UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
EFPM 267: LANGUAGE AWARENESS FOR TESOL
Vocabulary Instruction at Box Hill College Kuwait
Student ID
620033084
11 February 2013
Submitted to Philip Durrant
Introduction
The importance of vocabulary in successful language learning is widely recognized by teachers, students and researchers alike. Though each context will dictate the type of vocabulary covered, and perhaps even the methods used to cover it, any well written language curriculum will clearly address the inclusion of vocabulary instruction in the classroom.
Box Hill College Kuwait (BHCK) is a private girl’s college in Kuwait which offers an EAP Foundation programme to students prior to the start of their subject level studies. Because of the high number of expatriates in Kuwait, and the inclusion of English in daily interactions, many students entering the BHCK Foundation programme already have a grasp of basic, functional English. Though this might seem beneficial to students studying English, it often proves the opposite as students become frustrated when their basic English does not translate into useful academic English. This means that, not only are teachers given the task of assisting students in making the huge transition from ESL to EAP, but also making the program as engaging as possible to overcome issues of motivation brought on by frustration. In this context, vocabulary is of particular importance in several aspects including the coverage of functional classroom and meta-lingual vocabulary early in their studies to enable participation in higher levels of English study and coverage of academic vocabulary in order to prepare them for participation in subject level study.
The reason I have chosen to address this area is that, despite the importance of vocabulary outlined above, the BHCK Foundation curriculum largely fails to address vocabulary instruction. Much of the students’ language learning prior to BHCK employs outdated methods like grammar-translation and rote memorization of vocabulary, and this has lead to a general consensus among Kuwaiti administration that explicit instruction proves that words are being learned. Thus, administration wants vocabulary to be taught explicitly but, without guidance, teachers were generally unsure how to approach vocabulary instruction, selection of words to cover, and useful activities for practice.
In an attempt to bridge the gap between proven vocabulary teaching theories and the practices at BHCK, I have chosen to assess the programme’s general approach to vocabulary instruction. I will begin by outlining both historical and current theories of vocabulary instruction with the aim of solidifying theoretical backing for best practices. I will then analyze the inclusion of vocabulary in the BHCK curriculum as it stands and then provide a suggested course of action to address areas of weakness. I will conclude by discussing ways in which my suggested course of action raises the language awareness of teachers and students in my context.
Theories of Vocabulary Instruction in Language Learning
This section will begin with a very brief overview of historical views of language teaching and their relation to vocabulary instruction in particular. I will then proceed to discuss current trends in vocabulary instruction as they relate to vocabulary choice, types of vocabulary knowledge, and effective processes for teaching vocabulary.
Historical Perspectives
Any exploration of the history of language teaching theories will no doubt illustrate a pendulum-like swing between a focus on structure and language accuracy and a focus on meaning and fluency of language use. This swing is never more apparent than when tracing language learning theory through grammar translation, the direct approach, audiolingualism, the situational approach, and communicative language teaching.
In the grammar translation tradition, the focuses of language instruction were structure and grammar, accuracy of translation, and language rules (Kelly, 1969), and the students’ L1 played an important role in learning the L2. Students were often drilled in grammar and vocabulary and then given texts to translate to and from L1 to L2. Because of the focus on grammar, vocabulary was often introduced and used solely to demonstrate grammar (Kelly, 1969). One of the primary problems with this approach was that little vocabulary practice took place in the classroom, and instead students were given word lists and expected to learn independently through the use of bilingual dictionaries.
As time progressed, the language learning community reacted against the focus on rules and accuracy of the grammar-translation method, and this is evident in the direct approach wherein vocabulary was acquired through involvement in communication situations. In this approach, the focus shifted away from grammar, and the use of a students’ L1 was seen as having no place in the L2 classroom. Vocabulary instruction was achieved by connecting words to reality through the use of realia, pictures, and classroom objects (Howatt, 1984:206), but this sort of instruction seems more suited to general functional English classes than classes in an EAP programme.
The popularity of the direct approach was followed by the audiolingual method which was made popular through use by the American military and focused on drilling, memorization, and pronunciation and where accuracy again took place over fluency (Schmitt, 2000). Vocabulary was taught, but was simple and rationed. The belief was that the focus on drilling, memorization, and pronunciation would to create ‘good language habits’ which would naturally aid with expanding vocabulary (Coady, 1993:4).
At the around the same time as the audiolingual method, the situational method was popular in Britain (Schmitt, 2000). This method grouped grammar structures and lexis according to the needs for specific situations. This approach aimed to systematically choose vocabulary by considering ideas of frequency suggested by Michael West, whose frequency lists will be discussed later (West, 1953). This method also focused on the systematic graduation of language difficulty (Zimmerman, 1997; Richards & Rodgers, 1986).
One of the most recent and widely known approaches to language teaching is the communicative language teaching approach which focuses on fluency and communicating meaning. Little attention is paid to formal teaching of vocabulary; rather it is addressed only as it assists in conveying meaning (Rivers, 1983). This method has been welcomed by teachers incorporating vocabulary instruction as it shifted away from the frequency lists used in the situational method, and instead allowed for choice based on teachers’ subjective ideas of importance (Zimmerman, 1997).
Choosing Vocabulary
If we accept that modern teaching theory supports the inclusion of some explicit vocabulary instruction, then the teaching of vocabulary begins with determining which items will be covered, and this choice is informed by a number of different considerations. This section will provide an overview of research concerning vocabulary size, vocabulary frequency, and vocabulary types which all impact the choices teachers make regarding specific vocabulary items.
Research has estimated that there are approximately 54,000 word families in English when things like proper nouns and words with multiple spellings are excluded (Goulden, Nation, & Read, 1990; Webster's third new international dictionary, 1963). However, of these 54,000 word families, it is estimated that a graduate L1 speaker of English knows only approximately 20,000 word families (Goulden et al., 1990). As most would consider this an unrealistic goal for L2 learners of English, it is important to look at figures suggested for a learner’s comprehension. For understanding academic written discourse, it is suggested that a person know 8000-9000 word families (Nation, 2006; Hu & Nation, 2000). In order to understand spoken discourse, figures vary from 800 word families (Adolphs & Schmitt, 2003) to 2000-3000 word families (Laufer, 1992), or 6000-7000 word families (Nation, 2006). Finally, in order to produce spoken and written English, it is suggested that a person know 2000-3000 word families (Hirsh & Nation, 1992).
In addition to know how much vocabulary a person needs, it is important to know what type of vocabulary they need. There are four main types of vocabulary including high frequency, academic, technical, and low frequency (Nation, 2001). High Frequency words appear often in written and spoken English. It is thought that there are between 2000-3000 words of high frequency in English (Nation, 1990), and that knowing these words allows a person to understand spoken discourse (Laufer, 1992) and produce written and spoken English (Hirsh & Nation, 1992). One of the most widely used references of high frequency words is the General Services List (West, 1953) which contains the 2000 most frequently used words (Zimmerman, 1997). Though there have been critiques of this list because of its age (Richards, 1974), and its focus on writing (Nation & Waring, 1997), a number of studies have shown that the words it contains continue to account for an average of 82 percent of words in written discourse (Nation & Waring, 1997).
Academic words are those that appear frequently across a range of academic texts (Nation, 2001). The more specialized nature of these words means that they are likely to prove especially useful for students in EAP programmes. Coxhead’s Academic Word List (Coxhead, 1998; 2000) provides a comprehensive and widely used resource for academic words that is suggested by a number of experts in the field (Schmitt, 2000; Nation, 2001).
Technical words are even more specialized than academic words as they relate to a specific subject area. Thus the technical words used in one field will differ greatly from those used in another field. The specialized nature of this vocabulary means that the words are only like to prove useful to those studying or working in a particular field. And finally, the low frequency word category contains, by far, the highest number of items. These may be items that fall just short of higher frequency counts, but also include technical vocabulary for other fields, proper nouns, and words that are generally used very little (Nation, 2001). Considerations of these types mean that the choice of what vocabulary items to teach will be specific to each context, the students involved, and the purpose for learning English.
Vocabulary Knowledge
The answer to the question of how to know a word in English may seem obvious at first, especially to L1 speakers of English, and may include criteria such as knowing the meaning, being able to use it in a sentence, or being able to pronounce it correctly. Yet a deeper look at vocabulary knowledge sheds light on a vast amount of more nuanced ‘background’ information that can be known about a single vocabulary item. A number of researchers in the field have provided in-depth explanations of vocabulary knowledge covering an extensive range of aspects including concept meanings and prototypes, word sense relations like synonymy and meronymy (Schmitt, 2000), grammatical word class and use (Ellis, 1997), and multi-word items and collocations (Moon, 1997). However, Nation provides a table to vocabulary aspects which is more practical in its format and explanation, and this table helps connect complex theory to concrete practice. This table is show in Figure 1.
Figure 1-What is involved in knowing a word(Nation, 2001:27)
At its most specific end, this table offers 18 questions relating to receptive and production knowledge and abilities that deconstruct the nature of knowing a vocabulary item. Yet even this more practical approach to vocabulary knowledge can seem daunting when considering the inclusion of vocabulary instruction in the classroom. In this case, it is important to remember that vocabulary learning is incremental and thus not all of a vocabulary item’s aspects will be learned at the same time. A number of aspects like spelling, pronunciation, word form and basic meaning are likely to be covered initially and through explicit teaching, while more nuanced knowledge like collocations and word associations will come later (Schmitt, 2008). As with choosing what items to teach, the context is likely to be a determining factor in what aspects to teach, and teachers are likely to draw up significantly shorter lists of vocabulary knowledge that is relevant and manageable in the context.
The Process
Once an instructor has chosen vocabulary items and determined relevant vocabulary knowledge, the actual process of teaching can begin. Nation suggests a three step approach to teaching vocabulary that includes noticing, retrieval, and generation (Nation, 2001), and the steps in this approach are supported by a number of other prominent researchers in the field. Each step is briefly outlined below.
It is not surprising that language teaching is more effective when language items are contextualized as this provides students with motivation to engage with the language. But, as a review of the history of teaching approaches illustrated, there is some disagreement over the balance between putting items in a relevant or interesting context, and pulling items out of that context for further study. The concept of noticing does not suggest that vocabulary items should be handled in a vacuum, but rather implies that pulling items out of a larger context is necessary whether to facilitate more direct study, or simply as ‘awareness-raising’ (Lewis, 1997) activities to help students recognize the usefulness of specific items (Nation, 2001; Ellis, 1991). In practice, noticing can happen in a number of ways.
I believe that many teachers would agree that it is beneficial for initial exposure to new target vocabulary items to be achieved through a broader context. This is often a reading or listening text of some kind, and the target vocabulary, if chosen according to the research outlined in the previous section, would be high frequency words found in that text. Teachers may draw attention to these target items by facilitating discussion where meaning of target items is negotiated in the course of understanding the text message, writing target items on the board, or engaging students in a wide range of vocabulary strategy activities with the target items including multiple choice or matching where meaning is gleaned from context, dictionary practice where words are looked up, and the entry of words into vocabulary notebooks or cards. Yet with target vocabulary, where the goal is help students incorporate items into their language through a deeper understanding of multiple aspects of vocabulary knowledge, teaching must go beyond noticing.
Once an item has been noticed, and even understood in the initial context, the next step in ‘internalizing’ that item is through repeated retrieval (Baddeley, 1990). Nation suggests that retrieval can be either receptive or productive where receptive retrieval involves hearing or seeing a word and having to retrieve its meaning and productive retrieval involves wanting to communicate the meaning of the word and having to retrieve its written or spoken form (Nation, 2001). To some extent then, retrieval is achieved through repeated exposure and need for the word, though Baddeley points out that it is the necessity of knowledge retrieval that is useful, rather than simple repeated exposure (1990). Thus, as Nation explains, “Retrieval does not occur if the form and its meaning are presented simultaneously to the learner” (Nation, 2001:67)