Chapter Four Results and Discussion
This chapter aims to describe and explain the results of the study. First, the effects
of learning words in context and learning words in isolation through translation on
participants’ overall reading and vocabulary abilities will be presented and compared.
Second, the effects of the two methods on participants of different language levels
will also be analyzed. Third, participants’ responses to the two methods will be
presented. These results will also be discussed in detail at the end of the chapter.
Effects on Reading and Vocabulary Abilities within Each Group
In order to see the effects of the two methods on participants’ reading and
vocabulary abilities, paired sample t-tests were adopted to compare the difference
within the two individual groups. By comparing their scores of the pretest and posttest,
the results showed that the two groups made progress in their reading and vocabulary
abilities (see Table 2). Besides, in the Reading Group, the mean difference of their
reading and vocabulary scores between pretest and posttest were statistically
significant (t=-6.493, p=.000, and t=-7.700, p=.000 respectively). As for the Word
Group, the mean difference of their reading and vocabulary scores were also
significantly different (t=-4.397, p=.000, and t=-10.462, p=.000 respectively) before
and after the implementation of the vocabulary learning methods. According to the
results, the two methods both had positive effects on participants’ reading and
vocabulary abilities.
Table 2
Paired Sample t-Tests for the Mean Scores of Reading and Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest Within Each Group
Reading Group t-value Word Group t-value
Reading
Pretest
50.45
(14.82)
Posttest
69.64
(19.61)
-6.493*
Pretest
50.84
(16.69)
Posttest
64.29
(22.48)
-4.397*
Vocabulary 30.79
(9.74)
43.45
(14.78)
-7.700* 29.32
(16.82)
53.48
(20.95)
-10.462*
Note. The numbers in parentheses are SD.
Comparison of Effects on Reading and Vocabulary Abilities Between the Two
Groups
In order to compare the effects of the two vocabulary learning methods on
reading and vocabulary abilities between the two groups, the independent sample
t-tests were adopted to see the difference between the scores of the reading and
vocabulary pretest and posttest. It can be seen from Table 3 that before the
implementation of the two vocabulary-learning methods, the two groups’ mean scores
of the reading and vocabulary pretests were similar. Besides, by means of independent
sample t-tests, the two groups’ mean scores on the reading and vocabulary pretests
were also not significantly different (t=-.099, p>.05, and t=.430, p>.05 respectively).
All these indicated that before the experimental treatments, participants of the
Reading Group and the Word Group in the study could be viewed as equal in both
their reading and vocabulary proficiency.
Table 3
Independent Sample t-Tests for the Gains in Reading and Vocabulary Scores Between the Two Groups
Reading Group
Word Group
t-value
Reading Pretest Posttest Gains
50.45 69.64 19.18
50.84 64.29 13.45
-0.99
1.348 Vocabulary Pretest
Posttest Gains
30.79 43.45 12.67
29.32 53.48 24.16
0.430
-4.054*
* p<0.05
After the implementation of the two different vocabulary learning methods, the
progress participants made in reading and vocabulary was different (see Table 3). As
for the progress in reading, the mean progress of the Reading Group (m=19.18) was
higher than that of the Word Group (m=13.45). However, by means of independent
t-tests, the mean difference between the two groups’ gains in reading wasn’t
statistically significant (t=1.348, p>.05); that is, their difference was not significant
and could be regarded as equal. The results indicated that the two vocabulary learning
methods both had certain effects on participants’ reading abilities; however, judging
from the mean progress of the two groups, it seemed that learning words in context
was more effective in promoting the reading abilities, but the difference between the
two groups’ gains in reading was not statistically significant.
With regard to the progress in vocabulary, the mean progress of the Word Group
(m=24.16) was much higher than that of the Reading Group (m=12.67). In addition,
by means of the independent t-test, the mean difference between the two groups was
statistically significant (t=-4.054, p<.05). Clearly, the two vocabulary-learning
methods had certain effects on participants’ vocabulary abilities, but comparing the
mean progress between the two groups, learning words in isolation through translation
had better effects on students’ vocabulary retention than learning words in context.
Effects of the Two Methods on High and Low EFL Proficiency Learners
In order to see the effects of the two methods on high and low proficiency
learners’ reading and vocabulary abilities, paired sample t-tests were used to see the
progress of the mean scores of reading and vocabulary pretest and posttest within
high and low proficiency subgroup in each group. The results were shown in Table 4
and Table 5.
Table 4
Paired Sample t-Tests for the Mean Scores of Reading and Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest within High and Low Proficiency Subgroup in the Reading Group
High Low
Pretest Posttest t-value Pretest Posttest t-value Reading
63.65 78.94 -4.852* 38.12 60.88 -4.710*
Vocabulary
35.13 48.50 -8.952* 26.71 38.71 -4.121*
As for the reading performance of High Proficiency students in the Reading
Group, their reading posttest score was higher than the pretest (see Table 4). Besides,
the mean difference between the reading pretest and posttest was statistically
significant (t=-4.852, p<.05). On the other hand, Low Proficiency students also
made progress in their reading scores (see Table 4), and the mean difference was
also statistically significant (t=-4.710, p<.05). To sum up, learning words in context
had effects on both High Proficiency and Low Proficiency students’ reading
abilities.
With regard to the vocabulary abilities of High Proficiency students in the
Reading Group, the mean difference between the vocabulary pretest and posttest
was statistically significant (t= -8.952, p<.05). As for Low Proficiency students in
the Reading Group, the mean difference between the vocabulary pretest and posttest
also reached level of statistical significance (t=-4.121, p<.05). The results indicated
that learning words in context had an effect on both High Proficiency and Low
Proficiency students’ vocabulary abilities.
Table 5
Paired Sample t-Tests for the Mean Scores of Reading and Vocabulary Pretest and Posttest Within High and Low Proficiency Subgroup in the Word Group
High Low
Pretest Posttest t-value Pretest Posttest t-value Reading
62.00 74.22 -2.782* 35.38 50.54 -3.620*
Vocabulary
35.78 61.00 -8.725* 20.38 43.08 -5.841*
When it came to the reading performance of High Proficiency students in the
Word Group (see Table 5), the mean difference between the reading pretest and
posttest was statistically significant (t=-2.782, p<.05). In comparison with High
Proficiency students, Low Proficiency students in the Word Group also made
progress in their reading performance (see Table 5), with the mean difference a little
higher (m=15.15 for Low v.s. m=12.22 for High). Besides, the difference was also
statistically significant (t=-3.620, p<0.5). According to the statistical results,
learning words in isolation through translation had an effect on both High
Proficiency and Low Proficiency students’ reading abilities.
With regard to the vocabulary performance of High Proficiency students in the
Word Group (see Table 5), the mean difference between the vocabulary pretest and
posttest reached level of statistical significance (t=-8.725, p<0.5). As to the
vocabulary performance of Low Proficiency students in the Word Group, the results
indicated that the mean difference also reached the level of statistical significance
(t=-5.841, p<.05). The results presented in Table 5 showed that learning words in
isolation through translation also had positive effects on both High Proficiency and
Low Proficiency students’ vocabulary abilities.
Comparison of Effects of the Two Methods on High and Low EFL Proficiency
Learners
In order to compare the reading and vocabulary gains of both High and Low
Proficiency subgroups between the two groups, independent t-tests were performed
to see the difference (see Table 6).
Table 6
Independent Samples t-Tests for the Gains in Reading (Read) and Vocabulary (Vocab) Scores of High and Low Proficiency Group
High Proficiency Low Proficiency
Read Gains
Reading Group 15.38
Word Group 12.22
t-value
0.569
Reading Group 22.76
Word Group 15.15
t-value
1.147 Vocab
Gains 13.38 25.22 -3.641* 12.00 22.69 -2.249*
When comparing the progress in reading scores between both High Proficiency
subgroups, the results (Table 6) showed that the mean progress of the High
Proficiency students in the Reading Group (m=15.38) was a little higher than that in
the Word Group (m=12.22). However, by means of independent t-tests, the results
indicated their mean difference of both High Proficiency subgroups’ progress in
reading didn’t reach level of statistical significance (t=.573, p>.05). Clearly, both
vocabulary learning methods had certain effects on High Proficiency students’
reading abilities, but learning words in context seemed more effective in making
learners raise their reading abilities. However, the difference between the two High
Proficiency subgroups’ progress in reading was not significant.
As for the progress in vocabulary scores of both High Proficiency subgroups
(see Table 6), the mean progress of the High Proficiency subgroup in the Word
Group (m=25.22) was much higher than that in the Reading Group (m=13.38). In
addition, their mean difference had reached level of statistical significance (t=-3.641,
p<.05). Obviously, viewing from the performances of both High Proficiency
subgroups in their vocabulary post-test, both vocabulary-learning methods helped
raise High Proficiency subgroups’ vocabulary scores, but evidently, learning words
in isolation through translation was more effective in raising High Proficiency
students’ vocabulary scores than learning words in context.
With regard to the progress in reading between the two Low Proficiency
subgroups, the results (Table 6) showed that the mean progress of the Low
Proficiency students in the Reading Group (m=22.76) was higher than that of the
Low Proficiency students in the Word Group (m=15.15). However, by means of
independent t-tests, the results indicated that the mean difference of the two Low
Proficiency subgroups’ progress in reading didn’t reach level of statistical
significance (t=1.147, p>.05). In short, learning words in context seemed more
effective in promoting Low Proficiency learners’ reading scores, but the difference
was not significant.
As to the progress in vocabulary scores of the two Low Proficiency subgroups
(see Table 6), the mean progress of the Low Proficiency students in the Word Group
(m=22.69) was higher than that of the Low Proficiency students in the Reading
Group (m=12.00). Moreover, by means of independent t-tests, the results indicated
that their mean difference was statistically significant (t=-2.249, p<.05). Obviously,
learning words through translation was more effective in raising Low Proficiency
students’ vocabulary scores than learning words in context.
As far as the participants’ reading progress was concerned (see Table 7), Low
Proficiency Subgroup in the Reading Group made greater progress than High
Proficiency Subgroup within the same group (m=22.76 for Low; m=15.38 for High)
but the difference was not statistically significant (t=-1.262, p>.05). Similarly, in the
case of the Word Group’s reading progress, Low Proficiency Subgroup also made
more progress than High Proficiency Subgroup (m=15.15 for Low; m-12.22 for
high), but the difference was not statistically significant (t=-0.467, p>.05). The
results indicated that, in spite of the two different vocabulary-learning methods,
Low Proficiency students progressed more in their reading scores.
Table 7
Independent Samples t-Tests for the Gains in Reading (Read) and Vocabulary (Vocab) Scores of High and Low Proficiency Group Within Each Group
Reading Group Word Group
Read Gains
High Proficiency
15.38
Low Proficiency
22.76
t-value
-1.262
High Proficiency
12.22
Low Proficiency
15.15
t-value
-0.467 Vocab
Gains 13.38 12.00 0.420 25.22 22.69 0.534
Conversely, when it came to the participants’ vocabulary progress (see Table
7), High Proficiency Subgroup in the Reading Group performed better than Low
Proficiency Subgroup (m=13.38 for High; m=12.00 for Low), but the difference
was not statistically significant (t=0.420, p>.05). Likewise, High Proficiency
Subgroup in the Word Group made greater progress in vocabulary than Low
Proficiency Subgroup (m=25.22 for High; m=22.69 for Low), but the difference
was not statistically significant (t=0.534, p>.05). The result showed that High
Proficiency students progressed more in their vocabulary scores, no matter which
vocabulary-learning method they received.
Effects of the Two Vocabulary-learning Methods from Questionnaires
After the implementation of the two vocabulary-learning methods, all
participants were required to fill out questionnaires, in which there were seven
open-ended questions (see Appendix D and Appendix E). Participants’ answers to all
these questions were collected and analyzed one by one as follows.
1. Please describe the methods you used to read these articles (to memorize those words).
According to the results, the methods the Reading Group used to read the articles
were broadly divided into four parts: skimming, consulting dictionaries for unknown
words, guessing the meanings of the unknown words, and skipping unknown words.
When reading, half of all students (49%) in the Reading Group skimmed first to get
the main ideas and then read in detail; they underlined the unknown words while
reading and then looked up these words in the dictionaries after they finished reading.
When encountering unknown words in reading, 27% of the students tried to guess the
meanings using contextual clues in order to get the main ideas, 15% of them consulted
dictionaries to find out the meanings of unknown words and 9% of them chose to skip
the unknown words while reading. One point worth noticing here was that most
students tended to consult electronic dictionaries; only few students used paper
dictionaries.
As for the Word Group, the methods they used to memorize the words can also
be categorized as four parts: verbal repetition, written repetition, pronouncing words,
and analyzing words. 35% of all students in the group tried to memorize words
directly without paying attention to their pronunciation; that is, they used the verbal
repetition strategy when committing these words to memory. Similarly, 10% of them
chose to write down words repeatedly to memorize them; i.e., they used the written
repetition strategy. However, the pronunciation still played an important role when
students tried to learn words by heart. The rest 52% of the students paid attention to
the pronunciation before memorizing words. Among them, ten students consulted
electronic dictionaries for correct pronunciation, three students asked classmates for
the correct pronunciation, and three students tried to pronounce words in their own
ways. Finally, only one student (3%) tried to analyze the words and found out the root,
suffix, or affix to help him memorize words.
2. Do you think reading articles (memorizing word lists) regularly helps you with your overall English reading abilities? If yes, in what way?
Most students (94%) in the Reading Group felt that reading articles regularly
helped them with their overall English reading abilities while only 6% of them didn’t
think so. According to those who gave positive comments, they believed that reading
articles regularly helped them increase their reading speed and thus improve their
reading abilities (55%); get the main idea easily (18%); learn the usage of certain
words (12%), and not only relieve their fear of reading but also build up a sense of
achievement (9%). As one student mentioned in the questionnaires,
I used to be afraid of reading in English, and it was impossible for me to read
English articles automatically. However, by this kind of “forceful” and
“interesting” training, I had no choice but to read. It turned out that I had a sense
of achievement each time after I read the article and I felt thrilled when giving
correct answers to questions in the quiz. (Written by Rossi in Chinese and
translated into English by the researcher.)
The Word Group also yielded similar results. Most students (94%) believed that
memorizing word lists regularly helped with their overall English reading abilities,
because this method helped them enlarge their vocabulary (10%), have a deeper
impression of the words (19%), get the main ideas easily when reading (35%), and
have better performance in English tests (30%). According to one of them,
I found this method quite useful and it helped me a lot when I took exams. I
didn’t know why, but I just felt more confident when taking exams, perhaps it
was because I memorized more words. It turned out that I also got good grades
in exams. (Written by Dominic in Chinese and translated into English by the
researcher.)
On the other hand, only two students (6%) gave negative comments on memorizing
word lists.
3. Do you think reading articles (memorizing word lists) regularly helped you with your vocabulary abilities? If yes, in what way?
The results showed that most students (88%) in the Reading Group thought that
reading articles regularly helped them with their vocabulary abilities as well, while
12% of them didn’t think so. The reasons why they favored reading articles could be
broadly categorized as followed: ease with learning new words, reviewing words
learned, having a deeper impression of certain words, memorizing new words,
learning the usage of certain words in context. Half of the students (49%) believed
that they could learn more new words which never appeared in the textbooks, such as
words in the latest news and thus could increase their vocabulary size. In one student’s
words,
I don’t have the habit of doing outside reading by myself. I think it provided
good access to reading more English articles, and most importantly, it helped me
to learn more new words which didn’t appear in the textbooks. (Written by Ted
in Chinese and translated into English by the researcher.)
In addition, five students (15%) took the chance to review the words that were learned
before when these words appeared in the reading articles, and five students (15%)
believed that they would have a deeper impression of words appearing in the reading
articles so that it could help them recognize those words in reading or listening next
time. Also, two students (6%) tried to memorize new words while reading. Only one
student (3%) paid attention to the usage of words in context.
On the other hand, most students (97%) in the Word Group thought that
memorizing word lists regularly helped them with their vocabulary abilities, and only
one student (3%) didn’t think so. The reason for their support of this method could be
categorized as follows: ease with learning new words, raising their scores, enhancing
reading and writing abilities, and high efficiency in memorizing words. Fifteen
students thought that this method could let them learn more new words which didn’t
appear in the textbooks or which hadn’t been taught before, thus enlarging their
vocabulary. As one of them mentioned,
I am a passive student and I seldom make extra effort to memorize words which
don’t appear in the English textbook. Therefore, I think it is a good way for me
to learn more new words. (Written by Andre in Chinese and translated into
English by the researcher.)
Besides, nine students liked this method because they could get better grades when
they were tested their vocabulary abilities. Also, four students thought that this
method helped them a lot, especially in improving their reading and writing abilities
and two students felt that the speed of memorizing words was faster under the
supervision of the teacher and within the limited time.
4. What do you think are the advantages of this activity?
According to the Reading Group, the advantages of reading articles regularly
could be broadly categorized as follows: training reading speed, ease with learning
new words, learning correct usage of words, reviewing words learned, and lowering
mental anxiety. More than half of the students (58%) thought that the best advantage
was to improve their abilities to get the main ideas when reading and to train their
speed of reading because they had to finish reading within limited time. Besides, 24%
of the students thought that the advantage was to learn new words from reading
articles of different topics, 9% of them thought that they could learn the correct usage
of words and understood more about the structure of English sentences, and 6% of
them thought that they could review words that had been taught before and words that
frequently appeared in articles. Only one student mentioned the affective domain and
he thought that constant contact with English articles could lower his anxiety and
mental burden when reading in English, thus building up his confidence.
As for the Word Group, the advantage of memorizing word lists can also be
roughly categorized as follows: learning new words, more efficient, reducing mental
burden, training the speed of memorizing words, and facilitating reading. 32% of all
students thought that they could learn more words in addition to words in the
textbooks. Besides, 26% of them referred to this method as an efficient way, because
the time was limited and a test was held later; most importantly, they could do this job
well under the supervision of the teacher. Also, 19% of them viewed this method as
easy and challenging. According to one of them,
I used to feel stressful when I had to memorize dozens of words each time.
However, this method provided an easy way to enlarge my vocabulary because
of just ten words each time. It helped lessen my mental burden. Besides, this
method of memorizing words was exciting. I regarded memorizing ten words
within 15 minutes as a challenge and looked forward to taking the challenge
every day. (Written by Alex in Chinese and translated into English by the
researcher.)
Moreover, 16% of them believed that their speed of memorizing words could be
trained in this way and 7% of them thought memorizing word lists helped them
improve their reading abilities
5. What do you think are the disadvantages of this activity?
When it came to the disadvantage of reading articles regularly, the Reading
Group’s response could be roughly categorized into four: time-consuming, new words
can’t be memorized, too difficult for those Low Proficiency students and tiring in the
process. Ten students mentioned that it was time-consuming, because much time was
needed for this kind of training, which might occupy too much class time. In addition,
eight students reflected that the new words they encountered in the articles weren’t
memorized after reading. As one of them mentioned,
Sometimes, I would ignore those new words when reading and sometimes I
failed to make a correct guess of the meanings of these words. If I didn’t consult
dictionaries for their meaning later, it was impossible for me to know the correct
meanings of these words, not to mention to memorize those words. (Written by
Peter in Chinese and translated into English by the researcher.)
Moreover, eight students considered reading in English a tough job, especially for
those Low Proficiency students because there were too many new words in the
articles which hindered their comprehension under the pressure of reading within
limited time. Only two students regarded the learning process as too tiring, which
required much attention and energy and five students didn’t give any negative
comment to this activity.
As for the Word Group, their opinion about the disadvantage of memorizing
word lists can be categorized as follows: short retention of memorized words, lack of
combined exercises, and little time in memorizing words. Seventeen students put forth
that they would easily forget these memorized words without reviewing them.
According to one of them,
Memorizing word lists couldn’t successfully help me without reviewing. It was
indeed easy for me to remember these ten words each time; however, it was also
easy for me to forget them. Thus, only by constant reviewing, can I really
remember these words. (Written by Andy in Chinese and translated into English
by the researcher.)
On the other hand, seven students suggested that this activity be combined with some
exercises. Among them, three students suggested that example sentences or related
articles should be added to help them know the usage of new words and 4 students
mentioned the essential role of phonetic transcripts in memorizing new words. In one
student’s words,
Phonetic transcripts helped me a lot in memorizing English words. Thus, with
the combination of the phonetic transcripts, the word lists would be perfect.
(Written by Jeff in Chinese and translated into English by the researcher.)
In addition, four students thought the disadvantage of this activity was that time spent
on memorizing words was too short. Finally, four students didn’t give any negative
comments to this activity.
6. Do you like learning vocabulary in this way? Why or why not?
According to the Reading Group, twenty-four students (73%) liked learning
vocabulary via reading articles regularly. The reasons could be categorized as follows:
learning the usage of words in context, reviewing learned words, memorizing words,
enhancing reading abilities, and interesting. Eight students (24%) mentioned that they
could know the correct usage of certain words and seven students (22%) said that they
could review words which they had learned when they read. As one of them
mentioned,
I found it a good way to review the memorized words by reading. Usually, what
frustrated me most in memorizing words was that I easily forgot those words.
However, reading articles regularly provided me with a good chance to “meet”
with these words again and arouse my memory. (Written by Jerry in Chinese and
translated into English by the researcher.)
In addition, two students (6%) mentioned that hey could memorize new words by
association (6%). Also, four students (12%) believed that they could improve their
reading abilities at the same time, and three students (9%) thought reading articles
was an interesting and motivating way to help them learn vocabulary. However, nine
students (27%) didn’t like learning vocabulary via reading articles; among them, six
students thought new vocabulary couldn’t be learned because their focus was on
reading itself but not on memorizing words. According to one of the students,
Reading didn’t help me learn the new words in the articles. I just couldn’t learn
those words in this way. Only by focusing my attention on memorizing the
words and their equivalent Chinese meaning, can I commit these words to mind.
(Written by Denis in Chinese and translated into English by the researcher.)
As for the rest of the students, one liked the traditional way to read – teachers taught
words first and led them to read articles sentence by sentence, another thought that
vocabulary could be better learned when reading with the combination of pictures,
and the other thought that new words wouldn’t appear repeatedly in every article
because of different topics of each article; thus, it was hard for him to learn these
words by encountering them only once.
As far as the Word Group was concerned, twenty-eight students (91%) liked
learning vocabulary through word lists. The reasons could be broadly categorized into
four parts: high efficiency, supervision of the teacher, enlarging vocabulary, and
reducing mental burden. 33% of all students regarded this as an efficient way to
memorize words. In one of those students’ words,
It was efficient because I had to memorize these words within limited time.
Besides, I used to memorize lots of words, but I was not sure myself whether
these words should be memorized or just used for recognition. However, the
words chosen by the teacher must be important and definitely needed to be
memorized. Thus, I thought this method was more efficient. (Written by Kevin
in Chinese and translated into English by the researcher.)
Besides, 16% of them thought that they could concentrate on memorizing words
under the supervision of the teacher and 16% of them also thought that it was a good
way to enlarge their vocabulary. Moreover, 26% of them believed that they could
reduce their mental burden because they memorized only ten words once and thus
they could “enjoy” the time when memorizing and built confidence when tested. On
the other hand, only three students (9%) in the Word Group didn’t like learning words
by word lists because time wasn’t enough for them (3%) and because they didn’t
know how to use the memorized words (6%).
7. Do you want the teachers to continue using the same way to help you in learning vocabulary?
The results showed that 91% of all students in the Reading Group wanted the
teacher to use the same way, that is, reading articles regularly, to help them learn
vocabulary; only 9% of them didn’t think so. Similarly, 94% of all students in the
Word Group were in support of learning words by memorizing word lists; only 6% of
them were not. Those who disapproved of this method suggested that word lists
combined with reading articles or example sentences resulted in better effects.
Although most students in the two groups showed high willingness to continue with
these two methods, it also revealed the fact that most students nowadays were passive;
they tended to accept any teaching method adopted by their teachers, without giving
their own judgments.
Discussion
In this section, the results found for the three research questions proposed in
Chapter One are discussed. As the results showed, the two methods had positive
effects on participants’ reading and vocabulary abilities in terms of the progress made
within each group. However, when comparing the progress between the two groups,
the reading scores of the participants in the Reading Group were not significantly
better than that of the Word Group. However, learning words via translation had
significantly better effects on improving participants’ vocabulary scores than learning
words in context. On the other hand, the two methods also had positive effects on
participants of High Proficiency and Low Proficiency levels because they all made
significant progress in their reading and vocabulary scores. Moreover, learning words
in isolation through translation had significantly better effects on both High
Proficiency and Low Proficiency students’ vocabulary scores than learning words in
context. However, the two methods didn’t have significantly different effects on
students’ progress in reading scores.
Effects of the Two Vocabulary-learning Methods on Reading Abilities
According to the results, the two vocabulary-learning methods had certain effects
on students’ reading scores because both groups, Reading Group and Word Group,
made progress in their reading posttest and the gains in reading scores made by the
two groups were quite similar. To make it clear, judging from the performance of
students in the Word Group, who received only training of memorizing words but not
training in reading, their progress in reading was similar to that of the students in the
Reading Group, who read articles regularly. Therefore, the finding here proves that
readers’ knowledge of word meanings will lead to an increase or facilitation of
reading comprehension. This is in accordance with the theories of many researchers
(Chern, 1993; Haynes & Baker, 1993; Hsieh, 2001; Huang, 2001), who argue that
vocabulary plays an indispensable role in reading comprehension.
In addition, students’ responses from the questionnaires also gave positive
comments on the effects of the two methods on their reading abilities. According to
their answers, almost all students in the Reading Group felt that reading articles
regularly helped them with their overall reading abilities, so did most students in the
Word Group, who believed that memorizing word lists helped with their overall
reading abilities. The qualitative data from questionnaires further substantiated the
quantitative data. On the other hand, since most students were supportive of any
method teachers gave, one point worth noticing here is whether students nowadays
were independent enough to really think about whether the method was good to them
or not. Therefore, if the two methods were implemented simultaneously, students
could provide more constructive and concrete response and made better comparison
of the two methods.
Effects of the Two Vocabulary-learning Methods on Vocabulary Abilities
Viewing from the performance in students’ vocabulary posttest, students in the
two groups all made progress; besides, by means of the independent t-test, learning
words in isolation through translation was significantly better in raising students’
vocabulary scores than learning words in context. The above finding is in agreement
with the findings of most previous researchers, who believe that learning words in
isolation through translation has better effects than learning words in context when it
comes to the quantity of the words learned or the retention of the vocabulary learned
immediately or after a period of time (Chen, 2001; Nation, 2001; Prince, 1996).
Moreover, when it comes to long-term memory of memorized words, studies show
that the results of deliberate learning of words persist over several years; that is, the
retention of words learned deliberately lasts longer (Bahrick, 1984; Bahrick and
Phelps, 1987). In my study, the Word Group memorized word lists, which belongs to a
kind of deliberate learning of words, while the Reading Group learned words from
reading, which is incidental learning of words. Therefore, the result also echoes those
researchers.
On the other hand, based on the responses in questionnaires, the reasons why the
Reading Group couldn’t have better performances in their vocabulary abilities are
many. First, they couldn’t make good use of contextual clues to successfully know the
meanings of the unknown words, because they lacked sufficient training and definite
instruction on how to do it. Second, those unknown words couldn’t be memorized and
retained based on a single exposure. Third, some students knew too few words to
comprehend the articles, or even to make successful inference of the meanings of the
unknown words. Just like Nassaji’s (2003) suggestion, context doesn’t necessarily
help learners generate new knowledge and learn new words only by a single exposure,
because the success to derive word meanings from context is low. In addition, training
students how to make use of contextual clues to guess the meanings of unknown
words is also important if EFL teachers want to implement the vocabulary-learning
method – learning words in context.
According to the responses from the questionnaires, almost all students in the
Word Group liked their new vocabulary-learning method. That is, learning words in
isolation through translation was quite acceptable and popular to students. The finding
was also in accordance with Chan’s study (1999), in which her participants appeared
to be positive toward learning words by translation. Moreover, nearly one-fourth of
students in the Reading Group mentioned the disadvantage of learning words in
context was that the words appeared in articles couldn’t be memorized and even
retained after reading. In addition, more than one-fourth of the students in the Reading
Group responded that they didn’t like to learn vocabulary via context because this
method distracted them from consciously focusing on the memorization of word,
which was still an important stage when students tried to learn these words by heart.
This echoes Nation’s (2001) viewpoint that the value of direct learning of vocabulary
is that “it allows learners to consciously focus on an aspect of word knowledge that is
not easily gained from context” (p.302). Therefore, all of these findings provide
empirical data to prove that learning words via translation is still a good way, which is
worth advocating (Chan, 1999; Chen, 2001; Nation, 2001), and to cite Seibert’s (1931)
word, “when it comes to memorizing the words…the method of associated pairs is the
best” (p.313).
Effects of Two Vocabulary-learning Methods on Different Proficiency Learners
In case of both High Proficiency subgroups’ (Reading and Word) performance,
the mean progress in reading of the High Proficiency students in the Reading Group
was higher than that of the Word Group; however, the mean progress in vocabulary
of the Word Group was higher than that of the Reading Group. Therefore, the
conclusion is that the two vocabulary-learning methods indeed give rise to different
effects among students of different language levels. To make it clear, learning words
in context seems more effective in boosting High Proficiency learners’ reading
scores, while learning words in isolation seems to have better effects on High
Proficiency learners’ vocabulary abilities.
With regard to the two Low Proficiency subgroups’ performance, the results
are similar. The mean progress in reading of the students in the Reading Group was
higher than that of the Word Group, while the mean progress in vocabulary of the
Word Group was higher than that of the Reading Group. Clearly, the two
vocabulary-learning methods had certain effects on Low Proficiency students’
reading and vocabulary abilities. Specifically, learning words in context was more
effective in raising Low Proficiency learners’ reading abilities while learning words
via translation had better effects on Low Proficiency learners’ vocabulary abilities.
This finding proves that direct training of certain abilities is essential. That is,
if students want to improve certain abilities, direct and specific instruction in that
aspect is needed and the effect is also strong. For example, this study proves that the
training of reading definitely increases reading abilities; similarly, training of
vocabulary undoubtedly makes the vocabulary abilities better.
However, when comparing the mean difference of progress in reading and
vocabulary between the two High Proficiency subgroups and the two Low
Proficiency subgroups, the difference was not similar. The results showed that
learning words via translation had significantly better effects on raising High
Proficiency and Low Proficiency students’ vocabulary scores than learning words in
context. However, it is still uncertain which way is better in improving High
Proficiency and Low Proficiency groups’ reading abilities due to the insignificant
difference between the progress in reading of both High Proficiency and Low
Proficiency groups. To sum up, this finding provides empirical evidence and further
strengthens the importance of the vocabulary learning method – learning words in
isolation through translation.
According to the responses in the questionnaires, all of the High Proficiency
students in the Word Group gave positive feedback to learning words in isolation
through translation, and all of them thought that this method had effects on both
their overall reading and vocabulary abilities. Similarly, most High Proficiency
students in the Reading Group mentioned that learning words in context helped
them with both their overall reading and vocabulary abilities, while only one of
them thought that it was no help. On the other hand, the majority of the Low
Proficiency students in the Reading Group thought that learning words in context
helped them with their reading abilities, and one-fourth of them thought that this
method didn’t help them with their vocabulary abilities. The majority of the Low
Proficiency students in the Word Group thought learning words by word lists helped
them with their overall reading abilities, and only one-tenth of them thought this
method didn’t help them improve their vocabulary abilities. The qualitative data
were consistent with empirical evidence in this study.
In the other hand, just as the statistic results presented before, an interesting
phenomenon is that regardless which vocabulary-learning method was adopted,
Low Proficiency students progressed more than High Proficiency students in their
reading scores. However, Low Proficiency students reported in the questionnaires
that they felt the pressure of reading articles because of their limited vocabulary
knowledge and the stress to memorize word lists within limited time. This suggests
that as long as teachers pay more attention to these Low Proficiency students’ need
and devote more time to devising or choosing teaching materials which are more
suitable to them, they can still make remarkable and surprising progress. What’s
more, all those Low Proficiency students need is more time to cultivate their
self-learning, more encouragement to build up their confidence, and more support to
motivate them to learn more.
Responses from Questionnaires
This study showed that, as for vocabulary learning strategies, when
encountering unknown words, six-tenth of the students in the Reading Group
would consult dictionaries, three-tenth of them tried to guess the meanings and
one-tenth students chose to skip the unknown words while reading. According to
Schmitt’s Taxonomy (1997, 2000), the majority of the students in the Reading
Group used determination strategies for initial discovery of words’ meanings.
When it comes to consolidation strategies, nearly half of the students in Word
Group used verbal and written repetition, which belonged to cognitive strategies,
while one-fourth of them tried to study word sounds and spelling, which belonged
to memory strategies.
With regard to the pros and cons of the two vocabulary-learning methods, nearly
one-third of the students in the Reading Group mentioned that the disadvantage of
reading articles regularly was time-consuming while more than one-third of the
students in the Word Group thought that the advantage of memorizing was
efficiency. This finding is in agreement with several researchers’ theories (Nation,
2001; Mondria’s, 2003). On the other hand, more than half of the students in the
Reading Group thought that the advantage of reading regularly was to improve
reading abilities, and one-third of them mentioned the advantage of the method was
learning new words and correct usages. Thus, most of the students in the Reading
Group recognized the advantage of elevating their reading and vocabulary abilities
via learning words in context. As for the disadvantage of learning in context, apart
from being less efficient, one-fourth of the students referred to the fact that new
words weren’t memorized if there wasn’t enough time spent on memorizing. Thus,
the learning effect of memorizing was the greatest in the acquisition of words,
which is in accordance with Mondria’s (2003) study.
More than half of the students in the Word Group mentioned that the
disadvantage of learning vocabulary via word lists was that these words were easily
forgotten and because of limited time spent on memorizing them. Besides, some of
them also emphasized the importance of phonetic transcripts or example sentences
and articles to facilitate their memorization. All of these responses provided
precious suggestions that the best way to train students to memorize word lists was
combined with phonetic transcripts, example sentences or articles. Most importantly,
reviewing of these words was indispensable so teachers should devise some
activities or arrange some tests to help students review these words. As for the
advantage of this method, almost half of them thought that it was efficient and it
sped up memorization. Besides, some of them thought this method could help them
learn more words in addition to words in textbooks, and others thought they could
increase their amount of vocabulary little by little, which could reduce their mental
burden in memorizing English words. The responses also provided empirical
evidence to support learning words via translation.
On the other hand, most students believed that memorizing word lists regularly
helped with their reading English abilities, because this method helped them have a
deeper impression of the memorized words so that they could easily get the main
ideas when reading, and thus have better performance in English tests.
To sum up, learning words in context and learning words in isolation through
translation had effects on participants’ reading and vocabulary abilities, however,
the two methods had their disadvantages as well. Participants’ responses in the
questionnaires provide precious suggestions and help teachers make adaptation
when using the two methods.
