TEACHING NEW VOCABULARY TO IRANIAN YOUNG FL LEARNERS: USING TWO METHODS TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE AND KEYWORD METHOD

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• foreign language vocabulary
• total physical response
• keyword method
• young learners
• presenting vocabulary

TEACHING NEW VOCABULARY TO IRANIAN YOUNG FL LEARNERS: USING TWO METHODS TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE AND KEYWORD METHOD

Abstract

Early language learning for children is increasingly common, and the majority of parents and the public do not see it as superfluous or overburdening children. Moreover, teaching a foreign language to very young children has been an increasingly dominant trend in most globalized societies. While there is abundant literature that supports teaching a foreign language at an early age through language immersion programs, little is known about the efficiency of strategies used to explicitly teach new vocabulary words in a foreign language to young learners. This empirical investigation aimed to assess and compare the efficiency of two mnemonics that have been traditionally used to explicitly teach new foreign language words: the Keyword Method (KWM) and the Total Physical Response (TPR). Results indicate that the KWM is more effective than TPR in teaching new vocabulary words in a foreign language to early elementary school children.

Keywords

• foreign language vocabulary
• total physical response
• keyword method
• young learners
• presenting vocabulary

Kaynakça

1. Asher, J. (1966). The learning strategy of the Total Physical Response: A review. The Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 79-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/323182
2. Asher, J. (1969). The total physical approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 3-17.
3. Asher, J., & Ben, S. P. (1967). The learning strategy of Total Physical Response: Some Age Differences. Child Development, 38(4), 1219-1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1127119
4. Asher, J., Kusudo, J. A., & de la Torre, R. (1974). Learning a second language through commands: The second field test. The Modern Language Journal, 58(1-2), 24-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/323986
5. Atkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. M. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 126-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.1.2.126
6. Avila, E., & Sadoski, M. (1996). Exploring New Applications of the Keyword Method to Acquire English Vocabulary. Language Learning, 46(3), 379-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01241.x Bayliss, D. M., Jarrold, C., & Greene, R. (2015). How quickly they forget: The relationship between forgetting rate and working memory performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(1), 163-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037429
7. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1995). Learning rate, learning opportunities, and the development of forgetting. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 215-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.251
8. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.