SÖZCÜK ÖĞRETİMİNİN ÖĞRENCİLERİN SAHİP OLDUKLARI SÖZCÜK SAYI DÜZEYLERİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Year 2015, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 349 - 363, 21.12.2015

Mert Topkaraoğlu , Hakan Dilman

https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2015.15.2-5000161328

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacını sözcük geliştirme aktiviteleri sonucunda, iki grup öğrenci arasında sözcük sayı düzeyleri bakımından bir farklılığın olup olmadığının belirlenmesi oluşturmaktadır. Kontrol grubunda yer alan öğrenciler ek bir kelime çalışmasının yapılmadığı İngilizcede en sık kullanılan ikinci bin sözcüğü içeren normal müfredatı takip ederken, deney grubundaki öğrenciler ise İngilizcede en sık kullanılan ikinci bin sözcüğü içeren sözcük geliştirme aktivitelerinin normal müfredata entegre edildiği on dört haftalık programı izlemişlerdir. Bu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Yalova ilinde bir meslek yüksekokulunda 2010–2011 eğitim-öğretim yılında ikinci sınıfta öğrenim gören 88 erkek öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Bu çalışmada, Schmitt (2000) tarafından geliştirilen Sözcük Seviye Belirleme Testinin birinci versiyonu veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Uygulamanın ardından, deney grubu ile kontrol grubu arasında, sözcük sayı düzeyleri açısından deney grubu lehine anlamlı bir fark oluşmuştur.

Keywords

sözcük sayısı, sözcük geliştirme aktiviteleri, sözcük öğretimi

THE IMPACT OF VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION ON VOCABULARY SIZE LEVELS OF STUDENTS

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the difference between two groups of students as regards to vocabulary size levels after the implementation of vocabulary enhancement activities. While the students in control group followed the regular curriculum including the second one thousand most frequent words in English, the students in experimental group had a fourteen-week schedule of vocabulary implementation with enhancement activities consisting of the second one thousand most frequent words in English integrated into the regular curriculum. The sampling of the study consists of the students from a vocational school in Yalova. A total of 88 male, second-grade students participated in the study in the academic year of 2010–2011. This study adopted Version 1 of the Vocabulary Levels Test (Schmitt, 2000) as an instrument to examine the students' general vocabulary size levels. After the implementation period, it was observed that there was a significant difference between the experimental and the control groups in favor of the experimental group in terms of vocabulary size levels.

Keywords

vocabulary size, vocabulary enhancement activities, vocabulary teaching

References

• Aitchison, J. (2001). Learning change. Progress or decay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Aksoy, E. (2008). The effects of lexical approach on speaking skills of students who learn english as a foreign language. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Ankara University, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Ankara.
• Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
• Bozkurt, N. (2007). The effect of vocabulary notebooks on vocabulary acquisition. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Bilkent University, Graduate School of Education, Ankara.
• Chen, K. (2009). An explanatory mixed methods study of efl college students’ vocabulary knowledge, syntactic knowledge, and reading comprehension. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University Kingsville, College of Graduate Studies, Texas.
• Çelik, S., & Toptaş, V. (2010). Vocabulary learning strategy use of Turkish EFL learners. Paper presented at third international ELT conference: telling ELT tales out of school, Department of English Language Teaching, Faculty of Education, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus.
• Conzett, J. (2000). Integrating collocation into a reading and writing course. In M. Lewis (Ed), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. 70 87). Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
• Farahani, F. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and EFL learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success (Unpublished master’s thesis). Shiraz Azad University.
• Graves, M. F. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 13, 49-89.
• Gu, P. Y. (2003). Vocabulary Learning in a Second Language: Person, Task, Context and Strategies. TESL-EJ 7:2.
• Hamzah, M. S. G., Kafipour, R., & Abdullah, S. K. (2009). Vocabulary learning strategies of Iranian undergraduate EFL students and its relation to their vocabulary size. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1), 39-50.
• Harwood, N. (2002) Taking a LA to teaching: Principles and problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 139–155.
• Hatch, E., Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Hwang, K., & Nation, P. (1989). Reducing the vocabulary load and encouraging vocabulary learning through reading newspapers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 6(1), 323–335.
• Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics 21(1), pp. 64–65.
• Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics 19,(2), 255–271.
• Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language; Do Learners Really Acquire Most Vocabulary by Reading? Some Empirical Evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review 59, (4), 567–587. University of Toronto Press.
• Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. System, 31(4), 537–561.
• 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.
• Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
• Meara, P. (1996). The vocabulary knowledge framework, Retrieved September 22, 2015, from: www.lognostic.co.uk/vlibrary/meara 1996
• Meara, P. (2010). V is for vocabulary size Retrieved September 22, 2015, from: www.scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/v-is-for-vocabulary-size/
• Melka, F. (1997). Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M,
• McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.84–102). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Miller, G., & Gildea, P. (1987). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257(3), 94-99.
• Mondrea, J.-A., & Wiersma, B. (2004). Receptive, productive, and receptive + productive L2 vocabulary learning: What difference does it make? In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp.79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330.
• Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5(1), 12–25.
• Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
• Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth, and use. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp.115–134). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
• Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, P. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques. Heinle, Cengage Learning.
• Ordonez, C. L., Carlo, M. S., Snow. C. E. & Mclaughiin, B. (2002). Depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in two languages: Which vocabulary skills transfer? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 719-728.
• Ördem, E. (2005). Retention and use of lexical collocations (verb+noun and adjective+noun) by applying lexical approach in a reading course. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Muğla University, Institute of Social Sciences, Muğla.
• Read, J. A. S. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge language assessment series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmitt, N. (1994). Vocabulary testing: Question for test development with six examples of tests of vocabulary size and depth. Thai TESOL bulletin, 6(2), 9–16.
• Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55– 88.
• Şener, S. (2009). The relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size of Turkish EFL students, International Association of Research in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics ELT Research Journal, 3(2), 57- 58.
• Shen, Z. (2008). The roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in EFL reading performance, Asian Social Science, Vol.4, No.12, 135-137.
• Sokmen, A. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
• Tran, T. (2011). EFL teacher’s perceptions about vocabulary acquisition and ınstruction. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Alliant International University, Graduate Faculty of the Shirley M. Hufstedler School of Education, San Diego.
• Valesco, D. G. (2007) Lexical competence and functional discourse grammar, Alfa, Sao Paulo, 51 (2), 165-187.
• Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge.
• Ward, A. (2009). A formative study ınvestigating ınteractive reading and activities to develop kindergartners’ science vocabulary. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Virginia, The Faculty of the Curry School of Education, Virginia.
• Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P., & Nikolova, Y. (2005). Relationship Between Lexical Competence and Language Proficiency: Variable Sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 567–595.