annotated bibliography 250 words

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching

Deborah Dubiner

Vocabulary knowledge is recognized as an essential element for second language acquisition and reading comprehension. One known way to encourage and support vocabulary development amongst second language learners is keeping a vocabulary notebook. The primary purpose of the present study was to document two aspects of student teachers’ own development: (1) linguistic (expansion of their own vocabulary) and (2) pedagogical (internalization of the approach and their readiness/willingness to use vocabulary notebooks in class; empathy towards their own students; and comprehension of the learning processes in light of their own successes and failures in vocabulary acquisition). Participants were 13 third-year students in an English teaching programme at a teachers’ college in Israel. A mixed methodology was implemented. Results indicate positive outcomes in target vocabulary acquisition and retention. Results are discussed from theoretical and pedagogical perspectives.

Second language education professionals in recent decades have emphasized communicative teaching. Despite the enhanced focus on communicative teaching methodologies, researchers contend that vocabulary is paramount in language acquisition and in reading comprehension processes (Nation 2001).

While research on the incidental acquisition of L2 vocabulary has shown that vocabulary can be learnt from focusing on content rather than on form, much of the current L2 vocabulary research focuses on the importance of explicit teaching of vocabulary (Robinson, Mackey, Gass, and Schmidt 2012). As such, authors have considered focused instruction of vocabulary to be a significant part of the second language acquisition (SLA) process. In this regard, the favourable impact of direct L2 vocabulary instruction has been established, along with a need for ‘metalinguistic teaching’, given that ‘naturalistic usage-based learning is insufficient to acquire L2 vocabulary’ (Elgort 2011: 368). As a case in point, Elgort concludes that deliberate learning through flashcards and wordlists leads to effective L2 vocabulary acquisition, yet she highlights the necessity of combining these with additional approaches that allow deeper processing of the lexical items in question.

October

Introduction

ELT Journal Volume 71/4 October 2017; doi:10.1093/elt/ccx008 456

Advance Access publication February 23, 2017

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

The present study relies on this premise and adds to the extant research on the use of vocabulary notebooks and on non-native English-speaking teachers’ (NNESTs’) reflections on their learning and its implications for their own teaching. Out of the many available L2 vocabulary development techniques and approaches, vocabulary notebooks have been used to promote the conscious and intentional acquisition of vocabulary in a second language (Schmitt and Schmitt 1995; Fowle 2002; Walters and Bozkurt 2009). Nonetheless, there is a considerable gap in research on vocabulary notebooks as a tool for increasing learners’ vocabulary size.

As such, the purpose of the present study is twofold. First, the experience of pre-service non-native speaking student teachers of EFL using vocabulary notebooks will be described. Specifically, the study documents student teachers’ own linguistic development. The second goal of this study is to examine the impact of the use of vocabulary notebooks by student teachers of EFL in their process of internalizing the use of this learning and teaching tool.

Vocabulary knowledge Nation (op.cit.) discusses distinct aspects of word knowledge and describes them in terms that range from recognizing the form of the word (receptive), recalling appropriate meanings (receptive), and using the words in multiple contexts (productive), to name but a few. As explained by Schmitt and Schmitt (ibid.), vocabulary knowledge entails several kinds of attributes related to a lexical item, including form (spelling), grammatical knowledge, collocations, and more. In the present study, we will refer to word knowledge that ranges from receptive to productive knowledge.

Deliberate learning Researchers have identified vocabulary gains through reading activities that did not focus on vocabulary learning, while recognizing that even when incidental vocabulary acquisition occurs, it is possible that at least some level of attention is necessary (Pellicer-Sánchez 2016). Other researchers contend that deliberate learning is essential for fruitful learning and effective retention of new vocabulary items in a second language (Elgort op.cit.).

Depth of processing Research indicates that deeper processing of new vocabulary items leads to enhanced storage in long-term memory. In particular, studies point to several factors that influence vocabulary retention. These include looking up words, producing language output (actively using words in context), elaborating on word meanings (for example by focusing on different meanings and connotations), and engaging in word analysis (for example by identifying affixes). For example, Sökmen (1997) asserts that activities beyond repetition (such as ‘manipulating words’ and ‘associating’ them with other words and experiences) are beneficial for retention. In the same vein, Eckerth and Tavakoli (2012: 230) found that ‘elaboration of word processing’, in this case writing, led to increased retention of new vocabulary, as opposed to other conditions that required shallower processing.

Involvement Load Hypothesis In line with the depth of processing view, the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001) also helps establish the knowledge

Theoretical framework Vocabulary acquisition in an additional language

Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching 457

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

basis relevant to the use of vocabulary notebooks as a learning and teaching tool. The authors postulate that the learner needs to be involved with a word to better retain it from a cognitive and a motivational perspective. They further define three aspects of involvement: need (perceiving a word as valuable), search (looking up its meaning), and evaluation (appraising the meaning and function of the words in the relevant context).

Noticing and attention Learning and memory phenomena in general are frequently studied from the perspectives of attention, noticing, and awareness (Robinson et al. 2012). Noticing has been defined by Nation (op.cit.: 63) as ‘giving attention to an item’ and it is generally viewed as an essential component in vocabulary acquisition. Attention, in turn, refers to ‘a selection process where some inputs are processed faster, better or deeper than others, so that they have a better chance of […] being memorized’ (Lamme 2003: 14).

Vocabulary notebooks The scant literature on the role of vocabulary notebooks has pointed to the generally positive potential of this teaching and learning tool. Schmitt and Schmitt (op.cit.) propose 11 well-founded principles for consideration when utilizing notebooks for vocabulary development, including using known words as a network to which new words are added, addressing the organizational features of vocabulary notebooks, considering different aspects of word knowledge, the need for deep and rich semantic processing, the production of words as a means of recalling them, attention to new vocabulary, recycling of new vocabulary, and attention to learners’ individual differences. The authors elaborate on how vocabulary notebooks facilitate the implementation of these principles, contributing to the vocabulary acquisition effort.

McCrostie (2007), in turn, examined 124 ESL student notebooks and scanned for sources of the entries, parts of speech selected by students, and reasons for word selections. His study provides a glimpse into how students use their vocabulary notebooks, indicating that students’ selection of lexical items does not necessarily lead them to master basic vocabulary. Likewise, the use of vocabulary notebooks by Fowle’s (op.cit.) subjects produced positive outcomes such as linguistic gain, development of strategic knowledge, and promotion of learner independence. Walters and Bozkurt’s (op.cit.) conclusions were similar to Fowle’s both for productive and receptive knowledge; additionally, students’ positive attitudes towards vocabulary notebooks were documented in their study.

Keeping in mind the importance of reflective learning and its potential 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?

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

Methodology Research questions

Participants

458 Deborah Dubiner

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

participants based on this enrolment alone. The students’ native language was Hebrew (12) and Russian (1) and all had learnt English as a foreign language in a school setting starting in elementary school, except for one participant whose parents were native speakers of English. She was not excluded from the sample because, as a native bilingual studying for a B.Ed degree in Israel, she continuously learnt new English academic vocabulary.

Among the participants, English input and output were limited to college lectures, reading, and some exposure to entertainment media. As third-year students, participants were doing their teaching practicum, teaching approximately one lesson a week. Due to their ‘hybrid’ status as learners and teachers, the students participating in this study provide a double insight: a glimpse of both advanced learners’ and future teachers’ perspectives on the use of vocabulary notebooks.

Notebooks During the course of one school year (October to June), students were encouraged to keep a vocabulary notebook with them at all times, which was one component of their grade on the course (i.e. keeping the notebook, writing reflections, and submitting it periodically). They were instructed to select and write new vocabulary items that they encountered in lectures, reading, and input from extra-curricular sources, such as movies and books. Students who preferred to use an electronic device were allowed to do so. Yet, it is intriguing that in the digital age, only two participants chose to depart from the paper-and-pencil tradition and use digital vocabulary notebooks. Students were given the following instructions:

π the date for each entry (and of each subsequent retention check) should be recorded;

π the translation or definition should not be written next to the entry. The rationale for this is that due to stronger automaticity in L1, reading the L1 translation before the L2 target word cannot be suppressed (Timmer, Ganushchak, Mitlina, and Schiller 2014). Consequently, juxtaposed translations are likely to prevent the learner from engaging in the deep processing necessary for vocabulary retention. Students thus wrote definitions and explanations either on the back or at the edge of the page;

π vocabulary notebook words should be selected by the learner according to their perceived relevance. By no means were participants required to enter every lexical item they encountered.

Except for these requirements, students were free to use the vocabulary notebook as they wished while exploring new vocabulary learning strategies discussed in class. Students were reminded constantly (on a weekly basis in most cases) to be actively involved with their notebooks.

Vocabulary assessment Periodical in-class self- or peer assessments were carried out during which students evaluated their level of vocabulary retention (or lack thereof). The activities included assessing their peers or themselves, based on each individual’s vocabulary notebook entries. Students were given class time to evaluate their own or their peer’s knowledge of each vocabulary item written in the notebook so far. This interim ‘vocabulary

Materials and procedure

Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching 459

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

test’ included a numeric scale (Figure 1), which drew on research into vocabulary knowledge (Nation op.cit.). Students were asked to rate their word knowledge on a 1–4 range: (1) do not remember (the meaning of the word); (2) vaguely remember (the meaning of the word; for example knowing that ‘magenta’ is a colour but not remembering exactly which); (3) can explain or translate (explain the meaning in L2 or translate to L1); and (4) can use in a sentence (thus measuring productive knowledge). When this column was checked, participants were asked to write an original sentence using the acquired word.

Logically, owing to the nature of the use of vocabulary notebooks, no pre-test was necessary, as only words that were new to the learners were registered in the notebooks.

Written reflections The second central activity related to the vocabulary notebook was the guided reflection which students were invited to undertake (see Appendix). The purpose of the reflections was to encourage students to investigate the best vocabulary strategy that they found for themselves, and to gauge the level of vocabulary retention and personal effort they put into their vocabulary development endeavour. Also, students were encouraged to search for assorted vocabulary learning strategies when the one used had failed, and were expected to be able to do so, on the grounds

figure 1 Vocabulary knowledge assessment

460 Deborah Dubiner

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

that they had been exposed to a vast array of strategies as part of the course materials.

Interviews Interview questions focused on the students’ experience with the vocabulary notebook, their perception of its usefulness for vocabulary acquisition, their exploration of strategies, and participants’ perceptions of the vocabulary notebooks as a potential teaching tool.

Vocabulary knowledge measurement A comprehensive vocabulary assessment based on each participant’s vocabulary notebook was administered at the end of the school year (see Appendix). In other words, the notebooks were collected and words were listed for each participant in an individualized test that included all the items in each participant’s vocabulary notebook. The number of words per test ranged from 24 to 63 words, depending on the number of words present in each notebook.

The individual vocabulary assessment administered at the end of the year 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 Total number of words for all 13 students according to degree of recollection

Don’t remember (Level 1)

Vaguely remember (Level 2)

Can translate or explain (Level 3)

Can use in a sentence (Level 4)

Number of words

133 43 290 258

Average 10.2 3.3 22.3 19.8 SD 5.5 2.1 12.0 9.5

Findings and discussion Vocabulary gain

Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching 461

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

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.

Undoubtedly, the present study puts forward evidence for the effectiveness of vocabulary notebooks as tools for vocabulary acquisition. 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

figure 2 Vocabulary assessment

Participants as learners: linguistic development and attendant matters

462 Deborah Dubiner

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

was efficacious in the learning process from two perspectives: the outcome (as one student noted, ‘Writing helped with spelling’), and the process (‘It was the first time I actually wrote sentences with new words in order to learn them’).

Noticing and attention As detailed above, one component of the language acquisition process is noticing, when the learner realizes that a certain lexical item is unknown and should be learnt. Participants recounted becoming more aware of vocabulary notebook words when seeing them in alternate contexts: ‘After I wrote it in the notebook I began noticing the word; I saw that it is often used in articles’. In this regard, Chee (2005 in Robinson et al. op.cit.) acknowledges the influence of selection and control as factors in the attainment of varying levels of bilingual skills, providing a basis and a validation of the positive impact of vocabulary notebook use in vocabulary acquisition processes. Students’ selection of lexical items to be entered in the vocabulary notebook, and subsequent control over their learning, was observed during the course of this study.

Similarly, participants related that they gave increased attention to lexical items that had been written in their notebooks. In addition, words that were recorded became more conspicuous when they appeared in different contexts. One participant’s comment identifies a relationship among the vocabulary notebook, noticing, and attention: ‘Knowing I have to write in my notebook, I gave the words special attention’. A more specific observation regarding enhanced intra-word awareness was made by another participant: ‘When you write the words you pay attention to its parts’. These data support Robinson et al.’s (op.cit.) assertion that there is a significant link between attention and learning. The authors stress that attention, not only to input but also to output, determines levels of knowledge awareness, hence becoming a salient element of the language learning process.

Motivation The data obtained from the interviews suggest that the use of the vocabulary notebooks instilled in the students the extra motivation needed to focus on vocabulary acquisition and retention. A close parallel can be drawn between their accounts and a number of components of Dörnyei’s (2001) framework for motivational teaching practice. In particular, such components as providing motivational feedback and encouraging retrospective self-evaluation are closely connected with the vocabulary notebook experience described in the present study. One participant, for example, referred to her discovery of strategies as an incentive to try it out on other words (‘I noticed that associations work really well for me’).

Another participant pointed out that her commitment to the instructor motivated her to keep and use the vocabulary notebook: ‘Knowing the teacher will read [the vocabulary notebook] made me use it’. There is an inextricable connection between this testimony and motivation research, which demonstrates how extrinsic motivation can be an important factor in language learning. Yet additional participants mentioned that the very fact of having the notebook was an incentive to expand their vocabulary, as in ‘Knowing that I had [the vocabulary notebook] made me use it. And when you use it you start expanding new and old knowledge’. In

Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching 463

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

this respect, we may assume that the fact that a grade was given on the vocabulary notebook played a role in increasing extrinsic motivation and subsequent engagement and learning. All in all, the interconnection between the findings above is supported by Nation (op.cit.: 63), who asserts that ‘motivation and interest are enabling conditions for noticing’.

One of the goals of the present study was to allow students to experience the vocabulary acquisition process they expect their future students to undergo, 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.

Conclusions Several pedagogical implications emerge from this study. The implementation of vocabulary notebooks in teaching may evoke enhanced learner motivation, involvement with materials, noticing, and subsequent attention to lexical items, all key factors in vocabulary development. Additionally, pre-service teachers must be presented with an exhaustive

Participants as future teachers: pedagogical development

464 Deborah Dubiner

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

References Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eckerth, J. and P. Tavakoli. 2012. ‘The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading’. Language Teaching Research 16/2: 227–52. Elgort, I. 2011. ‘Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language’. Language Learning 61/2: 367–413. Fowle, C. 2002. ‘Vocabulary notebooks: implementation and outcomes’. ELT Journal 56/4: 380–8. Hulstijn, J. H. and B. Laufer. 2001. ‘Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition’. Language Learning 51/3: 539–58. Lamme, V. A. 2003. ‘Why visual attention and awareness are different’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7/1: 12–8. McCrostie, J. 2007. ‘Examining learner vocabulary notebooks’. ELT Journal 61/3: 246–55. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pellicer-Sánchez, A. 2016. ‘Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition from and while reading’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38/1: 97–130. Robinson, P., A. Mackey, S. Gass, and R. Schmidt. 2012. ‘Attention and awareness in second language acquisition’ in S. M. Gass and A. Mackey (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.

Schmitt, N. and D. Schmitt. 1995. ‘Vocabulary notebooks: theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions’. ELT Journal 49/2: 133–43. Sökmen, A. J. 1997. ‘Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary’ in N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. ‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning’. Applied Linguistics 16/3: 371–91. Timmer, K., L. Y. Ganushchak, Y. Mitlina, and N. O. Schiller. 2014. ‘Trial by trial: selecting first or second language phonology of a visually masked word’. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29/9: 1059–69. Walters, J. and N. Bozkurt. 2009. ‘The effect of keeping vocabulary notebooks on vocabulary acquisition’. Language Teaching Research 13/4: 403–23.

The author Deborah Dubiner (PhD in Second Language Acquisition, Carnegie Mellon University) taught foreign languages for over 20 years in three continents. Since 2004 she has been engaged in teacher education and in research on L2 acquisition/ teaching, multilingualism, and sociolinguistics. She is currently a lecturer at Shaanan Academic Religious Teachers’ College in Israel and Oranim Academic College of Education. Email: [email protected]

range of teaching and learning strategies for exploration, as well as with the opportunity to empathize with the language learners they will educate in the future, and become better equipped to teach them.

The exploration of vocabulary notebooks as a teaching and learning tool presented here offers an addendum to the current variety of traditional teaching and learning frameworks. NNESTs’ examination of vocabulary notebooks from two perspectives may become an empowering practice beneficial to language teachers and their students.

Final version received March 2017

Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching 465

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019

Appendix End of the year vocabulary notebook analysis

PART I The following words were taken from your vocabulary notebook. Please rate the level of your command of each one of the words, according to the following scale:

Column 1: Check this column if you do not remember the meaning of the word at all.

Column 2: Check this column if you vaguely remember the approximate meaning/context/topic: Write whatever you remember.

Column 3: Fill this column if you can explain the word or translate it (write the translation or explanation).

Column 4: Write a sentence using the word.

SEE EXAMPLE BELOW

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:

π the number of times you saw the words π the number of times you needed to produce them π whether you saw them in context π whether the words seemed important to you or not π the strategy you used π was the difference in the treatment of the words or on the words

themselves? π why did you remember some and did not remember others? π additional factors that influenced the end result (wherever you are in

the 1–4 continuum).

466 Deborah Dubiner

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /eltj/article-abstract/71/4/456/3051684 by guest on 16 O

ctober 2019