Vocabulary Learning Methods With Beginning

¶ … Vocabulary Learning Methods With Beginning Learners of Spanish

This work intends to conduct a critical review of the work of Nuria Sagarra and Matthew Alba entitled: "The Key Is in the Keyword: L2 Vocabulary Learning Methods with Beginning Learners of Spanish" published in the Modern Language Journal in July, 2006.

Cognitive Models and Lexical Processing

The work of Sagarra and Alba (2006) entitled: "The Key Is in the Keyword: L2 Vocabulary Learning Methods with Beginning Learners of Spanish" reports a study which investigated three methods of learning vocabulary and their effectiveness among 778 students who were beginning second language (L2) learners. Sagarra and Alba (2006) state that "Cognitive models of lexical processing and storage have provided the impetus for developing a number of teaching methods that have sought to aid the retention of new words by increasing depth of processing." (p. 228)

Depth Processing

Sagarra and Alba explains that what is being referred to by 'depth of processing' is "the level at which stimuli are cognitively processed" and claim that the depth of processing can be enhanced "by increasing the processing of new words and facilitation their integration into the learner's previous knowledge." (2006, p. 228) Sagarra and Alba relate that in studies of first language (L1) and second language (L2) "vocabulary memorization strategies requiring deeper processing have been found the result in better retention of words than strategies involving shallower processing." (2006, p. 228) However, second language (L2) learners tend to "favor strategies that require minimum depth of processing, unless instructed otherwise." (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 228) the reason for this preference is stated by Sagarra and Alba to be due to the limited capacity to process and store information that is incoming to the learner as well as the fact that "the acquisition of an L2 during adulthood imposes additional processing load on cognitive resources." (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 228) Sagarra and Alba relate that a great deal of evidence has been building that affirms "infrequent spontaneous usage of more complex strategies such as imagery, inference, and the keyword method by less proficient L2 learners." (2007, p. 228)

III. Lexical Processing Enables Deeper Processing at Early Stages

Lexical processing has been found to enable the "deeper processing at early stages" by L2 learners. It is supported in research findings that the role played by instruction on L2 vocabulary acquisition indicates that "instruction channeling the resources available to learners yields better retention than unstructured learning...when learners use strategies of their own choice." (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 228)

IV. Limitations in Previous Study Findings and Adjustments to Overcome Limitations

Sagarra and Alba state that there are "methodological pitfalls" that lead to questions concerning the reliability of the findings in previous studies and state that the study which they report has the objective of addressing those limitations through adoption of a "within-subject design with a large sample pool, and controlling the length, frequency, concreteness and imageability of the target words." (2006, p., 229) Stated as an addition in this study is a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest, and counterbalancing of the order that treatment and the posttests are presented and as well the pretest and posttest items within each treatment. It is held by Sagarra and Alba that "the findings of this empirical study" would assist in gaining a greater understanding of the L2 vocabulary learning methods effectiveness:

1) Rote memorization;

2) Semantic mapping; and 3) Keyword mnemonics. (2006, p. 229)

V. Rote Memorization, Semantic Mapping, and Keyword Mnemonics Explained

Sagarra and Alba state that the technique of 'rote memorization' is comprised by commitment to memory of the L1 to L2 world translation by rehearsal. Semantic mapping is comprised by "the creation of a diagram with L1 words semantically related to the new L2-word." (2006, p. 229) Lastly, the keyword method is comprised of an association of the L2-word with a L1 keyword that is "acoustically or orthographically similar, and then connecting the L1 keyword with the L1 translation of the L2-word." (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 229)

VI. Associative Models

Sagarra and Alba state that "functional architectural-style models are based on dictionary-like mental lexicon containing information about various features of each word. However, associative models posit that words are stored in a network of items linked by sharing phonological, morphosyntactic, and semantic properties, and that the relative strength of any given item and its relationship to other items in the network are directly determined by the speaker's experience both using and perceiving the word." (2006, p. 229)

Associative models are held by Sagarra and Alba to, much like other interactionist models hold a view of the acquisition of language to be a "result of the continuous interaction between one's current level of cognitive functioning and the linguistic and nonlinguistic environment." (2006, p. 229) This acknowledged network of associative models has resulted in a growth of studies seeking to support vocabulary learning for second language (L2) students. Nearly all studies report that rote repetition in early stages of language and vocabulary acquisition results in shallower processing and less retention than do mnemonic and non-mnemonic techniques, which result in deeper processing. Stated as being the difference between techniques that are mnemonic and non-mnemonic is "whether novel words are integrated into previous knowledge through visual and verbal imagery (mnemonic) or through semantic properties (non-mnemonic)." (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 229)

VII. Comparison of the Three Methods for Vocabulary Learning

Sagarra and Alba present as well as compare the three methods for learning vocabulary that have been stated including rote memorization, the keyword method and a non-mnemonic technique of semantic mapping. It is related that previous studies have attempted variations of the keyword method for the purpose of identifying the most effective application of this method. One group of studies made an examination of the impact of facilitation on keywords that were experimenter-provided vs. those that were learner-generated. Additionally, it is related that the experimenter-provided vs. learner-generated keywords links reported mixed results as well as did the use of written sentences vs. The use of mental imagery to link keywords to the L2-word. (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, paraphrased)

Other study findings have indicated that the keyword technique is effective and that this remains true under various situations. One example stated by Sagarra and Alba is that the keyword technique has yielded better L2 vocabulary learning in several languages to include Chinese, German, Hebrew, Navajo, Russian, Italian, Spanish, and Tagalog. (2006, p. 230) in addition, the keyword technique is a facilitator of L2 "lexical retention in children, elderly learners and students with various individual differences." (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 230) However, the effectiveness of the keyword technique is not applicable to all circumstances.

Sagarra and Alba relate that in the work of De Groot and Van Hell (2005) five factors are proposed that serve to reduce the benefits of the keyword technique on L2 vocabulary learning. Those five factors are stated to include the following:

1) Keyword learners are outperformed by rote learners 'when there is no immediate test' which indicates that the 'long-term benefits of the keyword' technique that are stated in some studies might be because of the effect of the immediate test which serves as an additional learning practice. Furthermore the knowledge of other foreign languages might explain why the keyword technique results in lasting effects of memorization in that the work of Beaton et al. (1995) states findings that "a keyword learner who spoke various languages was able to recall 35% of L2 Italian words 10 years after exposure to the target language;

2) the second keyword restraint identified is that the keyword technique has not been found to be effective in teaching cognates and that simpler word or picture association has been found to be more effective and as well the keyword technique is not effective in teaching abstract words;

3) Third, the keyword technique makes word retrieval slower since recall 'takes place through the keyword; and 4) the keyword technique is inefficient for 'productive recalls'. (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 230)

The keyword technique is stated by Sagarra and Alba (2006) to have been found effective for: (1) the more advanced learner; and (2) the elementary learner. (p. 230) However, the opposite is stated to be true for the use of rote memorization. There is a final limitation noted by Sagarra and Alba for use of the keyword technique and specifically is that "the beneficial effects of this method decrease with target words involving low levels of concreteness and imageability." (2006, p. 230) the keyword technique of learning furthermore serves to enhance "phonological similarities between L1 and the L2" which results in L1 pronunciation patterns being incorrect in the L2. Sagarra and Alba state that finally, the variable results from tests that are delayed should be noted in the keyword technique of vocabulary and language learning. In summary the findings of the studies reported by Sagarra and Alba indicate that keyword learners "outperform rote memorization learners on receptive recalls at elementary stages of acquisition, regardless of variations in target language, setting and age" (2006, p.231) Yet, research recently has stated findings that "non-mnemonic semantic elaboration methods" are more effective that the mnemonic keyword technique on lexical retention for L2.

VIII. Differentiation of Mnemonic and Non-mnemonic Elaboration Techniques

Mnemonic and non-mnemonic elaboration techniques are differentiated by the manner of association of new words with previous knowledge in that: "mnemonic elaboration techniques establish this connection through verbal and visual imagery" however, the elaboration of non-mnemonic techniques makes this connection through use of semantic characteristics and may be through the organization of a list of scrambled words known as the 'ordering method' or through generation of sentences with the target word in a manner that the inference of the word can be made by the sentence or the 'sentence writing method'. (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 231)

Furthermore, the connection can be made through construction of a diagram displaying the target word's semantic association known as the 'semantic mapping method. The semantic mapping method if the focus of the study reported by Sagarra and Alba which included 916 in the sampling pool of third semester L2 learners of Spanish at a U.S. university who voluntarily participated in the study. The same type of instruction was provided for all participants in order to avoid the results being confounded and none of the participants had been exposed to other teaching techniques that were used in this study. Both pre- and post-testing was conducted in this study.

The hypothesis stated in the study was "that the current study would show vocabulary learning methods requiring deeper processing to be more effective than those involving shallower processing" or rote memorization. (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p. 237) Findings in the study relate the fact that the "...distribution of items by item effect for each presentation order of each posttest reveals that 75% of the worlds learn with the keyword method, and 60% of the words learned with semantic mapping are highly effective." The analysis in this study showed that "experimental words were highly reliable and effective, regardless of the treatment and presentation order." (Sagarra and Alba, 2006, p.237) the significant of these findings is the suggestion that the primary differences between the methods of learning was the result of the type of treatment instead of internal differences in the words used.

ANALYSIS of ARTICLE

Mnemonics do provide visual information or images, which have been found to be extremely effective for remembering and particularly for vocabulary recall. The study conducted and reported by Sagarra and Alba (2006) suggests that the direct teaching of vocabulary, whether it be by paired associative or some other method, has a legitimate role in L2 development and as such, should not be dismissed. It appears that the challenges to teachers of L2, is the simplification of the complexity of lexical items and the engagement of students in task that are challenging enough but yet are not quite within the capability of the L2 learner.

Experimental research invariably is inclusive of a very limited number of words to be learned and while this is understandable, it does raise the question of the extent to which these findings are applicable to real world teaching and learning situations. For example, when learning a new language, the learner is required to learn a great deal of vocabulary and the question is whether the technique of keyword mnemonic is capable of holding up in these circumstances.

The keyword technique is time-consuming and requires quite a bit of effort in implementation in vocabulary learning and as well, if used to excess, does appear to have some inherent disadvantages. From the experience of the writer of this work, as a teacher of Spanish, the keyword technique, when used exclusively, has been found to be a method that is less efficient in vocabulary instruction since some words quite naturally lend themselves to other techniques. For the experience students, who already have a number of effective strategies, and who are quite capacity of the application of these strategies and their appropriate use, the keyword strategy should be utilized in a selective manner and most likely will be most efficiently used for the items which are the most difficult. Toward this end, it is necessary that at least some explicit teaching take place therefore, the recent focus on grammar teaching, which appears to be trending in a manner that will complement explicit teaching in vocabulary. Utilization of this method in the Spanish classroom would involve providing students with an explanation and providing examples to the students. Finally, encouragement would be given to students to attempt this method while at the same time explicitly informing them that if this method does not work for them that they should not use this method.