INSTRUCTING RECEPTIVE PHRASE KNOWLEDGE THROUGH REPETITION VS. REPEATED EXPOSURES; A CASE OF MARITIME ENGLISH COURSE FOR IRANIAN SEAFARERS

Hoshang Khoshsima, Mohammad Akbar Raeissi

Abstract


The outcome of different vocabulary learning strategies might be different for different vocabulary forms, such phrases or single word items. Similarly, the depth of vocabulary knowledge (receptive vs. productive) is also another important factor that is neglected in many of researches dealing with vocabulary learning strategies. This study focused on learning vocabulary with the form of "phrase". The study aimed to evaluate the different functions of rote learning and repeated exposures on producing receptive vocabulary knowledge. 23 leaners of a Maritime English course were chosen as the participants of this study. They were instructed 14 vocabulary items, in two different lists of A and B, one list is instructed through traditional word list repetition and another one through multiple exposures. The learners were asked at the end of the course to translate the given phrases of the two lists in their first language. The number of correct answers of each list incited the effectiveness of related method of treatment. It was appeared that repeating the phrases from a list is more effective in growing receptive knowledge, although there was not a tremendous difference in the results. 


Keywords


receptive phrase knowledge, vocabulary learning strategies, repetition, repeated exposures

References


Alharthi, T. (2014). Role of Vocabulary Learning Strategies in EFL Learners’ Word Attrition. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 2(3), 13-28.

Archer, A. L. (Director). (2014). Vocabulary: provide multiple exposures (Motion Picture).

Armbruster, B.B. (2002). Research-based instruction in reading. Student achievement and school accountability conference. http://www.ed.gov/admis/lead/read/rb/edlite.slide001-024.html.

Behlol, Malik (2010). Effectiveness of Structural Method of Teaching Vocabulary. English Language Teaching 3(2), 125-135.

Dale. E. & O'Rourke, J., (1986). Vocabulary Building: A Process Approach. Columbus, OH: Zener-Bloser.

Fitzpatrick, T., Al-Qarni, I. andMeara, P. (2008). Intensive Vocabulary Learning: A Case Study. Language Learning Journal 36(2), 239-248.

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9 (2).

Gairns, R. and Redman (1986). Working with Words—A Guide to Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gu, Y. (2003) Vocabulary Learning in a Second Language: Person, Task, Context and Strategies. TESL-EJ 7(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej26/a4.html

Hall, S.J. (1992). Using split information tasks to learn mathematics vocabulary. Guidelines, 14, 72-77.

Joe, A. (2010). The Quality and Frequency of Encounters with Vocabulary in an English for Academic Purposes Programme. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), pp. 117–138. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ887883.pdf

Kersten, Saskia (2010) The Mental Lexicon and Vocabulary Learning. Tübingen: Verlag Narr.

Lawrence, J., White, C., and Snow, C. (2010). The words students need. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 22–26.

Lawrence, J. (2009). Summer reading: Predicting adolescent word learning from aptitude, time spent reading, and text type. Reading Psychology, 30(5), 445–465.

McIntosh, C. (2013). Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (4th Ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Nagy, W., Herman, P., and Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253.

Paribakht, T.S., and Wesche, M. (1996). Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: A hierarchy of text-related exercise types. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52 (2), 155-178. Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perfetti, C., and Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, and P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sedita, J. (2005) Effective Vocabulary Instruction, Insights on Learning Disabilities, 2 (1), 33-5.

Shen, W. (2003). Current Trends of Vocabulary Teaching and Learning Strategies for EFL Settings. Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 7, pp. 187-224.

Stahl, S.A. (2004). Vocabulary learning and the child with learning disabilities. Perspectives, 30, 1. The International Dyslexia Association.

Thompson, I. (1987b). Memory in language learning. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Cambridge: Prentice Hall, pp. 43-56.

Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zahar, R., Cobb, T., and Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 541–572.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.729

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright © 2015. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).