,共一百一十一位。施測前，所有研究對象必須完成單字及閱讀前測。實驗組 A 為 A 班學生，必須背誦字表。實驗組 B 為 B 班學生，必須背誦提供例句的字表。控制組為 C 班學生。為期十週的訓練結束後，所有研究對象必須完成單字及閱讀後測。實驗結束後，實驗組 A 和實驗組 B 必須填寫一份對於字表學習看法及建議的相關問卷。研究結果顯示，背誦字表的確對於學生在單字學習的表現有正面的影響。研究結果也顯示，只有字表提供例句組能夠有效改善全民英檢的閱讀成績。另一方面，結果顯示背誦字表和字表提供例句這兩種方法對於學生單字學習並沒有顯著差異。此外，背誦字表和字表提供例句這兩種方法對於全民英檢閱讀成績的效果沒有差別。再者，背誦字表和字表提供例句這兩種方法，對於全民英檢閱讀的第一部分字彙和結構及第三部份閱讀理解的效果相同。然而，字表提供例句的方法，對於閱讀測驗第二部份克漏字的效果比字表組佳。根據問卷的結果，兩實驗組對於背誦字表對於單字學習與全民英檢閱讀成績的功效均持正面的態度。本研究也發現兩實驗組，能夠記得後五週所背誦的字數多於前五週所背誦的字數。總結來說，本研究建議教師們應同心協力發展設計適合可用於英文課的字表。. i.

(3) ABSTRACT This study intends to investigate the effects of memorizing word lists on vocabulary learning. It also taps the effects of word lists on reading scores on GEPT. Moreover, this study further explores if memorizing word lists with or without sentence support makes a difference on students’ vocabulary learning and reading scores on GEPT. Three intact classes of 111 national vocational high school students in the remote district in Taiwan participated in the study. Before the intervention, the vocabulary and reading comprehension pretests were administrated. Class A was the Experimental Group A, who was asked to memorize the word lists with words listed in isolation. Class B was the Experimental Group B, who was asked to memorize the word lists with sample sentences. Class C was the control group. After the ten-week training, the vocabulary and reading comprehension posttest were given to the participants. At the end of the program, both experimental groups were required to fill out a questionnaire concerning their opinions and suggestions on the use of word lists. The results showed that memorizing word lists indeed had a positive effect on students’ performances in vocabulary learning. Also, the results in this study indicated that only the method of memorizing word lists with sample sentences was effective for improving the reading scores on GEPT. The results also indicated that there was no significant difference between the effects of memorizing word lists with or without sample sentences on students’ vocabulary learning. Beside, the effects of memorizing ii.

(4) word list in isolation or with sample sentences on the reading scores on GEPT showed no difference. Moreover, the effect of word lists without sentences for Vocabulary & Structure (section one) or Reading Comprehension (section three) is the same as that of word lists with sample sentences. However, memorizing word lists with sample sentences is more effective for the scores on Cloze (section two) than memorizing words in isolation. Survey results showed that students in both experimental groups held positive attitudes toward the effects of memorizing word lists on vocabulary learning and the reading comprehension test on GEPT. Furthermore, it was found that words memorized in the last five weeks were better retained than words memorized in the first five weeks. To conclude, it is suggested that language instructors can work together to develop and design a suitable word list which can be used in English class.. Keywords: word lists, list leaning, vocabulary learning, reading ability, GEPT. iii.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS At this moment in time, my deepest heartfelt gratitude first goes to my advisor—Dr. Chiou-lan Chern, who has arranged countless meetings in person or by e-mail with me to make the thesis real. Her instruction and guidance during the past year helped me complete this thesis. I would also like to express my appreciation to two committee members─Dr. Hao-jan Chen and Dr. Chin- kuei Cheng, who have provided valuable suggestions for my proposal and thesis. Moreover, thanks to my students in National Penghu Marine and Fishery Vocational High School for administering the pilot study and the experiment. Thanks to Dr. Chao-ming Chang and Dr. Lung-jen Wang, who helped me interpret the results of the statistical analyses. Also, I am really grateful for colleagues in school, and graduate school instructors and classmates in NTNU, especially Guan-yen Yen and Irene Lin. Finally, I wish to thank my parents, uncles, aunt, and cousins. Their wholehearted support, patience, understanding and love were essential as I dedicated my time to this thesis. Specially, I would like to thank to one mentor and friend, C.H., who accompanied and encouraged me during the school days. This thesis cannot be accomplished without the help of so many wonderful people. For me, this is the most glorious time in my life. My dream in my adolescence has come true! Now, I would like to whisper, “I have not lived in vain.”. iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….... ix Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………..1 Background and Motivation……………………………………………………...1 The Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………...5 Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………………………………7 Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Vocabulary Learning………………………7 Studies on Vocabulary Learning Strategies…………………………………8 Studies on Vocabulary Learning…………………………………………...11 Vocabulary Learning and Reading Ability……………………………………...12 Studies on the Effects of Vocabulary Learning on Reading Ability……….12 Studies on the Effects of Extensive Reading on Vocabulary Learning……15 Word Lists………………………………………………………………………18 Basic English Word List…………………………………………………...18 A General Service List (GSL)……………………………………………..18 The University Word List (UWL)…………………………………………19 Studies on Word Lists……………………………………………………...22 Memorizing Words with Sentence Supports………………………………25 Memorizing Words and Word Lists……………………………………….26. v.

(7) Chapter Three: Methodology…...……………………………………………………29 Design of the Study……………………………………………………………..29 Participants……………………………………………………………………...31 Instruments……………………………………………………………………...31 Selection of Words on the List…………………………………………….32 Two Test-booklets for Pre-test and Post-test………………………………34 Vocabulary Pre-test and Post-test………………………………………….36 The Questionnaire…………………………………………………………37 Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………………. 38 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………39 Chapter Four Results and Discussion………………………………………………...42 Results of the Study……………………………………………………………..42 The Effects of Memorizing Word Lists on Vocabulary Leaning ………….43 The Effects of Memorizing Word Lists on the Reading Scores on GEPT...46 Comparison of the Effects of Words Listed with Sample Sentences and in Isolation on Vocabulary Learning…………………..……………….…….48 Comparison of the Effects of Word Listed with Sample Sentences and in Isolation on the Reading Scores on GEPT………………………………...49 Comparison of Scores in the Three Sections of Reading Comprehension. vi.

(8) Tests of the Two Experimental Group……………………………………..50 Participants’ Responses and Suggestions from Questionnaires…………...52 Comparison of Words Memorized in the First Five Weeks and Those in the Last Five Weeks between the Two Experimental Groups…………………65 Discussion………………………………………………………………………67 The Effects of Memorizing Word Lists on Vocabulary Learning …...........68 The Effects of Memorizing Word Lists on the Reading Scores on GEPT...68 The Effects of Words Listed with and without Sample Sentences on Vocabulary Learning………………………………………………………70 The Effects of Words Listed with and without Sample Sentences on the Reading Scores on GEPT………………………………………………….71 Scores in Three Sections of Reading Comprehension Tests of the Two Experimental Groups………………………………………………………73 Other Responses and Suggestions from Questionnaires……......................75 Words Memorized in the First Five Weeks and Those in the Last Five Weeks……………………………………………………………………...77 Chapter Five: Conclusion…………………………………………………………….79 Summary of the Study…………………………………………………………..79 The Major Findings……………………………………………………………..80. vii.

(9) Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………………….83 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research………..…………………….86 References……………………………………………………………………………90 Appendix A: 981 Word Lists (The Version for the teacher)(Sample)(1-50)…………98 Appendix B 200 Word Lists for Experimental Group A.…………………………….99 Appendix C: Questionnaire for the Use of Word Lists (Chinese Version)………….101 Appendix D: Questionnaire for the Use of Word Lists (English Version)………….102 Appendix E The Vocabulary Pretest...………………………………………………103 Appendix F 200 Word Lists for Experimental Group B……………………………110 Appendix G The Vocabulary Posttest……………………………………………….120. viii.

(10) List of Tables Table 1. The Teaching Plans of the Three Groups………………………………….30. Table 2. Summary of ANOVA for the Vocabulary Pretests and Reading Pretest......43. Table 3. Summary of ANOVA for the Vocabulary Posttest of the Three Groups…..44. Table 4. Summary of Paired Sample t-Tests for Scores of Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest for Group A……………………………………………………….45. Table 5. Summary of Paired Sample t-Tests for Scores of Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest for Group B……………………………………………………….45. Table 6. Summary of Paired Sample t-Tests for Scores of Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest for the Control Group…………………………………………….45. Table 7. Summary of ANOVA for the Reading Posttest of the Three Groups……...46. Table 8. Summary of Paired Sample t-Tests for Scores of Reading Pretest and Posttest for Group A………………………………………………………47. Table 9. Summary of Paired Sample t-Tests for Scores of Reading Pretest and Posttest for Group B………………………………………………………47. Table 10 Summary of Paired Sample t-Tests for Scores of Reading Pretest and Posttest for the Control Group…………………………………………….48 Table 11 Summary of Independent Sample t-Tests for the Vocabulary Posttest Scores for Group A and Group B…………………………………………………48. ix.

(11) Table 12 Summary of Independent Sample t-Tests for the Reading Posttest Scores for Group A and Group B……………………………………………………..50 Table 13 Summary of Independent Sample t-Tests for Mean Differences of the Reading Pretest and Posttest in Vocabulary & Structure Section for Group A and B………………………………………………………………………51 Table 14 Summary of Independent Sample t-Tests for Mean Differences of the Reading Pretest and Posttest in Cloze Section for Group A and B………..52 Table 15 Summary of Independent Sample t-Tests for Mean Differences of the Reading Pretest and Posttest in Reading Comprehension Section for Group A and B…………………………………………………………………….52 Table 16 The Participants’ Responses to Question One……………………………..54 Table 17 The Participants’ Responses to Question Two…………………………….54 Table 18 The Participants’ Responses to Question Three…………………………...55 Table 19 The Participants’ Responses to Question Four…………………………….56 Table 20 The Participants’ Responses to Question Five…………………………….57 Table 21 The Participants’ Responses to Question Six……………………………...57 Table 22 The Participants’ Responses to Question Seven…..……………………….58 Table 23 The Participants’ Responses to Question Eight…...……………………….59 Table 24 The Participants’ Responses to Question Nine…………………………….60. x.

(12) Table 25 Summary of Paired Sample t-Tests for Vocabulary Posttest Scores of Question1-50 and 51-100 for Group A……………………………………66 Table 26 Summary of Paired Sample t-Tests for Vocabulary Posttest Scores of Question1-50 and 51-100 for Group B……………………………………67. xi.

(13) Chapter One Introduction Vocabulary is central to language and also quite important to language learners (Zimmerman, 1997). The view mentioned by Nation (2001) is that the most urgent need of the foreign language learner is vocabulary, followed by subject matter knowledge and syntactic structure. Yang (2001) pointed out that “vocabulary items are the elements that carry most basic meanings whenever spoken or written English is addressed” and that “unless an English learner has learnt some English vocabulary items, he/she can hardly communicate in English with others” (p.489). Therefore, vocabulary indeed plays an important role in language learning and teaching. For EFL learners, the more English vocabulary knowledge they have, the easier they can comprehend English passages (Huang, 2001). Also, if language learners have limited English vocabulary, they can’t perform well in listening, speaking, reading and writing (Lin, 2000). Thus, in learning a foreign language, it is important to master the L2 vocabulary (Schmitt, 2000). Background and Motivation Studies have shown that most vocational high school students in Taiwan are low in English proficiency (Hsu & Lee, 2004; Huang, 2003; Yang, 2001). They may give up learning English because of limited vocabulary, inadequate spelling skills, or short retention of learned English vocabulary (Hsu & Lee, 2004; Huang, 2001; Lin, 2000).. 1.

(14) Problems in vocabulary learning mentioned above have puzzled language instructors and vocational school students for many years. In this age of globalization, English ability is important to stay competitive. In recent years, the government in Taiwan has put a lot of emphasis on learning English. In 2007, the Ministry of Education budgeted some money to enhance vocational high school students’ English ability. For example, students were required to pass the GEPT elementary level test (first stage) and teachers had to offer classes to train students listening and reading comprehension abilities to help them pass the GEPT test. However, the researcher, when teaching the students in her GEPT preparation classes, found that some students had difficulty in word recognition, which is a fundamental problem for vocational high school students. As an English teacher, helping students to learn English well is my responsibility. Hence, I try to teach students in the GEPT class learning strategies. Based on the problems students encountered and the need of teaching, I reviewed related literature on vocabulary learning and teaching. It was found that studies of vocabulary learning focused on many aspects, including the effects of different kinds of reading activities on vocabulary acquisition (Cheng, 2003; Hsu & Lee, 2004), the effects of different vocabulary knowledge or. 2.

(15) vocabulary size on reading comprehension (Huang, 2000; Huang, 2001; Huang, 2003; Yang, 2001), and the effects of different vocabulary learning strategies (Brown & Perry, 1991; Mondria, 2003; Watanabe, 1997). In addition, there are conflicting views about learning words in context and learning words out of context. Several studies highlight the effect of teaching words in context. However, Nation (2001) proposed that learning words in context was not feasible for non-native speakers of English. Nation thus argued that word-lists could build up students’ vocabulary size very quickly (Nation, 1982). Furthermore, some studies (Gu, 2003; Knight, 1994; Qian, 1996) suggest that at early stages of language development, decontextualized vocabulary instruction has been found to be more effective in building a fundamental vocabulary base than contextual reading. This suggests that teachers of beginning-level learners need to include decontextualized vocabulary instruction like providing word lists. The reasons why I choose word lists instead of extensive reading as my treatment are described below. First of all, with regard to vocabulary learning, on the one hand, although evidence showed that incidental vocabulary learning occurs through reading, the processes are not clearly understood (Coady1993; Nation & Coady, 1988). On the other hand, incidental vocabulary learning had certain advantages and disadvantages (Coady&Huckin, 1997; Laufer, 2003). One. 3.

(16) shortcoming is that it is slow and haphazard (Laufer, 2003). Also, incidental learning through reading is not a reliable source of lexical acquisition for learners at an elementary level (Laufer, 2003). Besides, Schmitt (2000) suggested that explicit teaching was probably essential for the most frequently used words of any L2, and less frequently used words may be best learned by reading extensively. Vocabulary used in GEPT elementary level belong to high frequent words, so word list learning is more suitable than extensive reading for vocabulary leaning of beginning learners. Second, although English is a compulsory subject at vocabulary senior high school, it is allocated only 2 hours per week (Huang, 2004). Therefore, class hour is one of the factors that extensive reading cannot be carried out in English class Moreover, many students find that extensive reading is difficult because students are not interested in what they are assigned to read (Chen, 1998). That’s another challenge that teachers have to overcome. Third, according to Lin’s (2000) review of articles related to the teaching of vocabulary in Taiwan, reading and inferring from the context were usually suggested for intermediate or advanced learners, but not for beginners. Besides, rote learning is valuable in the beginning level (Hong, 1989) and word list learning is one kind of rote learning.. 4.

(17) The Purpose of the Study In recent years, there are many studies which investigate vocabulary learning strategies. Among the research of vocabulary learning, many have proved that strategies may affect learners’ language performance. However, it is not clear what kind of vocabulary learning strategies benefit learners most. Therefore, the researcher attempts to investigate if the decontextualized vocabulary learning strategy such as word lists is helpful for the growth of vocabulary among beginning-level learners. Besides, among all four skills, reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge are closely related to each other. That is, vocabulary knowledge can contribute to reading comprehension, and reading can also help vocabulary growth. Therefore, the researcher attempts to investigate if learning vocabulary via lists also helps students improve their scores on the elementary level reading comprehension test on GEPT. In sum, this study intends to investigate the effect of memorizing word lists on vocabulary acquisition. It also taps the effects of word lists on vocational high school students’ reading scores in GEPT elementary level. Moreover, this study further explores if memorizing words lists with or without sentence support makes a difference on students’ vocabulary learning and reading scores in GEPT elementary level. Specifically, this study will address the following research questions:. 5.

(18) 1. Can memorizing word lists facilitate students’ vocabulary learning? 2. Can memorizing word lists facilitate students’ reading scores on GEPT? 3. Do words listed with sample sentences improve students’ vocabulary learning better than words listed in isolation? 4. Do words listed with sample sentences improve students’ reading scores on GEPT better than words listed in isolation? 5. Which sections of the reading test on GEPT (Vocabulary & Structure, Cloze, and Reading Comprehension) do the participants in the two experimental groups progress most after the experimental treatment (memorizing word lists in isolation or with sample sentences)? 6. What are student’s perceptions toward the treatment (memorizing word lists in isolation or with sample sentences)?. 6.

(19) Chapter Two Literature Review This chapter is composed of three main bodies of literature on vocabulary learning, including vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary learning, vocabulary learning and reading ability, and word lists. In section one (i.e. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Vocabulary Learning), studies on vocabulary learning strategies are first reviewed. Then, studies on vocabulary learning are reviewed, too. In section two (i.e. Vocabulary Learning and Reading Ability), studies on the effects of vocabulary learning on reading ability are reviewed together with studies on the effects of extensive reading on vocabulary learning. In section three (i.e. Word Lists), three word lists, Basic English Word List, a General Service List, and the University Word List, are introduced first. After that, studies on word lists are reviewed, too. And lastly, investigations into memorizing words and word lists are reviewed together with rationales on memorizing word with sentence support. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Vocabulary Learning Word list is one of vocabulary learning strategies, so related studies on vocabulary learning strategies are reviewed first. Different vocabulary learning strategies may lead to different effects on vocabulary learning. It is impossible for learners from different linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds to benefit from the same strategies in the same manner (Gu, 2003). Many studies in recent years. 7.

(20) attempt to investigate not only L1 but also L2 learners’ use of vocabulary strategies. Most of all, teachers have to help learners to assess the effectiveness of their strategy use because not all strategies were suitable for all learners (Lin, 2000). Some related studies on students’ uses of vocabulary learning strategies are reviewed as follows. Studies on Vocabulary Learning Strategies First of all, to investigate the strategy use of Taiwanese EFL students, Hsu (2005) studied 47 business major college students in Taiwan by giving them the TOEIC test, two types of vocabulary test, and a vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire. Hsu’s results found that students in the study didn’t use vocabulary learning strategies very often. Second, high proficiency students used more vocabulary learning strategies than low proficiency ones. Third, students with different language proficiency preferred different types of vocabulary learning strategies. For example, students from the high proficiency level often used the strategy of “interacting with others”. “Visual repetition” was found to be used by low proficient students while “oral repetition” was used most frequently by mid proficient students. Shen (2004) conducted a study to identify Chinese university students’ perception of vocabulary learning methods. 359 university students in Taiwan were given questionnaires on frequency and efficiency of using English vocabulary learning strategies. Five characteristics are identified from the results, including the. 8.

(21) use of audio-visual materials, teacher-centeredness, the learning of language system, memorization, and individual and receptive learning. It was found that some vocabulary learning strategies considered useful were not used often. She concluded that, “understanding learners’ belief is clearly important to learners’ training in order to solve the problem of limited teaching time for vocabulary in class” (p.589). Brown and Perry (1991) compared three strategies (keyword, semantic, and keyword-semantic) of learning ESL vocabulary. The participants were six classes of students from the English Language Institute at the American University in Cairo and three of the classes are of upper proficiency level and the other three are of lower proficiency level. Two instruments, multiple-choice test and a cue-recall, were constructed to measure effects of the three strategies. The result indicated that the keyword-semantic method group produced the best results among the three groups. Another finding of this study was that the keyword method promoted vocabulary acquisition for lower level participants. Therefore, it was suggested that keyword-semantic method could facilitate vocabulary acquisition. The studies reviewed above are quantitative ones. A qualitative study was conducted by Gu (2003) to investigate how two successful Chinese EFL learners handled vocabulary learning during and after reading with think-aloud. The study found that first of all, one of the successful learners, Chi Wei, regarded list learning as. 9.

(22) a major strategy for vocabulary learning, and it never bored him. In addition, one of Chi Wei’s favorite strategies for vocabulary learning was to collect new words on vocabulary cards. For the other successful learner, Chen Hua, memorizing word lists was just a way for her to collect and review vocabulary from context on cards and to use English (mainly by reading). She spent more time on extensive reading. The two participants had different learning styles. In addition, Gu (2003) further pointed out that “although the way in which the two successful learners try to memorize word lists would seem on the surface to be unsanctioned by Western teachers and scholars, close observation of this strategy and its use in combination with other strategies demonstrates a potential benefit” (p.99). Another study on vocabulary learning strategies was conducted by Schmitt (1997), who stated that word lists strategy was considered to be most helpful one by Japanese learners in junior and senior high schools. However, whether word lists strategy can benefit vocabulary learning of vocational high school students in Taiwan is worth researching. As pointed by Chen (1999), not all strategies would be useful for Taiwanese students to enlarge their vocabulary, so it is suggested that teachers need to empirically test the strategies and help learners to efficiently acquire the vocabulary they need. Moreover, studies in the past often emphasized the importance of different. 10.

(23) vocabulary learning strategies on language learning outcomes, but this study only focuses on one of the various kinds of strategies, i.e. word lists. In the following, some related studies on vocabulary learning are reviewed briefly. Studies on Vocabulary Learning Watanabe (1997) conducted an experiment to find out whether modifying reading texts by adding appositives, single marginal glosses, and multiple-choice marginal glosses affected vocabulary learning. Two hundred thirty-one Japanese university students were randomly assigned to 10 groups. The major finding by Watanabe (1997) was that single and multiple-choice marginal gloss groups read better than control groups and the appositive group, but he didn’t find any significant difference between the single gloss group and the multiple-choice marginal gloss group. Influenced by Watanabe (1997), Ke (2003) conducted a similar experiment to explore the influence of gloss types on incidental vocabulary learning and determine which gloss type facilitated vocabulary learning. Twenty-two female students in a nursing school were involved in the experiment and divided into three groups, i.e, the single gloss group, the multiple-choice gloss group, and the control group (no gloss). After reading a text, participants were asked to complete a test that included three sections: comprehension, translation, and cloze sections. The results revealed that. 11.

(24) input modification facilitated incidental vocabulary learning in reading and learners performed better on single gloss than on multiple-choice gloss. Vocabulary Learning and Reading Ability There are numerous studies on the relationship between vocabulary and reading. Nation (1982:20) pointed out that “teacher and researchers have seen lack of vocabulary as one of the main obstacles to progress in receptive skills of listening and reading.” Research on L1 reading shows that vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension are very closely related to each other. In general, the studies that looked into the role of vocabulary in reading found that to comprehend, students needed an adequate amount of vocabulary (Joshi, 2005). Besides, Joshi (2005) also noted that it was logical to assume that strong vocabulary knowledge facilitated reading speed. In the following, studies on the relationships between vocabulary learning and reading ability are reviewed. Studies on the Effects of Vocabulary Learning on Reading Ability A series of related studies conducted by Huang from 2000 to 2003 are reviewed. At first, Huang (2000) carried out an investigation for the sake of exploring the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension of general texts. Different levels of participants, including junior high, senior high and university students, are involved in his study. All participants were asked to complete the. 12.

(25) Vocabulary Level Test, reading passages, recall protocol test, and Inventory of Background Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire. The result revealed that the more vocabulary knowledge students in Taiwan had, the higher reading comprehension scores they acquired. Moreover, it was also found that 3,000-word level is the threshold for Taiwanese students when they read English texts. Therefore, the research suggested that English teachers in Taiwan should help their students acquire 3,000 high frequency words as soon as possible. One year later, Huang (2001) conducted another research to investigate ESP students’ vocabulary and the relationship between their vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. In his study, 416 non-English majors from four different national colleges/universities of technology and science were recruited. The participants were asked to complete Vocabulary Level Test, read the English passage, do a recall protocol and fill out an Inventory of Background Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire. The results found that first, the ESP students’ vocabulary knowledge is less than 2,000 word families. Second, ESP students’ reading comprehension is low due to the deficiency of vocabulary knowledge. Finally, Huang concluded that, “the lack of vocabulary knowledge significantly impeded students from completely comprehending the text” (p.443). In addition to the above two studies, Huang (2003) conducted a similar. 13.

(26) experiment on 347 senior high school students from five different schools. His study intended to examine senior high school students’ vocabulary size and the relationship between their vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge, and reading comprehension. The Vocabulary Level Test, a reading passage, a recall protocol, and the Inventory of Content Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire were completed by participants in his study. It was found in Huang’s study that senior high school students’ average vocabulary reached approximately 2,000 words. Also, participants’ reading comprehension was influenced by their vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge. Therefore, Huang (2003) suggested that students in senior high schools need to obtain high frequency English words as rapidly as possible. In addition to the above studies done by Huang, the finding of Chou’s (2005) study was that most technology college students couldn’t pass Nation’s 2000 word level test. Also, Yang (2001) mentioned that “foreign vocabulary size tests may not be suitable for technological and vocational educational system (TVES) college students in Taiwan” (p.489). Therefore, it is necessary for the language teachers to develop the vocabulary test that can measure vocational school students’ language proficiency. Moreover, even though students’ low reading comprehension came from insufficient vocabulary, to help students acquire high frequency words is a matter of urgency. Thus, words which are easy to learn should be introduced early to build a start-up. 14.

(27) vocabulary base (Waring, 2002), and an early emphasis on vocabulary growth within language teaching would facilitate language learning (Meara, 1995). Studies on the Effects of Extensive Reading on Vocabulary Learning There is plenty of evidence to show that learners can acquire vocabulary from reading (Schmitt, 2000). Based on the claim that reading was the major source of vocabulary acquisition in L1, Laufer (2003) attempted to examine whether reading was the major source of vocabulary acquisition in L2. Therefore, she conducted three empirical studies. In experiment 1, she tried to compare the number of words retained after reading activity with the number of words retained after writing isolated sentences with these words, and the participants were sixty Israeli university students and they were divided into two groups, the reading group and the sentence writing group. By administering the two tasks, i.e. reading and writing sentences, the result showed that the sentence writing group got higher scores than the reading group. In experiment 2, Laufer attempted to compare the number of words retained by learners after a reading activity with that retained after using words in a composition. Eighty-two advanced University EFL learners were divided into the reading group and the composition group. It was found that the composition group recalled more words than the reading group. Experiment 3 was conducted by comparing three tasks: (a) reading and looking up unknown words in the dictionary; (b) writing sentences. 15.

(28) with the target words; and (c) completing sentences with the target words after looking up their meanings. Ninety high school students were recruited and divided into the reading group, the sentence writing group, and the sentence completion group. The result demonstrated that the reading group scored lower than the two other groups. In sum, the three experiments showed that learners acquired more words through writing tasks than through reading. On the other hand, in order to determine whether extensive reading benefited junior college students in vocabulary acquisition and reading ability, Hsu and Lee (2004) conducted an experiment with ninety-one students in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at Nanya Institute of Technology as participants. Forty-seven students were in the experimental group (extensive reading group) and forty-four students were in the control group. By asking them to complete two vocabulary level tests and a cloze test, the vocabulary scores and reading ability could be observed. The result showed that both groups made improvements on vocabulary and cloze tests. Although the experimental group did slightly better than the control group, there was no significant difference between them. Cheng (2003) investigated the interrelationships among extensive reading, word-guessing strategies, and incidental vocabulary acquisition. The participants were two classes of college freshmen in Taiwan. The first class was called ERWG group. 16.

(29) (extensive reading plus word-guessing strategy) and the second group was called ER group (extensive reading only). Reading proficiency tests, a vocabulary level test, strategy use assessments, short surveys, and a questionnaire were used for data collection. The results of this study are described as follows. 1. The extensive reading program facilitated the participants’ vocabulary acquisition. 2. The ERWG group made more improvement in word recognition than the ER group. 3. Although both the ERWG group and the ER group progressed in reading comprehension, the teaching of word-guessing strategy did not make the ERWG group improve more in reading comprehension than the ER group. 4. Neither groups improved their ability to guess meaning from context. Although extensive reading could be a major factor in success in learning language, vocabulary learning from extensive reading was very fragile (Nation, 2001). For beginners or low language proficiency learners, how they learn vocabulary through extensive reading when they did not know enough words to read well (Coady, 1997) should be taken into consideration. Therefore, it was suggested that the emphasis on learning words was quite logical for beginning language learners (Coady, 1997). On the other hand, according to Nation (1982), rote learning of vocabulary in list could help learners acquire large number of words in a short time. Further. 17.

(30) discussions on word lists are included in the following section. Word Lists Nakata (2008) defines word list as “a sheet of paper where L2 words are printed along with their L1 translations or definitions” (p.4). Learning words from a list was once a common practice but has been unfashionable among language teachers for many years (Benthuysen, 2003). However, the idea “learning vocabulary from lists might not be such a bad thing either” (Meara, 1995). In the following, some useful and famous vocabulary lists are described, including Basic English Word List, a General Service List, and the University Word List. Basic English Word List Basic English Word List was first put forward in the early 1930s and was designed to provide a basic minimum vocabulary for the learning of English. It was composed of 850 words. Although Basic English Word List is not widely used today and there are some disadvantages in this list, Basic English Word List is still a great contribution to language learning (Carter & McCarthy, 1988). A General Service List (GSL) Vocabulary can be divided into high frequency (or general service), academic, technical, and low frequency vocabulary in non-fiction texts (Nation, 1990). Among them, general service vocabulary refers to words that are of high frequency in most. 18.

(31) uses of the language (Nation & Kyongho, 1995). Michael West’s (1953) A General Service List of English Words is the most well-known general service vocabulary. The details are as follows. A General Service List was published in 1953 and grew from major studies in the 1930s on vocabulary selection for teaching purposes. The list contains the most widely used 2,000 words in English and the figures in the GSL are given for different meanings and parts of speech of the headword. Even though the GSL is not without any disadvantages (Nation & Kyongho, 1995), West’s A General Service List of English Words (1953) is still considered one of the most useful up to now (Benthuysen, 2003), has had the most lasting influence (Carter & McCarthy, 1988; Nation, 1990), and is essential for all learners (Nation & Kyongho, 1995). The University Word List (UWL) Xue and Nation (1984) compiled from Campion and Elley’s (1971) academic vocabulary list and Prannskas’s (1972) American university word list to edit their University Word List (UWL) (Huang, 2004). This list contains 836 word families that occurred frequently in academic texts of various fields at university level. About 8%-10% of the running words in a typical academic text can be found on the UWL (Benthuysen, 2003). The UWL is a word list for learners with academic purposes (Nation & Waring, 1997). The UWL consists of nontechnical terms that are used. 19.

(32) widely across academic fields and in most kinks of technical writing. When added to the 2000 words on A General Service List of English Words (West, 1953), the UWL accounts for 95% of the words encountered in unsimplified texts, assuming adequate background knowledge of the text content (Liu & Nation, 1985; Nation, 1990, as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p.126-127). However, the UWL consists of words not in the GSL but occur frequently over a range of academic texts (Nation & Kyongho, 1995). For a long time, there are conflicting views toward vocabulary learning. Some studies supported the use of word lists while others opposed to it. Nation (1982) proposed that all vocabulary acquisition should not be left to incidental contact in context and list learning is a legitimate part of vocabulary learning. Nemko (1984) found that beginning readers who were taught words in context did not perform better than those who were taught the words in isolation. Learning words from a list is an efficient means of acquiring second language vocabulary (Carter & McCarthy, 1988). Nation (1990) claimed that because EFL/ ESL learners do not have much English vocabulary, word lists can be used. Also, learning vocabulary from word lists was in fact less time-consuming than learning vocabulary from contexts (Harbord, 1992). Meara (1995) proposed that “word lists have an important role to play in the acquisition of a new language, and this role is particularly important at the beginning stages of learning a new language” (p.8). Thornbury (2002) pointed out that teachers. 20.

(33) of second languages are taking a renewed interest in using word lists for vocabulary instruction. Shen (2003) maintained that traditionally, words were highlighted or selected through word lists to help learners pay attention to them, learn them, and store them in memory, especially in the initial stage of foreign language learning. Besides, Lu (2005) proved that learning words in isolation was more effective in raising students’ learning than leaning words in context. In contrast, the main arguments against the use of word lists are as follows. For example, Meara (1995) pointed out “word lists are an unnatural way of acquiring vocabulary items” (p.8). Moreover, Qian (1996) pointed out that “there is a strong conviction among language professionals that contextualized vocabulary learning is more effective than learning word in lists” (p.120). Furthermore, it was found that “rote learning tends to be dismissed as a relic of the old-fashioned behaviorist learning model, and applied linguists have held list learning in abhorrence” (Hulstijn, 2001, as cited in Nakata, 2008, p.4). Beside, some researchers also noted that cards facilitate vocabulary acquisition more effectively than lists (Nakata, 2008). Although there are several shortcomings of word lists, word lists still have an important role in the acquisition of a new language (Meara, 1995). Next, the researcher reviewed some studies on word lists.. 21.

(34) Studies on Word Lists Empirical studies comparing word list learning with contextual vocabulary acquisition found that word list learning is far more effective than contextual vocabulary acquisition (Laufer, 2003; Nation, 2001; Waring, 2004). One successful example is Shillaw’s (1995) study, in which success in a semester-long project using word lists with students at a Japanese university (as cited in Benthuysen, 2003, p.91). was reported. Qian (1996) designed a study to determine whether L2 words encountered in context were learned better than those through decontextualized instruction in the form of a word list. Sixty-three participants of the first year Chinese university students were divided into two groups: one group (n=32) learned new words in a contextualized situation, and the other (n=31) in a decontextualized situation. The data collection was carried out in the following five steps - pretest, instruction, recall one, recall two, and recall three. It was found that throughout the three recall tests, the decontextulized group consistently outperformed the contextualized group. Besides, the results indicated that decontextualized vocabulary learning was more effective than contextualized vocabulary learning. In short, this study showed that the effect of decontextualized vocabulary learning on later recall was clearly stronger than contextualized vocabulary learning.. 22.

(35) Venetis (1999) conducted a study to determine learning words through the context of literature and reading or through isolated word lists was most beneficial for vocabulary instruction. Participants, forty-five high school students taking Freshman English, were divided into two groups. Before the class started, students were given a vocabulary pre-test. The participants were to read a novel. The first group was given a list of vocabulary words. The second group was asked to learn their words while reading. After one week had passed, the students were given a vocabulary post-test which was exactly the same as the pre-test. The results of this study indicated no significant difference in the mean gains of both groups. It also appeared that either technique, vocabulary instruction through isolated word lists or within the context of literature, produced gains in vocabulary. Benthuysen (2003) attempted to test the effectiveness of vocabulary acquisition among students working with Nation’s University Word List. The purpose of this study was to explore the benefits of using a word list in vocabulary instruction. The study was carried out with a class of 14 Japanese college students, who were enrolled in a special nine-month long program designed to prepare them for study abroad at a university in the United States. At the beginning of the course, the students’ vocabulary levels were assessed. The vocabulary program was made up of both explicit learning activities and opportunities for implicit vocabulary acquisition. The. 23.

(36) explicit vocabulary teaching would be confined to the words on the UWL. The students were given one of the UWL every two weeks and they were also given an accompanying set of example sentences that demonstrated usage of words on the list. At the end of the course, the Vocabulary Level Test was administered again. The results indicated that the greatest improvement came with the words on the UWL. The results support the claim that decontextualized learning of vocabulary from word lists has some value in second language instruction. However, not all empirical studies proved that word lists are effective in vocabulary learning. For instance, in 1997, the result of the questionnaire in Zimmerman’s study revealed that before the experiment, memorizing lists of words was the third most helpful method in the acquisition of new words. Later on, after 10 weeks of instruction, memorizing lists of words became the fourth. Wu (2004) conducted a study to identify what students’ perceptions regarding the top five most helpful vocabulary learning strategies are. As a result, the fifth most used strategy was “word list,” which was not the most common vocabulary strategy. Recently, Nakata (2008) conducted a study to compare L2 vocabulary learning with word lists, word cards and computers. Participants were 226 Japanese high school students, who studied ten English words with one of the three leaning materials: lists, cards, and computers. Before the intervention, the participants took a pre-test to. 24.

(37) translate ten target words into Japanese. During the intervention, the List and Card groups were provided with a word list or ten individual flash cards and the computer group was presented words on a computer. An immediate post-test and a delayed post-test were implemented and then the participants were requested to fill in a questionnaire which included questions about the experiment and their background. One of the results showed that although no significant difference existed between the Card group and the other two groups, the Computer group significantly outperformed the List group on the delayed post-test. It was found from the questionnaire that the computer was evaluated more favorably than lists or cards. All in all, this study explained the superiority of computers over lists, the limited advantage of word cards over lists, and no statistically significant difference between computers and cards in implementing vocabulary learning. Memorizing Words with Sentence Supports When learners received vocabulary only from reading or only from the use of lists, they have not addressed the range of skills which are required for words (Zimmerman, 1997). Therefore, providing word lists with sample sentences might be another choice not only for vocabulary learning but also to increase reading scores on GEPT. Moreover, Huckin and Jin (1987) found that teaching explicit techniques for guessing words in context led to improved reading comprehension and vocabulary. 25.

(38) learning. In order to investigate whether beginners learn to read words better in sentences or in list, Ehri and Wilce (1980) conducted a study, in which participants were asked to read 10 unfamiliar words. Half of them studied the words embedded in printed sentences and the other half studied the words in unstructured lists of words. Posttest measures revealed that the sentence group learned more about the syntactic/semantic identities of words, whereas the word list group remembered their orthographic identities better. On the other hand, Nemko (1984) found that beginning readers who were taught words in context did not perform better than those who were taught the words in isolation. Therefore, the effects of memorizing words with or without sentence supports needed further exploration. Memorizing Words and Word Lists Memorization plays an important role in vocabulary acquisition. In 2000, Schmitt mentioned that “memory has a key interface with language learning” (p.129). Shen (2003) also stated that if words couldn’t be remembered, language couldn’t be produced properly. However, because our brains are designed to forget, not remember, to forget a word is easier than to remember it (Waring, 2002). Thus, some studies on memorizing new words were reviewed. For instance, Mondria and Vries (1994) found. 26.

(39) that using word cards could contribute to vocabulary acquisition. Besides, this study also showed that memorizing words with the help of word cards had more advantages than that with the help of contextualized or non-contextualized lists. In addition, in order to investigate the relationship between memorization of new words and teaching techniques, Laufer and Shmueli (1997) conducted an experiment with five groups of high school pupils, i.e., the list group, the sentence group, the extensive reading group, the elaborated group, and one control group. By glossing twenty different low frequency words in different ways with ten translated into L1 and ten explained in English, the effects of different techniques on memorizing words were tapped. After the intervention, four experimental groups were given 15 minutes to complete a cloze exercise and all the participants were tested on the short-term and long-term vocabulary retention test. The results showed that the most effective methods for long-term retention were the use of sentence and list presentation. Also, words glossed in L1 were better retained than those glossed in L2. All in all, with regard to the effects of various kinds of vocabulary learning strategies on vocabulary learning have been discussed in previous studies in the past years. It is found that various kinds of vocabulary learning strategies can lead to successful vocabulary learning. However, few studies focused on certain vocabulary learning strategy, especially the effectiveness of strategies and the relationship. 27.

(40) between strategies and reading abilities. This study intends to examine the effect of the traditional word list leaning strategy on vocabulary learning and reading scores on GEPT. After reviewing the literature on reading and vocabulary learning, the present study is designed to explore what vocabulary learning strategies would benefit my students in vocational high schools. As mentioned by Chen (1999), research on the effectiveness of special vocabulary strategies is needed to improve the quality of vocabulary teaching. However, vocabulary teaching methods or learning strategies that work for high school or college students may not work for vocational high school students. The relationships between vocabulary teaching and the reading ability can be explored from different aspects. With the current emphasis on passing the GEPT, the present study intends to examine the effects of memorizing word lists on vocabulary learning and reading scores on GEPT, especially for the beginning or low EFL proficiency learners.. 28.

(41) Chapter Three Methodology In this chapter, the design of this study will be reported. Detailed information of research methodology will comprise the design of the study, the background information of the participants, the instruments used in this study, the procedures of data collection, and data analysis of this study. Design of the Study One of the aims of this study is to investigate the effects of memorizing word lists on vocabulary learning and on vocational high school students’ reading scores in GEPT elementary level tests. The participants were divided into one control group and two experimental groups. The control group and two experimental groups were composed of three intact classes. The control group received the same course instruction as the two experimental groups. However, the participants in the experimental groups had to memorize word lists but those in the control group didn’t. The other goal in this study is to examine if memorizing words lists with or without sample sentences has any effect on students’ vocabulary learning and reading scores in GEPT elementary level test. On the basis of the second goal, two experimental groups were included in this study to explore the differences between vocabulary learning with or without sample sentences. The Experimental Group A were given the word lists to memorize in the last 10 minutes of each class for ten weeks. The. 29.

(42) Experimental Group B were given the word lists with sample sentences to memorize in the last 10 minutes of each class for ten weeks. To make participants serious about the lists, both experimental groups were asked to take a 5-minute quiz in the following class. The teaching plans of the three groups are shown in Table 1. Before the intervention, all of the participants received the vocabulary and reading comprehension pretests. After the intervention, all of them also received the vocabulary and reading comprehension posttests. Finally, both experimental groups filled out a questionnaire that aimed at tapping the participants’ feeling, thoughts, and suggestions on different learning methods. Table 1 The Teaching Plans of the Three Groups The Control Group. The Experimental Group A. The Experimental Group B. Week 1 Class 1 The normal course 40 minutes instruction. The normal course instruction. The normal course instruction. Do exercise about 10 minutes today’s course. Memorize a list of 10 words. Memorize a list of 10 words with sample sentences. From Week 1 Class 2 to Week 10 Review 5 minutes. Quiz for the words on the list. Quiz for the words with sentences on the list. The normal course 35 minutes instruction. The normal course instruction. The normal course instruction. Do exercise about 10 minutes today’s course. Memorize a list of 10 words. Memorize a list of 10 words with sample sentences. 30.

(43) Participants The participants in this study were second-year students at National Penghu Marine & Fishery Vocational High School. The participants have had at least four years of regular English instruction in Taiwan. The total number of the participants in this study was 111, with 40 in Class A as the Experimental Group A, 40 in Class B as the Experimental Group B and 31 in Class C as the Control Group. The participants majored in either food & beverage or food science. Before the experiment, it was necessary to make the control group’s learning condition similar to that of the Experimental Group A and the Experimental Group B. Basically, the three classes were in the same English proficiency level based on their English entrance scores in BCT, a nationwide entrance test. The average score of English was between 18 and 21. Judged from this, the participants in the three groups were all of low English language proficiency. They all had two English classes every week and each class lasted for 50 minutes. Instruments The instruments adopted in this study were a word list, two test booklets published by LTTC as the pretest and posttest for reading comprehension, a vocabulary pre-test, a vocabulary post-test, and a questionnaire on participants’ perceptions toward memorizing word lists. The details of each instrument are. 31.

(44) described as follows. Selection of Words on the List The elementary level word list on the website of the Language Testing and Training Center included 2,263 words, from Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (Bands 4 and 5), CEEC word lists (Levels 1 and 2), and 1000 word list for junior high school students stipulated by MOE. According to the information announced on the website, 90% of the vocabulary on word lists was covered in GEPT elementary level test. The selection of vocabulary in the pilot study was based on this word list. However, it would be inefficient and time-consuming to ask participants to memorize all the 2,263 words on the word list. Since the 1200 words published by the Ministry of Education have been specified in the curriculum guideline for junior high school students and the researcher has already helped the participants to review the 1200 words when they were in the first year in vocational high school, these 1200 words were excluded from the 2,263 word list. If the words were listed not only on 1200 word list but also on the GEPT elementary level word list, those words were deleted too. The festivals, pronouns, and some repeated words which appeared because of the different parts of speech were excluded, too. As a result of this screening, 981 words were chosen from the word lists (see Appendix A). A pilot study were conducted in which one class of 33 second-year students helped the researcher. 32.

(45) screen the suitable words out of a list of 981 words. Thirty-three students were asked to circle the unknown words on the lists. The researcher wrote down the instructions clearly on the word screening paper when she implemented the selection of words on the list (see Appendix A). The unknown words meant the words students hadn’t seen before or the words they didn’t know the meaning of. With regard to the unknown words circled by the participants, if the words were chosen by more than 26 students (80 % out of 33), the unknown words were taken into consideration as the entry on the word list for experimental groups to memorize. Based on the above-mentioned word selection rule, the number of the word was 320 after students’ screening jobs. Because the control group and the experimental groups had learned words from their textbooks, words which appeared in the students’ current textbook were excluded from the 320 words first. That is, the words on the lists were different from the words they had already learned in the textbooks. On the other hand, based on the consideration of school curriculum, 200 words was the probably the maximum learning load for the students in this project. According to Schmitt & Schmitt (1995), the number of words chosen should depend on the goals of the class. For example, if the primary goal was to teach students how to enrich their word knowledge, twenty words per week should be sufficient. Therefore, in this study, twenty words per week, 200 words in total, were chosen. The researcher finalized on. 33.

(46) the list of 200 words (see Appendix B) by consulting with other English teachers at the school. According to the result of the choice of words on the list, the 200 chosen words were categorized into different topics or parts of speech. Basically, the GEPT elementary level word list published by LTTC was quite similar to the 2000 word list published by MOE. The words on the 2000 word list were grouped into different topics or parts of speech. Thus, the same principles were applied to the 200 word list used in this study. The participants in the experimental groups were asked to memorize the words according to different topics and parts of speech. The 200 words were classified according to the following topics─people, personal characteristics, body parts, health, family, time, money, food and drink, accessories, transportation, hobbies, houses, school, places, sizes, areas, holidays, occupations, geography, weather and nature, animals, and prepositions. They were also categorized according to their parts of speech, including nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. The sample sentences on the word list for the Experimental Group B mainly came from other high school textbooks available on the market and the dictionaries. Two Test-booklets for Pre-test and Post-test The formal test papers of the GEPT elementary level of first stage were used for the reading pre-test and post-test. There are some reasons for adopting the GEPT. 34.

(47) elementary level test. First, GEPT is a standardized test, so the reliability of the test has been proved. Secondly, the English language proficiency of the participants was in elementary level. The test booklet was published by the Language Training & Testing Center. There are several versions for the test booklet, and all of the test items have been used preciously in formal tests. The latest two versions were adopted by the researcher in order to make sure the participants hadn’t practiced the questions of the test. Version One was used for the pretest of reading comprehension and Version Two was used for the posttest of reading comprehension. The test of the elementary level of first stage included reading comprehension and listening comprehension tests. In this study, the reading score was used to measure reading comprehension. The reading comprehension test in GEPT elementary level consisted of three sub-sections. Section one is “Vocabulary & Structure” and there were 15 questions in this section. Section two is “Cloze (or Reading Skills)” and 10 questions were included in this section. Section three was “Reading Comprehension” and 10 questions were included. In total, there were 35 questions and the test-takers had to answer all the questions within 35 minutes. Each accurate answer was given 3.42 points and the full score for each reading comprehension test was 120 points. By comparing the scores on the two reading comprehension tests of each group, the main effect of word lists on GEPT reading scores could be measured.. 35.

(48) Vocabulary Pre-test and Post-test The number of the vocabulary pre-test consisted of half (100 out of 200) of the chosen words presented in a multiple-choice questions format. One point was given to each correct answer and the perfect score for each vocabulary test was 100 points. As the participants might be too tired to answer the questions effectively if they were asked to complete 100 questions at a time, the test for questions one to fifty, which lasted for 50 minutes, was administered in one class and the test for questions fifty-one to one hundred, which lasted another 50 minutes, was administered in the following class. Before conducting the vocabulary test, one class of 33 second-year students helped complete the test paper in order to measure suitable time for each of the vocabulary test. It was found that students needed thirty minutes to finish the test. The stem sentences for the 100 multiple choice vocabulary questions in vocabulary pre-test came from entries in popular dictionaries and vocational high schools’ textbooks, but they were different from the sample sentences provided for the Experimental Group B to study. The researcher also consulted the vocabulary experts to make sure that the sentences on the test paper were well-written and suitable for participants’ language proficiency. When the researcher designed the test paper, the distribution of nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs were taken into consideration. In other words, the part of. 36.

(49) speech for each distracter was the same as the correct answer. Also, the distracters came from the other 100 words which were not tested and from the words that participants were familiar with. Among the 100 questions, the first 50 questions came from the words which were memorized from week one to week five while the last 50 questions came from the words which were memorized from week six to week ten. As for the vocabulary post-test, the content of it was the same as that in the pre-test, but the order of the questions was different. All participants in the control group and experimental groups were asked to complete the vocabulary pre-test and post-test. Based on the results of the two vocabulary tests, the effect of word lists on vocabulary acquisition was measured. The Questionnaire The questionnaire was regarded as supplementary in the study. It could help the researcher to understand the participants’ feelings, thoughts, and suggestions toward memorizing word lists and the preparation for reading comprehension tests. The questionnaire was designed by the researcher, the statements on the questionnaire were presented in 4-point Likert scales with one open-ended question (see Appendixes C and D). The questionnaire consisting of ten questions was provided for the participants in Experimental Group A and Experimental Group B to fill out.. 37.

(50) Data Collection Procedures Before the experiment, the pilot study was implemented in order to choose the most suitable 200 words for participants to memorize. At first, two pre-tests, vocabulary pre-test (see Appendix E) and formal test of the GEPT elementary level of first stage, were administrated as the pre-tests of the vocabulary and reading comprehension. Three intact classes were divided into two experimental groups and one control group. Class A was the Experimental Group A, who was asked to memorize the word lists. Class B was the Experimental Group B, who was asked to memorize the word lists with sample sentences (see Appendix F). Class C was the control group, who was offered the same course instruction as the other two experiment groups except that they didn’t have to memorize the 200 word lists. All of them were studying the same subject matter with the same teacher. There were only two English classes for each group every week and the self-learning vocabulary session was incorporated into two English classes. Based on the arrangement of school curriculum, the intervention could only last for ten weeks. The participants in the experimental groups were given 10 words to memorize each class, 20 words a week. In the last ten minutes of each class, a ten-word list was provided for Experimental Group A while the same ten-word list was provided with sample sentences for Experimental Group B. The word lists with or without sentences. 38.