Dubiner 2017 VN
Dubiner 2017 VN
Methodology Keeping in mind the importance of reflective learning and its potential
Research questions for pre-service teachers, the present study set out to answer the following
research questions:
1 Is the use of vocabulary notebooks effective in the development of pre-
service non-native speaking student teachers’ vocabulary in English?
2 What are pre-service student teachers’ perceptions of the vocabulary
notebooks as a potential learning and teaching tool?
Participants Thirteen female third-year students in an English teaching programme
in a teachers’ college in Israel participated in this study. All participants
were enrolled in a linguistics course taught by me and were chosen as
Findings and discussion The individual vocabulary assessment administered at the end of the year
Vocabulary gain points to a general positive effect of the use of vocabulary notebooks on
vocabulary acquisition. As seen in Table 1, all students, combined, could
either explain/translate (Level 3) or use correctly in a sentence (Level 4) a total
of 548 new words. This is in contrast to a total of 176 words whose meanings
participants could only vaguely access or could not recall at all (Levels 1 and
2). This testifies to a notably positive outcome of the vocabulary notebook as
a tool to support and promote vocabulary learning, an accomplishment also
demonstrated by Schmitt and Schmitt (op.cit.) and Fowle (op.cit.).
When examining the distribution of word recollection for each student
at each level, some interesting trends emerge. First, it is striking that
Level 2 (vaguely remember) was the category which included the smallest
number of words. We can thus infer that most learners either recalled
the word or did not, a finding confirmed by interview data. When
asked about the learning process used with the vocabulary notebooks,
students reported either not investing time and effort on the words at
all or carefully focusing on them. Apparently, the moment they took
action towards vocabulary retention, they would remember the word. In
general, we can see that, except for Participant 6, the moment students
could explain or translate a word, they could also produce a grammatical
sentence that included it. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of the results
per student.
Although one may be tempted to claim that any form of explicit vocabulary
instruction would be useful and thus also result in positive results similar
ta b l e 1
Number of 133 43 290 258
Total number of words for words
all 13 students according to Average 10.2 3.3 22.3 19.8
degree of recollection SD 5.5 2.1 12.0 9.5
to those found in this study, the unique learning context here highlights a
different outcome. There was no teacher intervention except for scheduled
in-class time for individual reflection on vocabulary notebook use and
vocabulary development, i.e. during the course of this study there was no
focused instruction on vocabulary. The vocabulary notebooks functioned as
facilitators in a framework that allowed for individual work and enhanced
noticing, a finding in accord with Nation’s (op.cit.) stance that noticing is
an essential component of vocabulary acquisition and retention.
Participants as learners: Undoubtedly, the present study puts forward evidence for the
linguistic development effectiveness of vocabulary notebooks as tools for vocabulary acquisition.
and attendant matters As seen above, most students scored highly in the individualized
vocabulary test at the end of the year. The following enthusiastic
testimonies illustrate students’ increased vocabulary retention after the
use of vocabulary notebooks: ‘I learnt many new words!’ and ‘I am amazed
at how much I learnt!’. Comparable findings were reported by Schmitt
and Schmitt (op.cit.), who observed that vocabulary notebooks encouraged
and reinforced L2 vocabulary development. Vocabulary retention was
expected by this study’s participants: ‘I felt a bit disappointed to find out
that I remembered only 10 out of 12 words’.
Output
Although the output hypothesis (Swain and Lapkin 1995) claims
that producing language is not only a proof of its knowledge but is
concurrently part of the learning process, few students and teachers seem
to be aware of this potential, often waiting until they (or their students)
‘know’ the word before using it. Through vocabulary notebook practice,
however, language output was utilized for learning, inducing student
output in two ways. First, during in-class pair work, students often needed
to explain the meaning and usage of a word, an activity considered useful
and enjoyable by participants. This fulfils the metalinguistic function
of the output: talking about language to better internalize it. Second,
producing written sentences was one available strategy in the students’
repertoire. In their reflections, some participants suggested that output
Participants as future One of the goals of the present study was to allow students to experience the
teachers: pedagogical vocabulary acquisition process they expect their future students to undergo,
development thus acquiring more tools to understand the link between their teaching
and their students’ learning. As pre-service teachers, the participants of
this study were required to engage in practice teaching; engaging with
the reflective use of vocabulary notebooks aided pre-service teachers in
further developing their pedagogical abilities. As one participant stated,
‘I now understand the process better from two perspectives’, referring
to the learner’s and the teacher’s perspectives. Participants regarded the
overall practice of keeping a vocabulary notebook as advantageous, and
the determination to apply it as teachers was conspicuous, as illustrated
by these compelling quotes: ‘I saw what it did to me so I want it for my
students’ and ‘I want my pupils to have such an experience too’. This
application of knowledge goes beyond empathy and extrapolates to specific
teaching outcomes. As reported by one participant, the vocabulary notebook
experience led her to guide her students in a similar reflection and discovery
process: ‘I taught my students to explore their own strategies–and they
do’. Her peer, by contrast, gained insight into the use of myriad strategies
by individual learners (herself and her classmates) and decided to apply
this knowledge in her teaching: ‘By reflecting on the best strategies for
me I learnt that I needed to explore the best strategies for my students’.
Moreover, the exploration described above invited participants to delve into
new teaching and learning strategies besides the ones they were accustomed
to as high-school students: ‘[I saw that teaching goes] beyond dictations’.
In sum, this study set out to examine the impact of vocabulary notebook
keeping on pre-service teachers’ vocabulary gain, metacognitive
development, and their perceived ability to employ vocabulary notebook
teaching methodologies. Several conclusions can be drawn from
the findings of the research described here. Firstly, the process and
experience the students underwent made them more aware of the positive
implications of being a NNEST. One of the NNESTs’ advantages refers
to a shared experience between teacher and student regarding second
language learning. Undoubtedly, even though NNESTs need to constantly
enhance their L2 lexicons, non-native language teachers are unique in
that they serve as a positive model of successful mastery of an additional
language. In parallel, they can make use of their L2 learning background
in their practice. Vocabulary notebooks proved to be an effective tool in
that sense, given the tangible documentation of progress.
PART II Go over the table above. Reflect on the words you remembered
and the words you did not. On the back of this page, write your reflection.
Try to refer to some or all of the following points:
ππ the number of times you saw the words
ππ the number of times you needed to produce them
ππ whether you saw them in context
ππ whether the words seemed important to you or not
ππ the strategy you used
ππ was the difference in the treatment of the words or on the words
themselves?
ππ why did you remember some and did not remember others?
ππ additional factors that influenced the end result (wherever you are in
the 1–4 continuum).