ESL Vocabulary Acquisition: Contextualization and Decontextualization

Abstract

This study explores conflicting views concerning the relative superiority of two approaches to learning a second language (L2) vocabulary: i.e., learning words in context and learning words out of context. The present study endeavoured to explore these two apparently related issues at the same time. It would have been ideal if the present study could have followed the framework of Seibert' s (1930) study, which also explored the two issues. However, Seibert' s paper does not provide sufficient information as to what kind of target words were used in the experiment ( e.g., whether they were associative words or non-associative words). Meanwhile, Anderson and Jordan's (1928) study provided much more detail, which is helpful in designing follow-up studies. The time frame of the Anderson and Jordan (1928) study, therefore, was used as a basis for designing the present study.

The Effect of Contextualizing and Decontextualizing Techniques on Lexical-oriented Knowledge of Persian EFL Language Learners

“…The results of this study support that of Qian (1996) who suggests that for some language learners de-contextualized second language vocabulary learning with feedback is more effective than contextualized vocabulary learning without feedback. He also challenges the assumption that contextualized vocabulary learning always leads to better recall.…”

“…Just one study (Khuwaileh, 1995) supported the use of contextualizing techniques for vocabulary learning. In addition, some other studies like Qian's (1996) one that made a comparison between the learning of second language words in lists and contexts, failed to show any significant effects for one method over the other. These different results highlight the necessity of conducting more studies in different contexts to get more reliable findings.…”

Incidental and Intentional Learning

“…Retention over all groups and texts consistently favored the bilingual condition (with an average retention score of 18.6, over an average of 14.7 in the monolingual condition, out of a maximum of 35). Studies addressing the latter issue, context or no context (Grace, 1998;Lawson & Hogben, 1996;Mondria & Wit-de Boer, 1991;Prince, 1996;Qian, 1996;Seibert, 1930), have obtained mixed results, probably due to the fact that, as Nation (1982) and Nagy (1997) have pointed out, context is a multifaceted construct. Tinkham (1993), Waring (1998), and Schneider, Healy and Bourne (1998) investigated whether it is good practice, as dictated by most L2 teaching materials, to have learners study lists of semantically related items (such as words for clothes) or whether it is better to have students learn lists of unrelated words.…”

The Effects of Inferring, Verifying, and Memorizing on the Retention of L2 Word Meanings

“…Subsequently, all experiments that also differed in other respects than the factor of inferencing were eliminated, as they could not yield a valid conclusion with regard to the research questions of the present study. This concerns Gershman (1970), Jenkins, Matlock, and Slocum (1989), Jenkins, Pany, and Schreck (1978), Johnson and Stratton (1966), Koster (1989), Levine and Reves (1990), McDaniel and Pressley (1984), and Qian (1996), where the meaning-inferred and meaning-given conditions differed from each other with regard to the factor of context (i.e., context vs. no context, a difference in type of context, or a difference in the point in time that the context became available). Fischer (1994) was eliminated because no retention data were reported.…”