The Role of Concordance Formats in Vocabulary Learning

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD Student, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Mohaghegh Ardabili University, Ardabil

4 Assistant Professor, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

There is a consensus among language teachers and researchers about the critical role of vocabulary acquisition in language learning development (e.g., Webb & Nation, 2017; Schmitt, 2008(. However, vocabulary learning poses a challenge for most EFL learners (e.g., Schouten-van Parreren, 1980; McCarten, 2007; Teng, 2016). A large number of studies have explored the influence of different vocabulary instruction techniques on enhancing language learners' vocabulary development (Webb & Nation, 2017).
More recently, concordance-based instruction has been introduced as a beneficial approach for teaching vocabulary (Boulton & Cobb, 2017; Kazaz, 2015; Soruc & Tekin, 2017). This approach engages learners in data-driven learning (DDL) which requires them to explore concordance examples and discover knowledge for themselves. DDL is in line with the inductive language learning and exploratory approach. In concordance-based vocabulary instruction, learners are exposed to language instances and are supposed to both notice the meaning of the target lexicon or recognize the patterns and understand them through analysis and generalizations which is in line with the noticing hypothesis.
Also, according to Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) theory of depth of processing, there is a hierarchy of processing levels and deeper processing of information is conducive to longer retention of words. In the present study, the learners were asked to infer the meaning of unfamiliar words which required them to analyze the contexts for contextual clues and also evaluate the accuracy and appropriateness of their inferences. Constructivist learning theory is another theory that provides support for this study. This theory is based on the idea that knowledge is not passively accumulated and learners themselves actively construct their knowledge. Stated differently, this theory posits that learning doesn’t occur through transmitting a body of knowledge by instructors as it is supposed by traditional approaches (Boulton, 2017).
In the present study, learners actively analyzed concordance lines, generated and tested hypotheses, and discovered knowledge for themselves. On the other hand, presenting words in context provides learners with an opportunity to infer the meaning of unknown words through using contextual clues (Van den Broek et al., 2018). It is believed that the meaning inference of unfamiliar words plays an important role in developing learners’ word knowledge (Hamada, 2009). To sum up, concordancing paves the way for lexical inferencing by presenting the words in multiple contexts which improves vocabulary learning (Nassaji, 2006).
Since the focus of literature has mostly been on comparing concordance-based vocabulary teaching and learning with more traditional methods, ignoring the fact that concordance can take various formats (Balance, 2016), the present study addressed this issue by exploring the effect of three different concordance formats (two complete sentences, one complete sentence, and incomplete sentence) on learners’ vocabulary gain and retention. The participants of the study were 66 upper-intermediate English language learners who were selected from three classes based on their performance on Quick Oxford Placement Test. Each group received 63 new words in one of the concordance formats. The target words were presented in the three formats within 7 sessions and the participants of each group were asked to infer the meaning of the new words from one of the contexts.
The effect of the three concordance formats on learners’ vocabulary gain and retention was explored by conducting 2 one-way ANOVAs. Moreover, post hoc multiple comparisons were run to locate any significant differences across the three groups. The results revealed that using concordance examples in all three formats was effective in learning new words. However, those who received two-sentence concordance examples outperformed the other groups in the immediate vocabulary test. The first group’s better performance in the immediate test of vocabulary gain, can be attributed to their access to a larger context and hence more contextual clues that were noticed by them, their more involvement in the task, and more successful meaning construction from the context. 
Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the three groups with regard to vocabulary retention. However, the descriptive statistics revealed that the group who received incomplete sentences was less successful in vocabulary retention compared to the other groups. Therefore, using concordance examples in incomplete sentence formats is not recommended for presenting new words. Despite its advantages, the use of concordancer for language learning is not widespread (Romer, 2010). This is the case for the Iranian context where teachers and learners are mostly unaware of concordance availability or are unfamiliar with using this tool. Since language learners don’t have access to online concordance inside the classroom, language teachers can prepare printed concordance examples in the two-sentence format to teach new words and gradually encourage learners to use online concordance outside the classroom. The findings provide insights into the use of concordance in vocabulary teaching and learning.

Keywords

References

 
Allan, R. (2010). Concordances versus dictionaries: Evaluating approaches to word learning in ESOL. In R. Chacon-Beltran, C. Abello-Contesse, M. Mar Torreblanca-Lopez, & M. Dolores Lopez-Jimenez (Eds.), Further insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 112–125). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Anani Sarab, M., & Kardoust, A. (2014). Concordance-based DDL activities and learning English phrasal verbs in EFL classrooms. Issues in Language Teaching, 3, 89–112.
Balance, O. J. (2016). Analyzing concordancing: A simple or multifaceted construct? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29 (7), 1205–1219.
Boulton, A. (2010). Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning, 60(3), 534–572.
Boulton, A. (2017). Data-driven learning and language pedagogy. In S. Thorne & S. May (Eds.), Language,Education and Technology: Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp.181–192). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3319-02328-1_15-1.
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language learning, 67(2), 348–393.
Butler, J. D. (2017). One size doesn't fit all: Implementation of differentiated instruction, (PhD Dissertation). National Louis University, Chicago, USA.
Carpenter, S. K., Sachs, R. E., Martin, B., Schmidt, K., & Looft, R. (2012). Learning new vocabulary in German: The effects of inferring word meanings, type of feedback, and time of test. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 8–86.
Cobb, T. (1999). Applying constructivism: A test for the learner-as-scientist. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47, 15–33. doi:10.1007/BF02299631
Craik, F. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.
Ebrahimain, A. & Nabifar, N. (2015). The effect of three vocabulary learning strategies of word part, word-card and context-clue on Iranian high school students’ immediate and delayed English vocabulary learning and retention. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(17), 42–63.
Ergul, Y. (2014). The effectiveness of using corpus-based materials in vocabulary teaching (Master’s thesis). Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey. 
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2014). The use of corpus examples for language comprehension and production. ReCALL, 26(2), 128–146.
Gashmardi, M. (2010). Theoretical basis of learner-centered foreign language teaching methods. Language related Research, 1(2), 135–148 [In Persian].
Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2010). How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching? In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 359–370). London: Routledge.
Hamada, M. (2009). Development of L2 word-meaning inference while reading. System, 37(3), 447–460. Retrieved from <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.003>.
Harris, T., & Moreno Jean. M. (2010). Corpus linguistics in language teaching. Bern, New York, Oxford: Peter Lang.
Herusatoto, H. (2011). Longer EFL vocabulary retention: Learning in context or in isolation? Lingua Journal, 6(2), 181–183.
Hu, M., & Nation, P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430
Huang, L. (2016). Has corpus-based instruction reached a tipping point? Practical applications and pointers for teachers. TESOL Journal, 1–19. doi: 10.1002/tesj.271
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. J. Anaud, & H. Béjoint, (Eds.) Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113–125). London: Macmillan.
Jacoby, L. J., Craik, F. I. M., & Begg, I. (1979). Effects of decision difficulty on recognition and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(5), 585–600.
 Johns, T. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learner’s research tool. System, 14(2), 151–162.
Karras, J. N. (2016). The effects of data-driven learning upon vocabulary acquisition for secondary international school students in Vietnam. ReCALL, 28, 166–186. doi:10.1017/S0958344015000154.
Kazaz, I. (2015). Corpus-aided language pedagogy: The use of concordance lines in vocabulary instruction, (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Bilkent Univesity, Ankara, Turkey.
Lamy, M. N., & Klarskov Mortensen, J. (2007). Using concordance programs in the modern foreign languages classroom. In G. Davies (Ed.), Information and communications technology for language teachers (ICT4LT). Slough, UK: Thames Valley University. Retrieved from <http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod2-4.htm>.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26.
Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal, 28(1), 89–108.
Levy, M. (1990). Concordances and their integration into a word-processing environment for language learners. System, 18(2), 177–188.
Li, Xiaolong. (1988). Effects of contextual clues on inferring and remembering meanings of new words. Applied Linguistics, 9, 402 –413. Retrieved from <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.4.402>.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nation, P. (2014). How much input do you need to learn the most frequent 9,000 words?        Reading in a Foreign Language, 26, 1–16.
Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Canadian ModernLanguage Review, 61(1),107–134.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Oxford, R. L., & Scarcella, R. C. (1994). Second language vocabulary learning among adults: State of the art in vocabulary instruction. System, 22,231–243.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Viking.
Poole, R. (2012). Concordance-based glosses for academic vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29(4), 679–693.
Rezaee, A. A., Marefat, H., & Saeedakhtar, A. (2015). Symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding of L2 collocations in the context of concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 532–549.
Romer, U. (2010). Using general and specialized corpora in English language teaching: Past, present and future. In M.C. Campoy-Cubillo, B. Bellés-Fortuٌo, & M.L. Gea-Valor, (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching (pp. 18–38). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Rouhi, A., & Razinezhad, S. (2017). The effect of different mixtures of FonF manifestations on high school students’ vocabulary learning. Zabanpazhuhi, 9(23), 53–78. 10.22051/jlr.2017.7020.1015. [In Persian].
Schatz, E., & Baldwin, R. (1986). Context clues are unreliable predictors of word meanings.        Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 439– 453.
Schmidt, R. (1984). The strengths and limitations of acquisition. Language Learning and   Communication, 3, 1–16.
Schmitt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S.N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schouten-van Parreren, M. C. (1980). Vreemdtalige woorden: De betekenis onmiddellijk geven of eerstlaten raden? [Foreign language vocabulary teaching: Getting or guessing translations of new words?]. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 7, 156–173.
Schouten-Van Parreren, M. C. (1989). Vocabulary learning through reading: Which conditions should be met when presenting words in texts? Vocabulary Acquisition AILA Review, 24(6), 75–85.
Sinclair, J. (2004). New evidence, new priorities, new attitudes. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use       corpora in language teaching (pp. 271–299). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Soltani Moghaddam, M., & Kaivanpanah, S. (2015). Examining the role of task-induced involvement in L2 lexical inferencing. Foreign Language Research Journal, 5(1), 87–110. 10.22059/jflr.2015.62513 [In Persian].
Soruç, A., & Tekin, B. (2017). Vocabulary learning through data-driven learning in an English as a second language setting.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17, 1811–1832.Retrieved from <http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.6.0305>.
Supatranont, P. (2005). A Comparison of the Effects of the Concordance-Based and the Conventional Teaching Methods on Engineering Students' English Vocabulary Learning. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural        selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9–31.
Szudarski, P. (2018). Corpus Linguistics for Vocabulary: A Guide for Research. New York: Routledge.
Teng, F. (2016). The effects of context and word exposure frequency on incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. The Language Learning Journal, 1–13. Retrieved from <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1244217>.
Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. N. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 267–280.
Tongpoon, A. (2009). The enhancement of EFL learners' receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge through concordance-based methods (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Northern Arizona University, San Francisco, USA.
Van den Broek, G. S. E., Segers, E., van Rijn, H., Takashima, A., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Contextual richness and word learning: Context enhances comprehension but retrieval enhances retention. Language learning, 68(2), 546–585.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press: Harvard.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–40.
Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. S. (2010). Lexical inferencing in a first and second language: Cross-linguistic dimensions. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. (2014). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 13, Issue 39
July 2021
Pages 257-281

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics