Transcript The Internet as an Educational Tool in Vocabulary Instruction

The Internet as an Educational Tool
in Vocabulary Instruction
By Fatemeh Alipanahi
Faculty member of Zanjan Azad University
& Zanjan University of IRAN
[email protected]







Abstract
Introduction
Traditional Approaches to Vocabulary Learning
Criticisms of Traditional Approaches to Vocabulary
Learning
Incidental Learning Versus Intentional Learning
Internet & Vocabulary Learning
Conclusion
Abstract
Modern research shows that mastering an item of
vocabulary involves far more than merely memorizing
the denotative – or dictionary – meaning of a word.
This study reviews the communicative nature of
computer networks and proposes that adding the
Internet to the classroom environment can benefit
vocabulary learning by making word learning as a
natural part of communicative activities.
Introduction
Computer-aided research gives us vast amount of
information about how words behave and the
relationships they form in real-life communication;
psycholinguistic studies are providing further insights
into how the mind processes and stores vocabulary and
we also know more about effective teaching and
learning strategies.
Traditional Approaches to
Vocabulary Learning
For many years vocabulary had been considered
as the “ Cinderella” (neglected step-child) of
applied linguistics. L2 vocabulary research has
amounted to little more than testing memory
strategies for learning lists of words such as
repetition, review and mnemonics.

“The word vocabulary has long connoted word
lists, and vocabulary learning strategies have been
considered techniques that help commit these lists
to memory (Gu & Johnson 1996: 643”. Most
research on vocabulary learning strategies has
explored different methods of vocabulary
presentation and their effectiveness in retention
(Meara, 1980). Memory strategies, one of the
many aspects of vocabulary learning, are studied
most on the presupposition, that strategies which
are good for vocabulary retention will also help
language learning in general (Gu & Johnson,
1996).

Some earlier research focused on rehearsal strategies
and addressed questions such as the number of
repetitions needed to learn a list. (Crothers &
Suppes, 1967; Lado, Baldwin, & Lobo 1967), the
suitable number of words to be learned at one time
(Crothers & Suppes, 1967), or the timing of
repetition seems to be less efficient than using
spaced recall and structured reviews (Atkinson,
1972; Royer, 1973; Seibert, 19277); silent repetition
and silent writing are less effective than repeating
the words aloud (Gresham, 1970; Seibert, 1927).

Research into mnemonics has continued through
the past two decades, following Atkinson (1972)
and Atkinson and Raugh (1975). Most of such
interest has centered on the key-word method, a
technique that starts with an acoustic link (i.e.,
finding a keyword in L1 that sounds like the
foreign word) then links the keyword, and the
foreign word by means of an interactive image
(Cohen, 1987; Meara, 1980; Nation, 1982; Carter
& McCarthy, 1988).
Criticisms of Traditional Approaches to
Vocabulary Learning
The key word method or any other mnemonic
suffers from fundamental assumptions that
vocabulary learning largely means list learning.
According to Meara (1980) “ these laboratory
experiments completely ignore the complex
patterns of meaning relationships that characterize
a proper, fully formed lexicon (Meara 1980: 225)”.
So they are unlikely to play a major role in the
development of a dynamic living lexicon on the
target language (Gu & Johnson, 1996).

Modern theory suggests that learning a word is much more than
memorizing the word and its definition.
 Every vocabulary item can be seen as consisting of the following
layers of meaning:
 Denotative Meaning (explicit or dictionary meaning)
 Connotative Meaning (additional suggested meanings)
 Collocative Meaning (how words are arranged together)
 Contrastive or Paradigmatic Meaning (conceptual association
with other words), the meaning derived from the relationships
that hold among the members of a semantic field.
 Stylistic Meaning ( interpersonal meaning, associated with the
degree of intimacy between the interlocutors and the type of the
relationship between them).
 Implicative Meaning (implied meaning).
 The meaning of a word takes shape in the context of the words
that surround it. By focusing only on the denotative layer of a
word’s meaning, traditional list learning ignores these underlying
layers of connection.
Theorists now consider a word, not as an
isolated list entry, but as a node within a
web of connections with other words.
Lotfipour saw vocabulary as “ an integrated
system of lexemes in sense” (1990)
“Learning a word includes much more than
remembering the orthographic and phonological
forms and their corresponding meaning. This
means that a central purpose in teaching should be
to encourage and help the learners to become more
aware of how native speakers and other proficient
speakers use the target language, and to be more
sensitive to different shades of meaning. What is
important for the language learners is to determine
the “value” of a lexical item in a given context not
its dictionary meanings or “signification” . To
achieve this, he should be aware of various
“potential” meanings or “layers of lexical
meaning” which contribute to the “actual”
meaning or value a specific lexical item assumes in
a context.
For this to be accomplished, lexis, grammar, and
discourse should no longer be thought of being
separate in the language”, Ooi and Kim-Seoh (1996)
An integrative approach would allow the teacher to
shift attention from one to the other and back again.
They believe that “this can be achieved without too
much strain by reorienting the more established
approach, and thinking in terms of activities rather
than clearly demarcated “lessons”.
Incidental Learning versus Intentional
Learning

Memorizing lists of
words is an example
of intentional learning
– the primary task in
front of the student is
memorizing the given
words and

Incidental learning, by
contrast, includes
skills, attitudes, and
information that the
participant did not
intend to acquire while
doing a task, but
nevertheless did
learn.

It has been assumed that older L2 students,
unlike children, cannot pick up vocabulary
by incidental learning. Consequently, we
have focused on intentional learning
strategies. However, several studies have
shown that incidental learning does play a
significant role in vocabulary development.
Incidental learning seems to improve
mastery of words students already
recognize (receptive vocabulary). Words
learned in context – as opposed those
learned from a list -- are more likely to
be words that are actually used
(productive vocabulary) instead of merely
recognized.
A word will not move from students’ receptive
vocabulary to their productive vocabulary if they
don’t feel motivated to use the word (Hatch &
Brown, 1995). Richards (1996) strongly suggests
that complete “lexical competence” must involve
some degree of incidental learning that results
from meeting words in context. And, contrary to
the assumption that adults cannot learn words
without intentionally memorizing them, Richard
suggests that incidental learning is the way most
words are acquired during our adult years.
Richards characterizes lexical competence in the
following eight assumptions:
•Native speakers continue to expand their
vocabulary in adulthood

a
word means

knowing:
 Knowing




the degree of probability of encountering it
and the kind of words most likely to be found
associated with it (frequency and collocability).
its limitations of use according to function and
situation (temporal, social, geographical, field,
mode, etc).
its syntactic behavior (e.g. transitivity patterns,
cases).
Its underlying forms and derivation.
its place in network of associations with other
words in the language.
its value (its composition).
its different meanings (polysemy)
This means that vocabulary
instruction should go beyond
helping the learner to
internalize dictionary meaning.
How can a student pick up vocabulary
by incidental learning?
In the traditional classroom the only practical way to do so
was by individual reading. (Huckin, & Coady, 1993).
Research now has extensively showed that vocabulary can
be acquired through reading or any “ fully contextualized
activities” (Scarcalla, 1994; 240). Words, which are
acquired through reading, not only retain their referential
meaning but the syntactic, pragmatic, and even emotional
information from their context. In this way vocabulary is
not thought of as acquired as separate items, it is an
integral part of discourse and is developed along with
reading strategies such as contextual guessing (Ooi & KimSeoh, 1996).
The Internet and Vocabulary Learning
Vocabulary teaching has not kept pace with current thinking
on other aspects of language teaching. Raimes has described
the modern paradigm of teaching language as one which:
Sees language as communication
Emphasizes real language use
Recommends a student-centered classroom
Encourages language acquisition
Develops interpersonal and humanistic approaches
Considers the nature of the learner, the learning process and
the learning environment.
Rote memorization of word lists does not comply with any of
these goals. (1995)
Computer technology will change this situation by
providing interaction and stimulation that students
do not find on the printed page. Furthermore,
various functions of the Internet appeal to different
learning styles. (For example, a student bored by
books may become excited by interactive games
over the Internet). Then there is the psychological
effect of technology that enables student-centered
learning. Students become empowered because
they develop self-discipline and confidence through
increased responsibility for their own learning
processes (Berge & Collins, 1995 ).
How does the Internet support
the paradigm of studentcentered, communicative and
collaborative classroom?
In general, to use the Internet is to
communicate (Anderson, 1995). The main
purpose of the Internet is to connect people
all over the world to share information,
experiences, and opinions. Because the
Internet is a natural resource, it contains
real language. As students navigate their
way around the primarily text-based
Internet, they must read and write in
English, which helps them acquire the
language (Falsetti, 1995).
On the Internet students and teachers can
communicate with individuals and groups, talk in
real time, and retrieve information and resources
(Warschauer, 1995). The emphasis is on people
working together in collaboration rather than in
competition with each other. By helping each other,
we expand our realm of knowledge in process.
Internet users store information on Web pages so
that it is easily accessible by others.
Berge & Collins (1995) further emphasize the
collaborative and communicative nature of the
Internet:
·As an agent for socialization and collaboration, the
networked computer has an even greater potential in
education than does the stand-alone, knowledge
server-type of computer. The active environment of
social learning provided by computer increases
interaction and communication among students, their
teachers, peers, parents, and other members of the
world community.
In
addition to , sharing information and resources,
there is a general sense that it is important to help
others who are new to the online environment, rather
than judging them negatively for not having prior
knowledge of Internet functions and awareness of on
online manners. This supportive environment can be
especially helpful in empowering students, as they will
feel comfortable asking questions or taking risks with
their language use.
Crawford (1995) claims that the Internet will have a direct
effect on the way we teach our students, especially if our
global goal is to prepare them for life outside the
classroom.
The networking culture that will find its way into all
schools requires participants to be more than just
consumers of information and knowledge. They must also
become contributors as well. Our children will become
actively involved in research, synthesis and presentation of
knowledge rather than passive observers of it.
Furthermore, some researchers describe a shift
from a teaching environment to a learning
environment in which students are taught through
the Internet “ to become lifelong learners by
helping them locate the resources to continue
learning.” (Berge & Collins, 1995).
Students who are shy or inhibited in group settings
can feel free to communicate, knowing they will be
judged by what they say, not what they look or
sound like.
The
classroom setting still has much to offer L2 vocabulary
instruction, but with communication technology students can
get the best of both worlds. On the one hand, they have access
to vast amount of timely information, as well as opportunities
for authentic communication for real purposes. On the other
hand, they can also have the social aspects of the traditional
classroom that some enjoy, meeting with their instructors and
peers, in the same physical space.
Overall, the Internet promotes philosophies of shared
resources and knowledge, plus active involvement in the
learning process. Indeed, this rich resource lends itself
naturally to creating a student-centered, communicative and
collaborative classroom.
Conclusion
Computer and communication Technology offer a way to bring L2 vocabulary
teaching in line with linguistic research in a ways that were not practical a few
years ago. Rote memorization will always be a part of L2 study, but technology
now permits incidental learning to assume its proper role in vocabulary building.
In this way, vocabulary learning can become as interactive and participatory as it
has become in other areas of L2 instruction.
L2 teachers have known for some time that vocabulary knowledge, to be of real
use, must become integrated into discourse. We have realized that with the skills
developed by meeting and using words in context, pure retention of
decontextualized words offers limited value. The problem was how to put this
understanding into practice while teaching vocabulary in the classroom. Until
now there were few activities available in the classroom that would permit L2
students to learn vocabulary as a natural part of communication. Computer
assisted communication promises to change this situation and to bring fully
contextualized strategies to L2 vocabulary learning.
Thanks for your attention