A Study of the Effects of Rote, Mnemonic and Contextualized Strategies on Advanced Iranian EFL Learners’ Lexical Development

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD in English Language Teaching, English Language Department, Assistant Professor, University of Tabriz

2 Master of English Language Teaching, Department of English, University of Tabriz

Abstract

Language is the sign of mental development and an instrument of understanding. It has a very important role in cognitive and social development. Language is mingled with thought. Thoughts are conveyed through language. Words are the basic units, which construct the spoken and written language. In order to express the ideas, one needs words. Therefore, words and the way of learning them are essential processes for all the speakers of a language. Communication is possible through speaking. However, in order to be a successful communicator, it is necessary to pay attention to all the skills of the language. Learning a foreign language is an essential component in foreign language learners’ lives for the challenges that they face during this process. Most of the challenges posed in this stage are due to the learners’ limited exposure to that language. Vocabulary learning is at the core of language learning. Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLS) facilitate this process. The present study aimed to investigate three common types of vocabulary learning strategies, including rote memorization, mnemonic memorization, and contextualized memorization used by advanced Iranian EFL learners. The design of this study was quasi-experimental. It consisted of three experimental groups and one control group. A website was designed by the researchers for the sake of this study. The website helped the researchers in the process of scoring and reduced the probability of cheating among the participants, so it increased the reliability of the study. Some eighty advanced female Iranian learners (20 in each group) participated in this study. The participants were selected according to the results of the Quick Placement Test. The advanced level learners were chosen on the basis of convenient sampling. At the beginning, a pretest was administered to the learners. Approximately one hundred and fifty words were selected from the book named “Borron’s Essential Words for the TOEFL”. The words were taught to the learners in fifty sessions by three different methods: rote, mnemonic and contextualized. The teacher was one of the researchers. There were also immediate and delayed posttests at the end; however, the immediate and delayed posttests were different in the order of the questions and choices. The results were analyzed by SPSS software. A one-way ANOVA was conducted. In terms of inferential statistics, this study showed that there is a significant difference between the experimental groups and the control group. The mnemonic group was meaningfully better than the contextualized group, the contextualized group outperformed the rote group meaningfully, and finally the rote group had a better performance when compared with the control group.  In descriptive terms, the findings of this study showed that those who were taught using the mnemonic strategy had the highest mean in both immediate (M=39.3) and delayed (M=39) posttests, and showed a better performance than the other groups. The findings of the study have some implications for classroom practice. Therefore, this study might have some beneficial pedagogical implications for both teachers and learners by helping them redefine their proper responsibilities. In a broad sense, this study may help teachers to remember that no single L2 instructional methodology fits all learners. Strategies help determine a particular learner’s ability and willingness to work within the framework of various instructional methodologies. It is foolhardy to think that a single L2 methodology could possibly fit an entire class filled with learners who have a range of stylistic and strategic preferences. Instead, the teachers should be aware of different strategies used by learners and apply the most suitable methods. These methods could allow creative variety to meet the needs of all learners in class. The results of the present study can make writers aware of the conventions of their discipline and help teachers to be careful in using different vocabulary learning strategy types to develop vocabulary and to improve reading and writing in a more natural way. The findings of this research can also contribute to the improvement of the ability to understand the language of written academic discourse. In the present study the application of vocabulary learning strategies resulted in successful learning among language learners. It is worth mentioning that applying these strategies are fruitful for both teachers and learners. They can help both groups to be successful in their practices. Also, even less proficient learners and novice teachers can find something interesting. However, syllabus designers and material writers can use the advantages of these vocabulary learning strategies in writing and developing English materials.

Keywords


Ahmadi Safa. M., & Hamzavi, R. (2013). The effect of mnemonic key word method on    vocabulary learning and long-term retention. Journal of English Language           Teaching and Learning, 12 (1), 1-15.
Alavi, S. M., & Kavianpanah, Sh. (2006) Cognitive and metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies across fiels of study. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 1 (27), 83-106 [In Persian].
 American Heritage Publishing Company (2014). The American heritage science   dictionary            (2nd ed).          America:  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Retried from             <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rote learning.>
Amirian, S. M. R., & Momeni, S. (2012). Definition-based versus contextualized   vocabulary            learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 223          230.
Arikan, A., & Taraf, H. U. (2010). Contextualizing young learners’ English lessons with  cartoons: focus on grammar and vocabulary. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2           (2), 5212- 5215.
Bahari, M. (1989). Moonlighting among Iranian teachers. United States: Arizona State     University.
Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. London, New York,  Melbourne, Auckland: Edward Arnold.
Du, Y. (2012). The application of mnemonic to improve the middle school student’s         English achievement. Journal of Education and Learning, 1 (2), 300-310.
Eslami Rasekh, Z., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for        vocabulary learning. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 7 (2), 1-15 [In Persian].
Fahim, M., & Komijani, A. (2011). Critical thinking ability, L2 vocabulary knowledge,    and L2            vocabulary learning strategies. Journal of English Studies, 1 (1),         23-28 [In Persian].
Keshavarz, M. H., Ataei, M. R., & Mossahebi Mohammadi, S. (2006). The effect of semantic mapping strategy instruction on vocabulary learning of intermediate EFL students.  Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 49 (198), 149-176 [In Persian].
Khatib. M., Hassanzadeh. M., & Rezaei. S. (2011). Vocabulary learning strategies of         Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners. International Education Studies, 4 (2),      144-152 [In Persian].
Marzban, A., & Azimi Amoli, F. (2012). The effect of mnemonic strategies instruction     on the            immediate and delayed information retrieval of vocabulary learning in          EFL     elementary learners. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46 (1), 4957-4961.
Mondria, J. A. (2003). The effects of inferring, verifying, and memorizing on          the       retention of            L2 word meanings: an experimental comparison of the “meaning       inferred method”      and            the “meaning-given method”. SSLA, 25 (1), 473-499.
Nemati, A. (2010). Enhancing long-term retention by memory vocabulary learning strategies.      The Journal of Asia TEFL, 7 (1), 171-195.
Pishghadam, R., & Shayesteh, S. (2016). Emotioncy: A post-linguistic approach toward   vocabulary learning and retention. Journal of Social Sciences, 39 (1), 27-36.
Pishghadam. R., Khodadady. E., & Khosh Sabk. N. (2010). The impact of visual and         verbal intelligences-based teaching on the vocabulary retention and written production of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. The Modern Journal of Applied      Linguistics, 1 (2), 379-395 [In Persian].
Quick Oxford Placement Test (2004). Quick Placement Test (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford       University Press and the University of Cambridge Local Examinations     Syndicate. Retrieved from <https://dokumen.tips/documents/quick-placement       test-2.html> 
Rahimi, H. (2014). The effect of method of vocabulary presentation (code-mixing, thematic            clustering, and contextualization) on L2 vocabulary recognition         and production. Social            and Behavioral Sciences, 98 (1), 1475-1484.
Rashidi, N., & Omid, A. (2011). A survey on Iranian EFL learners' beliefs on the role       of rote            memorization in learning vocabulary and its effect on vocabulary      achievement. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 15 (1), 139-161.
Rezaei, O., & Dezhara, S. (2011). An investigation of the possible effects of favored         contexts            in second language vocabulary acquisition. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 97- 114.
Rezaei. A. A., & Aghaziyan. A. (2008).  High School Students' Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies: A Comparison between Farsi-Speaking and Armenian       Speaking Language Learners. Journal of Humanistics Faculty of Tabriz University, 49 (198), 1-15 [In Persian].
Rouhi, A., & Razinezhad, S. A. (2017). The Effect of Different Mixtures of FonF Manifestations on High School Students’ Vocabulary Learning. Zabanpazhuhi, 9 (23), 53-78 [In Persian].
Rubin. J. & Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a successful language learner. Boston,            Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle.
Sagarra, N., & Alba, M. (2006). The key is in the keyword: L2 vocabulary learning           methods            with    beginning learners of Spanish. The Modern Language  Journal, 90 (2), 228 - 243.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy,            Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp. 199-227). Cambridge:            Cambridge University Press.
Shariffar, S., & Khoii, R. (2013). Memorization versus semantic mapping in L2      vocabulary            acquisition. ELT Journal, 67 (2), 199-209.
Sinhaneti, K., & Kyaw, E. K. (2012). A study of the role of rote learning in vocabulary     learning strategies of Burmese students. US- China Education Review, 12 (1), 987- 1005.
Siriganjanavong, V. (2013). The mnemonic keyword method: effects on the vocabulary   acquisition and retention. English Language Teaching, 1(6), 101-120.
Wilkins, d. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London: Edward Arnold LTD.
Wu, Q. (2014). A Rote strategy in memorizing vocabulary for ESL learners. Social and    Behavioral Sciences, 143 (1),294- 301.
Xu, L., Xiong, Q., & Qin, Y. (2018). Research on contextualized memorizing of     meaning in            foreign language vocabulary. World Journal of Education, 8 (2),        168-173.
Yu, L. (2011). Vocabulary recognition and memorization: a comparison of two      methods.            (Unpublished Thesis). Kristianstad University, Kristianstad,   Sweden. Retrieved from              http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:429600/fulltext01.pdf
وب­گاه­ها
www.edubridge.ir