THE EFFECTS OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS ON EFL STUDENTS’ VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE AND RETENTION

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 175 - 192, 30.12.2022

Şeyma Yeşil

Abstract

As students’ ability to recognize vocabulary is a determinant factor in ensuring effective English learning, vocabulary teaching methods are important in an EFL context. This experimental study investigates the effects of a Web 2.0 tool -Smart Draw- on the recognition and retention of L2 vocabulary by drawing a comparison between paper-based methods (activities on a sheet of paper or course book) and web-based language learning. Two intact classes (a total of 28 Students) from a state university in Turkey participated in this study. The experimental group was instructed the words with a Web 2.0 tool, Smart Draw, while the control group was taught the target words on a sheet of paper. In order to investigate the effectiveness of instruction, a word familiarity test was administered prior to the treatment (pre-test) and after the treatment (post-test). Three weeks after the application of post-test, the same word familiarity test was implemented to measure the retention level of students. Results reveal that there was a significant improvement over time for the experimental group when compared with the control group. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with 5 students from the experimental group, revealed that students favour the use of interactive web-based technologies in L2 classes.

Keywords

Vocabulary knowledge, retention, semantic mapping, Web 2.0 tools

References

• Antonacci, P. A. (1991). Students Search for Meaning in the Text through Semantic Mapping. Social Education, 55, 174-194.
• Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. The Modern Language Journal, 68(4), 332–343.
• Chang, M. M. (2005). Applying self-regulated learning strategies in a Web-based instruction – An investigation of motivation perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 217-230.
• Ellis, R. (ed.). (2001). ‘Form-focused instruction and second language learning’. Language Learning 51 (suppl. 1), 1–46.
• Gao, F. (2013). A case study of using a social annotation tool to support collaboratively learning. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 76-83.
• Hulstijn, J. H. & Laufer, B. (2001). ‘Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition’. Language Learning 51/3, 539–58.
• Lai, C., & Gu, M. Y. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335.
• Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2012). What factors predict undergraduate students‘ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Computers & Education, 59(2), 569-579.
• Li, M., Yang, K., Chen, H. (2010). Using mind maps as a strategy for vocabulary acquisition in Chinese universities. A paper presented at the International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering (CiSE), University of Shanghai.
• Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,289-401.
• Nation, P. (2002). ‘Best practice in vocabulary teaching and learning’ in J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya (eds.). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, England: Pearson/Longman.
• Laufer, B. (2010). ‘Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning’ in R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, and M. M. Torreblanca-López (eds.). Insights into Non-native Vocabulary Teaching and Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Robb, T.N. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (eds.), Teacher education on CALL (pp. 335-347). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T.S. (1996). Assessing vocabulary knowledge: depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53 (1): 13-40.