The Effect of Teaching English Lexical Clusters on Iranian EFL Intermediate Learners’ Speaking Accuracy
Subject Areas : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies
Mohammad Taghi Hassani
1
(Ph.D, Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch, Takestan & Imam Hossein University, Tehran)
Maryam Jamali
2
(MA, Department of English Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch, Takestan, Iran)
Keywords: Lexical clusters, Speaking accuracy, Active vocabulary, Vocabulary production, Vocabulary learning strategy,
Abstract :
This study intended to inspect the possible effects of teaching English lexical clusters on speaking accuracy of Iranian EFL intermediate learners. Also it examined the influence of gender on the effect of teaching English lexical clusters on speaking accuracy of the same learners. 41 male and female EFL intermediate learners, studying English at intermediate level at Zabankade Institute in Tehran, were selected based on their performance on OPT test to 60 EFL learners. Then they were randomly assigned into two groups, as the experimental (n=21) and the control (n=20) groups in two classes. This study had a quasi-experimental design in which there were both a control and an experimental group, and the pretest and posttest were administered to collect data. First, a PET speaking test was administered to the participants of two groups to examine the initial knowledge of speaking grammatically of them. The experimental group of the study was treated with the teaching of English lexical clusters and the control group through a traditional method of teaching without lexical clustering technique. At the end of the experimental period, a posttest of PET speaking test identical to the pretest of PET speaking test was administered to the both groups of the study. In order to analyze the scores obtained from the pretest and posttest and answer the research questions of the study, a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was applied. Time was the within-subject factor, and group and gender were considered as the between-subject factors. Tests of between-subjects effects (Table 7) indicated that there was a statistically significant effect for the Group (F(1,37)=6.04, P<.05, Eta square=.14) in speaking accuracy. Consequently, the first null hypothesis is rejected, and therefore, it can be claimed that teaching English clusters significantly improves Iranian Intermediate EFL learners speaking accuracy. Tests of between-subjects effects failed to find any statistically significant effect for Gender (F(1,37)=.99, P>.5, Eta square=.02) in speaking accuracy. So, the second null hypothesis was confirmed and it was revealed that gender does not affect the vocabulary performance of the same learners. This may have significant implications for language instructors, course book writers and learners to make more advancement in vocabulary learning and speaking accurately through employing vocabulary or lexical clustering as a technique.
Ashraf, H., & Khosravani, M. (2014).The impacts of Semantic clustering on Critical Thinking and Vocabulary Learning. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching in the Islamic World, 2(1), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.FLTJ.org
Afghari, A., & Sadeghi, E. (2012).The effect of EFL learners’ Gender and Second Language Proficiency on Willingness to communicate. Sheikhbahaee University EFL Journal, 1(1), 40-66. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/JLC
Al-Jabri, S. S. (2005). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on learning English vocabulary by Saudi Students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Pennsylvania.
Abdelrahman, O. N. M. (2013). The effect of Teaching vocabulary Through Semantic Mapping on EFL learners’ Awareness of Vocabulary knowledge at AL Imam Mohammed IBIN Saud Islamic University. International Interdisplinary Journal of Education, 2(7), 722-730.
Asaei, R., & Rezvani, E. (2015).The effect of Explicit vs. Implicit Instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ Use of Collocations in L2 Writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(3), 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.jallr.ir
Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the mind: An Introduction to the mental lexicon. Great Britain: Blackwell Publishers.
Aitchison, J. (1996). Taming the wilderness: Words in the mental lexicon. In G. M. Anderman & M. A. Rogers (Eds.), Words, words, words: The translator and the language learner (pp.15-26). Great Britain: Multilingual Matters.
Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formula sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245-261.
Bamanger, E. (2014). The effect of task repetition on fluency and accuracy of EFL Saudi female learners’ oral task performance. International Journal of Educational Research and Development, 3(4), 058-065.
Bogaards, P., & Laufer, B. (2004). Introduction. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 5-7).Amsterdam: Benjamins.
C-essay, N. E. (2012). A Comparison of the Effects of Accuracy vs Fluency Based Tasks on Student Motivation, Self-confidence, Accuracy and Fluency. Halmstad University school of Humanities English 61-90D, 1-50. Retrived from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article
Channell, J. (1981). Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching. EFL Journal, xxxv(2), 115-122.
Chaney, A. L. (1998). Teaching Oral Communication. In Grandes K-8. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Crow, J. T., & Quigley, J. R. (1985). A semantic field approach to passive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 497-513.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, A. (2004). The road to tolerance: The philosophy of rational emotive behavior therapy. New York: Prometheus Books.
Erten, I. H., & Tekin, M. (2008).Effects of vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36(3), 407-422.
Finkbeiner, M., & Nicol, J. (2003). Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycolinguistics, 24, 369-383.
Fu, J. (2009). A study of learning styles, teaching styles and vocabulary teaching strategies in chinese primary school. Kristianstad University College: Sweden.
Firth, J. (1957). Modes of meaning. In J. Firth (Ed.), Papers in linguistics (pp. 130-158). London: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd Ed.).New York: Rutledge.
Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Groot, A. M. B. (2006). Effects of stimulus characteristics and background music on foreign language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 56(3), 463-506.
Grandy, R. E. (1992).Semantic field, prototypes, and the lexicon. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 103-122). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education. Cambridge: CUP.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp.49-50). Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Hashemi, R. H., & Gowdasiaei, F. (2005). An attribute-treatment interaction study: Lexical-set versus semantically-unrelated vocabulary instruction. Regional Language Center Journal, 36(3), 341-361.
Hippner-Page, T. (2000). Semantic clustering versus thematic clustering of English vocabulary words for second language instruction: Which method is more effective?. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICwebportal/recordDetail?accno=ED445550
Haycraft, J. (1993). An Introduction to English Language Teaching. Malaysia: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.
Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intra-list word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 170-175.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring Error Analysis. London: Longman.
Jullian, P. (2000). Creating word-meaning awareness. ELT Journal, 54(1), 37-46.
Khan, S. (2010). Strategies and spoken production on three oral communication tasks: A study of high and low proficiency EFL learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Universitat Autònomade , Barcelona.
Khalilisabet, M., & Mousazadeh, M. (2015). The effect of Vocabulary cluster on Iranian Intermediate EFL learners’ Vocabulary Achievement. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(1), 209-215. doi: 10.7575/aiac.Ijalel.v.4n.1p.209
Khosravani, M., & Khorashadyzadeh, A. (2014). Does Semantic clustering of L2 vocabularies Affect EFL learners’ Critical Thinking And Vocabulary Learning?. International Journal of Language Learning And Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 6(1), 397-408. Retrieved from http://www.ijllalw.org
Lewis, M. (2000).Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Laufer, B. (1989). A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: Deceptive transparency. AILA Review, 6, 10-20.
Marashi, H., & Azarmi, A. (2012).The comparative effect of presenting words in semantically related and unrelated sets in intentional and incidental learning contexts on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 71-89.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mohammadi, F., &Azari, H. (2013).The effect of Cluster Based Strategy Instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ Speaking Ability. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 2(2), 239-244.Retrieved from http://www.leena-luna.co.jp
Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. TESOL Journal, 9(2), 6-10.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Papathanasiou, E. (2009). An investigation of two ways of presenting vocabulary. ELT Journal, 5, 1-10.
Quintana, J. (2003). PET practice tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, C. J., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.cambridge.org/other-files/downloads/esl/booklets/Richards-Communicative-Language.pdf
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ramezani, M., & Behrouzi, P. (2013).The effect of Semantic Clustering on Iranian Elementary EFL learners’ Vocabulary Retention. Research, 5(11), 76-89. Retrieved from http://www.sciencepub.net/researcher
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seal, B. D. (1991).Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Cele-Murica (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 296-311).Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999).The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 94(1), 93-120.
Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. J. (2002). What is learned under difficult conditions is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 419-440.
Soleimani, H., & Esmaeili, M. (2012).The effect of Explicit Instruction of Clustering New Words on Vocabulary Learning of Iranian Intermediate EFL learners through Hyperlinks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(2), 112-126. doi:10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.2p.112
Sadeghi, K., & Panahifar, F. (2013). A corpusbased Analysis of Collocational Errors in the Iranian EFL learners’ Oral Production. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4(4), 53-78.
Sadeghi, K., & Taghavi, E. (2014).The relationship between Semantic mapping instruction, reading English texts. MEXTESOL Journal, 38(1), 1-13.
Stoller, F. L., & Grabe, W. (1995). Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and instruction from L1 vocabulary research. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 24-45). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Tinkham, T. (1993).The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21(3), 371-380.