ANDREA AVERY-RENAULT SPYRIDOULA LAIZINOU

SARAH SIDDIQ

Which Method, Isolated or Integrated, of

Teaching Vocabulary is More Effective

for Adult ELLs?

Research Question

Which Method, Isolated or Integrated, of Teaching Vocabulary is More Effective for Adult ELLs?Does any Form Focused Instruction (FFI) affect learning of vocabulary while reading?Does integrated or isolated instructional task increase retention of new vocabulary?

Participants and Context

Data was collected from two upper intermediate Level 5 ESL classes at an English language school located in a college campus in Queens, New York.Participants included 28 adult ESL students (N=28), average age (25) , 13 males and 14 females with L1s including Mandarin, Korean, Spanish, and Russian.

Data Collection Instruments

MIXED METHOD DESIGN

Isolated vocabulary reading and multiple choice task. Total Time-30 minutes of one class period (quantitative). Integrated vocabulary reading and short answer task. Total Time-30 minutes of one class period (quantitative)Student questionnaire. Total Time-5-8 minutes of one class period (qualitative and quantitative). Delayed post test with vocabulary words, multiple choice and short answer, plus assessment of 4 incidental words. Total Time-20 minutes of one class period (quantitative).

Data Analysis

1a Isolated Vocabulary TaskParticipants responses of 10 multiple choice questions in the Isolated Vocabulary task were quantitatively scored for correct and incorrect selections on a numeric scale based on a 100-point system.

1b Integrated Vocabulary TaskParticipant responses of 5 short answer questions in the Integrated Vocabulary task were quantitatively scored for correct and incorrect response of vocabulary words on a numeric scale based on a 100-point system.

1c Student QuestionnaireData from the Student Questionnaire was both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. Coding was preformed that looked at recurring responses and ideas or concepts by participants in question 6 of the questionnaire that looked at instructional preference style.

1d Delayed Post TestParticipant responses from the delayed post test were quantitatively scored for correct and incorrect selections on a numeric scale based on a 100-point system.

Findings

It was found that in this study, adult ELLs scored an average of 86% on the Isolated Vocabulary task.

Findings Cont'd

It was discovered that the adult ELLs in this study scored an average of 85% on the Integrated Vocabulary task.

Findings Cont'd

It was discovered that a majority of the adult ELLs in this study had a distnict variation between their isloated and integrated scores.

Findings Cont'd

It was found that participants in this study scored an average of 71% in the multiple choice section and 79% in the short answer section of the delayed post test. Students not exposed to initial instruction performed much lower than the rest of the participants on delayed post-test. ( #s 29-32 )

Findings Cont'd

o It was found that the incidental words that were assessed in the delayed post test scored at an average of 74%.

Limitations

Limited by small number of participants (N=28)The research tasks were not part of a class lesson, students may have been unfamiliar with the format and presentation of the content, this may have played a role in their motivation or interest levelsThe time frame did not allow for oral instruction of word definitionsDue to time constraints, no pilot group nor pre-existing knowledge of vocabulary words were testedDue to time and fatigue, students did not answer comprehension question of the Isolated Test in one group

Limitations cont’d

Students from one group were exposed to the same short answer questions twice, while the other group were exposed to these words, but in multiple choice form, which may have played a role in their results of their delayed post test.Participants showed motivation but the structure of the study was long and, perhaps, daunting in the middle of a 3 hour class. This may have influenced the results, but we can’t say for sure.

Discussion

Our findings are consistent with previous studies (Adam and File 2010) that showed increased knowledge and retention of vocabulary following Formed Focused Instruction (FFI). Isolated and integrated methods scored closely with each other.No method to show knowledge of the target or incidental words.Students showed a preference for integrated assessments but this did not necessarily reflect their performance with the integrated segment.

Conclusion

• Though this was not a regular classroom task, the students performed at a high level in the initial part and showed a very high retention rate during the delayed post test(71% Multiple Choice and 79% Short Answer ).Though slightly more students preferred Integrated methods, they performed well with either technique.

Conclusion cont’d

Both FFI contributed positively to L2 Vocabulary learning. This is evident in the post-test and the high percentage of retention in new vocabulary words. Learners’ performance in Isolated and Integrated task didn’t reveal a notable difference.

Pedagogical Implications

Students increase their vocabulary with deliberate instruction. Both Integrated and Isolated forms of instruction should be included in the vocabulary lessons to meet the needs of diverse learners.Consequently, teachers should combine both FFI in relation to their students’ needs, their instructional preference and the aim of their teaching.Continued instruction of vocabulary to adult ELLs is necessary to decrease the “lexical gap” they have with native English speakers (Folse, 2006)

References

File, K. A., & Adams, R. (2010). Should Vocabulary Instruction Be Integrated or Isolated?. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 222–249. Folse, K. S. (2006). The Effect of Type of Written Exercise on L2 Vocabulary Retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273–293. Folse, K. (2011). Applying L2 Lexical Research Findings in ESL Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 362–369 Ford-Connors, E. (2015). Vocabulary Instruction in fifth Grade and Beyond: Sources of Word Learning and Productive Contexts for Development. Review of Educational Research March 2015, 85, no. 1, 50-91. Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From Receptive to Productive: Improving ESL Learners' Use of Vocabulary in a Postreading Composition Task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295–320 Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 Vocabulary Learning from Context: Strategies, Knowledge Sources, and Their Relationship with Success in L2 Lexical Inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645–670. Spada, N. (2014). Isolated and Integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 2014, 18(4), 453-473. DOI: 10.1177/1362168813519883 Spada, N. (June 2008). Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? Tesol Quarterly, 42, 2nd ser. Unaldi, I. (2013). A comparison of contextualized, decontextualized and corpus- informed vocabulary instruction: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Language and Literature Education, 8, 78-95. Xiaoyan, X. (2013). Vocabulary explanation in English-major university classrooms in China. ELT Journal: English Language Teaching Journal, 67(4), 435-445. doi:10.1093/elt/cct031

Thank You for Your Time

• Questions• Comments