Enhancing Advanced EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Recall via MI-oriented Thematic Vocabulary Clustering

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Ph.D. in TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

The present study aimed at exploring if the vocabulary recall of the advanced EFL learners could be enhanced by MI-oriented Thematic Vocabulary Instruction (TVI). To scrutinize the probable impact of the treatment on various intelligence groups, we selected a purposive homogeneous sample of 80 out of 118 advanced level learners and assigned them to four groups. The first experimental group (EG1) underwent TVI along with matching MI-based tasks, the second experimental group (EG2) received TVI with non-matching MI-oriented tasks, the third experimental group (EG3) had TVI but just did the coursebook exercises and the control group (CG) received conventional non-thematic instruction with coursebook exercises. 60 advanced words were taught for 10 sessions. The vocabulary recall test was administered with a three-week interval after the end of the treatment, requiring the participants to use the words in five paragraphs based on the given topic and the frequency counts showed the number of the new words. The results from ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests revealed that the EG1 members who had undergone TVI with MI-oriented tasks significantly outperformed their peers. Specifically, verbally intelligent learners had the highest and the intra-personally dominant ones had the lowest significant performances. The findings accentuate the significance of taking individual differences into account and offer a number of pedagogical implications for the teachers and administrative authorities.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ahmadian, M., & Hosseini, S. (2012). A study of the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ multiple intelligences and their performance on writing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 111-126.
  2. Al-Balhan, E. M. (2006). Multiple intelligence styles in relation to improved academic. Performance in Kuwaiti middle school reading. Digest of Middle East Studies, 15(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-3606.2006.tb00002.x
  3. Alizadeh, H., Saeidi, M., & Hamidi Tamjid, N. (2014). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ multiple intelligences and their writing performance across different genders. English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 7(14), 1-22.
  4. Al-Mahbashi, A. A., Noor, N. M, & Amir, Z. (2017). The effect of multiple intelligences on DDL vocabulary learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(2), 182-210. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.2p.182
  5. Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). NY Freeman.
  6. Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
  7. Brewer, W. F., & Nakamura, G. V. (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. In R. S., Wyer, & T. K., Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (vol. 1). (pp. 119-160). Erlbaum.
  8. Doff, A. (1988). Teach English. A training course for teachers. Cambridge University Press..
  9. Finkbeiner, M., & Nicol, J.L. (2003). Semantic category effects in L2 word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics 24 (3), 369-383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000195
  10. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind, the theory of multiple intelligence. Basic books.
  11. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach.  Basic Books Inc.
  12. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.
  13. Grant, P. & Basye, D. (2014). Personalized Learning: A guide for engaging students with technology. ISTE.
  14. Hashemi, R. H., & Gowdasiaei, F. (2005). An attribute-treatment interaction study: Lexical-set versus semantically-unrelated vocabulary instruction. Regional Language Centre Journal, 36(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688205060054 
  15. Hanh, L. T.T, & Tien, T. B. (2017). Multiple intelligences-based homework and EFL students’ vocabulary learning. International Journal of English Linguistics,7(6), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n6p73
  16. Hulstijin, J., & Trompetter, P. (1998). Incidental learning and second language vocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks. In D. Albrechtsen, B. Henriksen, I. Mees, & E. Poulsen (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign and second language pedagogy (pp. 191-202). Odense University Press.
  17. Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F0023-8333.00164
  18. Khaghaninejad, M. S., Hosseini, S. M. (2014). The relationship between different types of multiple intelligence and lexical awareness: Evidence from adult Iranian EFL learners. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 4(4), 170-181.
  19. Kim, I. S. (2009). The relevance of multiple intelligences to CALL instruction. The Reading Matrix, 9(1), 1–21. https://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/kim/article.pdf
  20. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
  21. Koura, A. A., & Al-Hebaishi, S. M. (2014). The relationship between multiple intelligences, self-efficacy and academic achievement of Saudi gifted and regular intermediate students. Educational Research International, 3(1), 48-70. http://www.erint.savap.org.pk/PDF/Vol.3(1)/ERInt.2014(3.1-05).pdf
  22. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006) Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  23. Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning.  Oxford University Press.
  24. Lantolf, J. (2003). Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the second language classroom. In A. Kozulin, V. S. Ageev, S. Miller, & B. Gindis, (Eds.), Vygotsky’s theory of education in cultural context. Cambridge University Press.
  25. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-68). Academic Press.
  26. Looi Lin, E., & Ghazali, M. (2010). Enhancing writing ability through multiple-intelligence strategies. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18(Special Issue), 53-63. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Enhancing-Writing-Ability-through-Strategies-Looi-Mustapha/a0dfdd7b3e1c76c725cc31ddd0ea1aa2651b7c04
  27. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
  28. McCarthy, M. J. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford University Press.
  29. McKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple intelligences inventory.
  30. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). Hodder Arnold.
  31. Nolen, J. L. (2003). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Education, 124(1), 115-119.. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-111242800/multiple-intelligences-in-the-classroom
  32. Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578-591). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  33. Razmjoo, S. A. (2008). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and language proficiency. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 8(2), 155-174. https://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/razmjoo/article.pdf
  34. Richards, C.J. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Pearson Education.
  35. Saeidi, M., & Karvandi, F. (2014). The relationship between EFL learners’ multiple intelligences and their performance on reasoning-gap writing task. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 5(2), 189-202. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=P6mg74QAAAAJ&citation_for_view=P6mg74QAAAAJ:kNdYIx-mwKoC
  36. Šafranj, J. (2018). Spatial-visual intelligence in teaching students of engineering. Research in Pedagogy, 8(1), 71-83. https://doi.org/10.17810/2015.72
  37. Savojbolaghchilar, S., Seifoori, Z, & Ghafoori, N. (2020). The effect of multiple intelligence-oriented thematic clustering on advanced EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39 (2), 169-201.https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.38332.2877
  38. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921 
  40. Shakouri, N., Sheikhy Behdani, R., & Teimourtash, M. (2017). On the relationship between linguistic intelligence and recalling lexical items in SLA. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 6(4), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2016.1644
  41. Shirzad, M. & Dabaghi Varnosfadrani, A. (2017). The effects of input and output tasks on the learning and retention of EAP vocabulary. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(2). 145-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0702.09
  42. Skourdi, S., & Rahimi, A. (2010). The relationship of emotional intelligence andlinguistic intelligence in acquiring vocabulary. California Linguistic Notes, 35(1), 23-45.. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-relationship-of-Emotional-Intelligence-and-in-Skourdi-Rahimi/a53b8047be6cd20c4a40618eefa5b4b9a8b4ab64
  43. Soodmand Afshar, H. (2021). Task-related focus-on-forms foreign language vocabulary development: Focus on spoken form and word parts. System, 96(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102406
  44. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
  45. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-44). Oxford University Press.
  46. Tinkham, T. (1997). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. Second language research, 13(2), 138-163. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897672376469
  47. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Brimijoin, K., (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,27(2-3), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203
  48. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T.S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.
  49. Zeraatpishe, M., Seifoori, Z., & Hadidi, N. (2020). The impact of multiple intelligence-oriented writing tasks on the accuracy, fluency, and organization of ELT students’ writing. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 12(25), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.30495/jal.2020.674520
Journal of Language Horizons
Volume 7, Issue 2 - Serial Number 16
September 2023
Pages 119-145

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics