The Internet as an Educational Tool in Vocabulary Instruction

By Fatemeh Alipanahi

Faculty member of Zanjan Azad University & Zanjan University of IRAN

Alipanahi@hotmail.com

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 (Meara1980: 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

Knowing a word means knowing:

thedegree 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.

itsplace 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 & Kim- Seoh, 1996).

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 student-centered, 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.

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 decontextualizedwords 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