• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.157-176
• /
• 2007

Based on the consensus that vocabulary plays an essential role in improving reading ability, the present study investigates the effects of two different methods of English vocabulary instruction - the traditional wordlist-based vocabulary instruction (G1) and the collocation-based vocabulary instruction (G2) - on improving English reading ability for high school learners. First, the results of the collocation test revealed that G1 and G2 groups attained similar mean scores on the pretests; however, G2 significantly outperformed G1 on the post-test administered at the end of the learning activity. The results proved that students who learned vocabulary in a collocation-oriented setting had better retention through the lexical-chunking achieved by the collection method. Second, in terms of reading comprehension achieved on nationwide academic trial tests, the result was, after considering more tests, that G2 gained a significantly higher mean score on the third and fourth than G1 did, although the two groups yielded a similar mean score on the first and second test. The implication of these results is that collocation-based vocabulary activities had a more significant influence on reading skills than wordlist-oriented ones.

• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.89-112
• /
• 2005

This study investigated the effects of collocation-based vocabulary instruction for the experimental group (G2). It was compared to the traditional wordlist-based vocabulary instruction for the control group (G1). This results reflect the development of low level high school EFL learners' vocabulary learning strategy use and the positive change in the affective domain. In the analysis of the survey responses, G1 and G2 did not differ significantly on the first questionnaire. They did, however, differ significantly on the second questionnaire. G2 used more strategies to discover and to consolidate the meaning of the words by means of combining words. In terms of the affective domain, G2 participated more actively in the learning activities, which had a significant effect on vocabulary growth, memory, self-confidence, motivation, and cooperative learning. This is attributable to the fact that G2 was more inquisitive, interested, challenged, participatory, cooperative, and attentive than G1 in performing the vocabulary task activities. Moreover, the data collected from the questionnaire showed that G2 performed more interactive and dynamic activities in solving the given tasks.