Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES


www.elsevier.com/locate/esp

Memory strategy instruction, contextual learning and ESP vocabulary recall


Derin Atay *, Cengiz Ozbulgan
Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract In the last decades there has been an increasing interest in vocabulary learning strategies given that they are found to facilitate second/foreign language vocabulary learning and recall. As many learners do not develop sucient mastery of the strategy repertoire, explicit instruction on vocabulary learning strategies may help them to become more procient with the broad range of strategies they can use through their vocabulary learning process. The present study investigates the eects of memory strategy instruction along with learning through context on the ESP vocabulary recall of Turkish EFL learners. The study further explores whether there is any dierence in the use and choice of memory strategies of the learners as a result of such instruction. 2006 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Given the centrality of lexical knowledge to learning a language, research into the eectiveness of various types of vocabulary learning methods as well as instructional techniques has been of considerable value to second language (L2) research and pedagogy. In the last few decades there has been an increasing interest in vocabulary learning strategies as they are found to facilitate second/foreign language vocabulary learning. The interest in these strategies has also paralleled a movement away from a predominantly

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 216 325 56 28; fax: +90 216 306 40 58. E-mail address: dyatay@yahoo.com (D. Atay).

0889-4906/$30.00 2006 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.01.002

40

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

teaching-oriented perspective to one that emphasizes the learners active role in the learning process. 1.1. Theoretical framework Development of lexical knowledge occupies an important position in the learners struggle to master a second/foreign language. According to researchers, vocabulary learning strategies facilitate the acquisition of new lexis in the second/foreign language as they aid in discovering the meaning of a new word and in consolidating a word once it has been encountered (Cohen, 1996; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 1997). A number of attempts have been made to develop a taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies, mostly as part of a piece of research into learners strategy use. For example, Schmitts (1997) taxonomy, organized around Oxfords (1990) language learning strategies, overall reects the dierent processes necessary for working out a new words meaning and usage, and for consolidating it in memory for future use. The list contains 58 strategies which are classied into ve groupings, i.e., determination, social, memory, cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Research on the use of vocabulary strategies has revealed dierences among learners in terms of their strategy use. Successful vocabulary learners were found to be active strategy users who were conscious of their learning and took steps to regulate it, whereas poor learners displayed little awareness of how to learn new words or how to connect new words to old knowledge (Ahmed, 1989; Sanaoui, 1995). According to Gu (2005) successful learners intentionally select, consciously monitor and evaluate the strategy they use for the fulllment of their aim. The unsuccessful learners, on the other hand, employ learning behaviors similar to their peers without being conscious but also without having an aim (Gu, 1994; Gu, 2005). Thus, a learner needs to be able to consciously apply a strategy to a cognitive process to strengthen the link between the strategy and the achievement of vocabulary learning (Macaro, 2005). In this regard, Cohen (1996) indicates that many learners do not develop sucient mastery of a strategy repertoire that will allow them to make progress in language learning on their own. Thus, they need to be given explicit instruction to become more aware of and procient with the broad range of strategies that can be used through the learning process (Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1998; Oxford, 1993, 1996; Wenden, 1991). The goal of this instruction is to assist learners in becoming more eective learners by allowing them to individualize the language learning experience and to facilitate their awareness of strategies which they can use to learn on their own after they leave the language classroom. According to Schmitt (1997, 2000), in deciding which vocabulary learning strategies to recommend to L2 learners, one needs to consider the specic learning context as the eectiveness with which learning strategies can be both taught and used depends on a number of variables, i.e., the students prociency level, their motivation and purposes in learning the L2, the tasks and texts being used. Thus, the present study focused on memory strategy instruction given to Turkish EFL learners in an ESP course. 1.2. Memory strategies Memory strategies (traditionally known as mnemonics) have been found to enhance remembering through the connection of new knowledge with familiar words and images

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

41

(Levin, 1983; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Fulk, 1990; Woolfolk, 1993). These strategies involve relating the word to be retained with some previously learned knowledge, using some form of imagery, or grouping (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1991). According to Thompson (1987) [M]nemonics work by utilizing some well-known principles of psychology: a retrieval plan is developed during encoding, and mental imagery, both visual and verbal, is used. They help individuals learn faster and recall better because they aid the integration of new material into existing cognitive units and because they provide retrieval cues (p. 211) A number of studies have investigated the eects of memory strategy instruction on vocabulary learning. To this end, the most common research design has been to test the eectiveness of one strategy against other strategies used to learn vocabulary. For example, McDaniel and Pressley (1989) compared the keyword technique, in which students learn words through the combination of an auditory and imagery link, with the context method and found the former to be signicantly more facilitative to learning than the latter. Cohen and Aphek (1980) similarly trained students of Hebrew to recall new vocabulary words through paired associations. Students were rst given brief instructions on how to use associations to assist in vocabulary recall; they then selected new words from a reading text and made their own associations for them. Results have demonstrated that the use of paired associations to recall the new word led to better performance than using a dierent association or none at all. Moreover, Carlson, Kincaid, Lance, and Hodgson (1976) found signicantly better recall when a group trained on the method of loci was compared to a control group. Another study by Roediger (1980) looked at the method of loci along with three other well-known mnemonic methods. Results of the study revealed that all four mnemonic groups recalled the 20-word list better than the control group. However, the method of loci and the peg word system were found to be better methods to use when the order of words remembered was important. Finally, in Fangs (1985) study, ve intact classes were taught three lessons of medical terminology by one or more of three methods: traditional, keyword in the classroom and keyword in individualized learning. Results indicated that the class taught to use the keyword strategy retained the medical terminology to a signicantly better extent than the class taught by a traditional method. Although the eectiveness of memory strategies in vocabulary learning has been proven in several studies, researchers indicate that they should not serve as a substitute for the principles of contextual learning, but must be added to the contextual method when this is necessary and applicable (Hall, Wilson, & Patterson, 1981). However, no previous study has compared the eects of using memory strategies along with contextual learning on recalling ESP vocabulary. Thus, the present study aimed to bridge this gap in the literature. The following research questions were addressed in this study: 1. Will there be a dierence between the students who have memory strategy instruction along with contextual learning and those who only have contextual learning in terms of their vocabulary knowledge? 2. Will there be a dierence in the memory strategy use of the experimental group students after the memory strategy instruction?

42

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

2. Method 2.1. Participants Fifty male Army Aviation pilots enrolled in the Air Trac Terminology and Phraseology Course of the Turkish Army School of Languages participated in this study. The ages of the participants ranged from 23 to 35, and they were all graduates of the four-year Military Academy, Ankara, Turkey. Following graduation from the Military Academy, all participants undertook the same post-graduate level of training in the Army Aviation School and Training Center concerning their specialist branch. All of them had taken English as a compulsory foreign language in their secondary and tertiary education. According to the regulations of the military school, students are obliged to take the ALCPT (American Language Course Placement Test) before beginning the program. The test is prepared by the English Language Center of the Defense Language Institute, Lackland Air Force Base, TX, USA, and consists of listening (66 questions) and reading (44 questions) sections. In the present study the reliability for the test was 0.82 (using Cronbachs a). Students were assigned to their classes following the randomized matching method based on their ALCPT scores. At the time of the study, the mean score for one class was 64.56/100 (s.d. = 24.87), and 65.64/100 (s.d. = 23.76) for the other. The independent t-test applied to the mean scores of the groups displayed no signicant dierence between the groups in terms of their listening and reading scores at the beginning of the study (p = 0.92), so the two intact classes were randomly designated to be a control and experimental group. In addition to the ALCPT, students in both groups were given a vocabulary knowledge test (discussed in the next section) on the rst day of the course, and the results of the paired t-test did not show any signicant dierence between the groups in terms of their vocabulary knowledge (t = 0.678, df = 24, p > 0.504). Two teachers participated in this study. Both of them had graduated from the ELT departments of two dierent state universities in Istanbul, Turkey, and were native speakers of Turkish. 2.2. Setting The Army School of Languages is a military institution which operates under Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) where 9 foreign languages (one of which is English) are taught to Turkish military personnel, and Turkish is taught to military personnel from other countries. The Air Trac Terminology and Phraseology course, a three-week (one term) course, is one of these courses. During the English course, students had six hours of English every day and the objective of the course was to teach Air Trac Terminology to aircrews, particularly the ight phases, to enable them to carry out radio communication with controllers eectively. 2.3. Instruments and data collection procedures Data for the present study were collected by means of a multiple-choice vocabulary knowledge test (VKT) prepared by the researchers (see Appendix A for a sample). The test

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

43

consisted of 50 items which aimed at assessing the level of vocabulary knowledge (24 items), comprehension skills (6 items) and application skills (20 items) of students. The words/phrases to be tested were selected randomly from among the target vocabulary of the Air Trac Terminology and Phraseology course book.1 The VKT was given to both groups on the rst and last day of the course. Each item was worth two points, making a total of 100 points. The test was piloted on 60 students (all of whom were pilots, thus forming a similar group) who had attended the same course in the previous term. In the current study the reliability for the test was 0.88 (using Cronbachs a). In order to nd out the memory strategies used by the students at the beginning and end of the study, students in the experimental group were given the frequently used memory strategies questionnaire (FUMSQ) (Appendix B) adapted from Schmitt (2000) as a preand post-test. Students were told they could report more than one strategy on the FUMSQ. 3. Materials and instruction Both groups used the same course book, i.e., Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Language Skills for Communication (Geerke, Fluhrer, & Ptzenmaier, 2000). The course book focuses on dierent topics related to aviation and aviation communication. For example, one unit is about departure information, i.e., what a crew member has to do to prepare for a ight, and another unit is concerned with route clearances, i.e., information about VFR (visual ight rules) and IFR (instrument ight rules) clearances. The typical ow of instruction of a unit was as follows (see Fig. 1 for a sample of one weeks instruction): After listening to typical exchanges between the pilot and the controllers, students tried to guess the meanings of the target words through context. If they could not guess the correct meaning, the teacher provided it for them. The denitions for all the target words were written on the board or on an overhead transparency. The aim of this section was to help students gain familiarity with basic routine communication terminology. Next, students listened to radio communication recordings and carried out dierent post-listening activities, e.g., answering comprehension questions, matching. In the next stage, i.e., speaking and analyzing, students worked with a partner and role-played dierent dialogues by exchanging roles. The focus was on clear pronunciation and uency in the use of basic terminology. The activities up to this point provided the students not only with a variety of exposures to the target words and phrases related to routine exchanges but also with opportunities to practice them. The rest of the unit contained some nonroutine pilot/controller exchanges aiming to broaden the students exposure to radio communications which did not follow an established order. Finally, students listened to authentic exchanges, the sound quality of which simulated the actual environment of the cockpit so that students had the opportunity of comprehending exchanges under adverse conditions. Both groups had six hours of English a day but students in the experimental group performed all these activities in ve hours and had one hour of memory strategy instruction, while the control group students spent more time on listening activities and role plays, and nished one unit in six hours.

The vocabulary was selected from the 11 units to be covered during the study.

44

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

Week 1

Control Group

Experimental Group

Day 1

Introduction to the course (1 hr)

Introduction to the course Introductory lesson on vocabulary learning, modeling of all memory strategies (3 hrs)

Rest of the week 5 hrs/a day Listening to routine dialogues, Listening to routine dialogues, guessing guessing meanings of unknown meanings of unknown words, doing

words, doing post-listening activities, post-listening activities, e.g., answering e.g., answering questions, matching questions, matching Listening to non-

Listening to non-routine and authentic routine and authentic dialogues and dialogues and doing similar postlistening activities (spent longer time on dialogues and 1 hr/a day role-plays) Memory strategy instruction doing similar post-listening activities

Fig. 1. Summary of instructional similarities and dierences in a one-week reading unit (daily program). The introductory lesson was only done in the rst week.

Memory strategy instruction in the experimental group: On the rst day of the program students in the experimental group were given an introductory lesson about vocabulary learning. Following the guidelines suggested by several researchers (see Cohen, 1998; Hulstijn, 1997; Nation, 2001), the teacher rst talked about the importance of vocabulary knowledge in language learning and discussed dierent ways of vocabulary learning, i.e., incidental vs. explicit. Then he moved on to vocabulary strategies and focused on all the memory strategies given in Schmitts (1997) list. First, each strategy was modeled by the teacher for the students. That is, the teacher explained a strategy and gave examples of it using several sources (see Cohen, 1998; Macaro, 2001; Macaro, 2005). For instance, a student was asked to carry out instructions given by the teacher since physical movement is believed to help engrave the new information in memory. The teacher showed how to group the words based on meaningful classications or asked students to imagine themselves interacting with the object while saying its name. Then, he told the students to come up with other examples to present to the class. This session lasted about three hours. On the following day, after having the regular instruction for ve hours, the teacher distributed a handout of memory strategies to students and went over the strategies students asked for in the last hour. For the rest of the study, i.e., 12 days, the experimental group students followed the same procedure every day. That is, they looked at the target words from the relevant unit, and tried to apply the strategy(ies) they thought to be the most eective and suitable to learning and retaining them. After working on their own, each learner reported back on the application of the steps in the strategy to his partner and/

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951 Table 1 Gain score dierence between experimental and control groups Pre-test Ma Experimental Control 33.28 31.36 SD 11.32 10.58 Post-test M 87.6 77.04 SD 10.01 11.73 2.184 T df

45

N = 25. a The maximum total score being 100.

or other learners in class. For instance, one student related that he attempted to remember the target word altimeter through remembering the key word alt metre (six meters) in Turkish, as the two words are acoustically similar to each other. That is, using the keyword method he created a mental image between the target word and the key word in his mind. Whenever the student met or heard the word altimeter, he remembered the Turkish word, which led him to the meaning of the target word. Another student said that he preferred the grouping method to retain words. That is, he grouped the words under some headings such as words used as a response to yes/no questions, abbreviations, e.g., ATC, IFR, VFR, NORDO and Wilco, and words used when there is a problem, e.g., expedite, immediately, unable, and words twice.2 During the memory strategy instruction the students related the strategies they had used rst to their partners and then to others, thus, freely moving around the classroom. This mobility created a dynamic atmosphere in the classroom. Besides sharing their strategies, they also helped each other with target vocabulary. During this collaboration, the teacher circulated around the classroom and learners consulted him on their use of strategy seeking advice when necessary. In the last hour of every week students analyzed which strategies worked and which did not, and why. They also reported on their diculties and successes in using the strategy outside class time. Importantly, this reective process helped the teacher to assess learners progress on strategy use. 3.1. Data analysis To determine the dierences between the groups in terms of their vocabulary knowledge at the end of the study, independent t-tests were applied to the vocabulary gain scores of the groups. The FUMSQ was analyzed by means of taking frequency counts of each strategy in the pre- and post-tests. 4. Results In order to nd out whether the groups diered from each other in terms of their vocabulary gain scores at the end of the study, paired t-tests were applied to the pre-test and post-test dierences. As can be seen, there was a signicant dierence between the groups in terms of their vocabulary knowledge gain scores (see Table 1). Table 2 presents the descriptive data of the FUMSQ given to experimental group students at the beginning and end of the study. Results show that there is an increase in the
2

Words twice means communication is dicult: Please say every phrase of your transmission twice.

46

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

Table 2 Results of the FUMSQ Memory strategies Connecting the new word to a previous personal experience Associating the word with its coordinates Using semantic maps Using physical action when learning a word Grouping words together within a storyline Using scales for gradable adjectives Peg method Loci method Paraphrasing the words meaning Underlining initial letter of the word Studying the spelling of the word Grouping words Using keyword method Connecting the word with its synonyms and antonyms Saying new word aloud when studying Imaging words meaning Imaging word form Studying word with a pictorial representation of its meaning Pre-test strategy use % of students 10 12 12 4 2 18 4 6 20 16 4 8 6 Post-test strategy use % of students 54 26 34 22 8 8 18 14 12 4 16 10 20 22 26 32 20 14

percentage of use and variety of strategies in the post-test. As can be seen, connecting the new word to a previous personal experience and use of semantic maps were the strategies most commonly used by the students at the end of the study. 5. Discussion The present study aimed to investigate the eects of memory strategy instruction along with learning through context on the vocabulary knowledge of EFL learners, and compare these with those of contextual learning alone. The results of the study indicated that the experimental group students had signicantly better vocabulary gain scores than the control students at the end of the study. During the three-week study, both groups followed the same course book which provided the learners with a number of exposures to the target vocabulary in several contexts, mainly through listening and speaking activities. While the control group learned/recalled vocabulary only through context, experimental group students had memory strategy instruction incorporated into the daily six-hour English instruction, in addition to the contextual learning. During the memory strategy instruction the teacher provided the students with the relevant theoretical knowledge about memory strategies and encouraged them to use these in their own vocabulary learning. According to Macaro (2001) just making learners aware of the existence of strategies and exploring the range of available strategies (p. 187) would not bring about eective strategy use. Learners in the present study were shown explicitly the strategies which they could try to achieve better learning and each strategy was modeled to the students. The learners discussed the strategies they found most eective with each other, and received help and feedback from the teacher. When they failed to memorize a new word, they tried another strategy, as they were aware of the existence of another strategy which they could fall back on. Thus, the instruction

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

47

seemed to help them to self-diagnose their learning diculties, experiment with both familiar and unfamiliar strategies, and self-evaluate their performance. According to researchers (Cohen, 1996; Oxford, 1990) self-direction is essential in the active development of adults abilities in learning. It is especially important for L2 learners to be self-directed since it is impossible to give them direct guidance or instruction when they use the language outside the classroom. The instruction on memory strategies not only empowered EFL learners with a wide range of strategies to achieve competence but also provided them with autonomy in learning the relevant vocabulary. During the instruction period, students themselves found that they beneted from the memory strategies concerned dierently. It seemed that after a certain amount of practice and use, they knew how and when to use memory strategies for remembering new information and for retrieving it when needed. Unlike the control group students, the students in the experimental group were free to move around inside the classroom during the memory strategy instruction, thus, interacting a lot with each other. This mobility and the dynamic interaction among the students seemed to contribute positively to the classroom atmosphere. The experimental group teacher related that the memory strategy instruction period functioned like a relaxation period compared to the relative formality of the regular instruction. Within this framework, many experimental group students indicated that they enjoyed the strategy instruction as it was fun to have a teacher who does not try to teach us anything but waits until we ask him for his help. We do not have to sit the whole lesson listening to a cassette player. The teacher of the control group, on the other hand, reported that it was generally dicult to keep the interest of the students in the last hour. Another important feature of the current study is that the students were required to apply memory strategies inside the classroom and relate it to their friends on a regular basis, i.e., every day. During this process, they learned what kind of memory strategies the other students used and how they applied these strategies to their own vocabulary learning. Students in the experimental group seemed to benet from this collaboration, as they enlarged their strategy repertoire at the end of the study. Results showed that connecting the new word to a previous experience and using semantic maps were the most frequently used strategies among EFL learners, unlike learners in other studies (Fan, 2003; Schmitt, 1997), who regarded semantic grouping and imagery strategies least useful among all other vocabulary learning strategies and thus, used them least. Yet, it should be noted that the participants in the study only focused on memory strategies and they tried to nd the most eective strategy that would help them to retain the target words/phrases. The participants in this study were Army Aviation pilots who had limited time to learn the Air Trac Terminology and Phraseology required for a pilot to take part in international operations, e.g., NATO operations, which would also bring monetary benets. Thus, the experimental group students were highly motivated to learn and use the memory strategies as they felt that these strategies would help them to achieve their aims. The present study has a number of implications for vocabulary learning. First, memory strategy instruction should be integrated into contextual vocabulary learning. After discovering the meaning of a word through dierent contexts, students should be guided to recall it via dierent memory strategies. Secondly, rather than providing the learners with one or two strategies, the instruction should focus on the whole array of strategies, and students should be asked to choose the most eective one(s) for themselves. In order

48

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

to provide the learners with the relevant instruction, teachers themselves should have a good command of strategies; thus, they should be instructed about strategy use and teaching. The strategy instruction can be incorporated into the methodology courses given at the teacher education programs. In conclusion, as the current investigation into the eects of strategy instruction was conducted with participants from one ESP program in Istanbul, the ability to generalize the data is limited; thus, the eects of such instruction on the vocabulary recall of learners should also be assessed in a variety of educational contexts. Moreover, the present study only assessed the short-term eects of memory strategy instruction on learners vocabulary recall. Further research should be conducted to establish the long-term eects as well. Further research is also needed to complement the self-report data by means of data collected by interviews, think-aloud protocols and diaries, and evaluate the relationship between the use of learning strategies and dierent factors over time. Such studies should ideally explore how learners apply dierent vocabulary learning strategies in carrying out specic language-related tasks and should draw upon the perceptions of both teachers and learners concerning the eectiveness of various strategies. Appendix A Army School of Languages Air Trac Terminology and Phraseology test (sample questions) 1. Put the contents of the route clearance in order. (I) The clearance: reading of the clearance (II) Conrmation of readiness: The pilot acknowledges he is ready (III) A request: the pilots call to ATC (IV) The readback: reading back of the entire clearance (V) A response with an oer: ATC replies oering the clearance (VI) Acceptance or rejection of readback: misunderstandings cleared up, if any (VII) Dialogue termination: pilot signs o with call sign a. IVVIIIIIIVIVII b. IIIVIIIIVVIVII c. IIIVVVIIIIIIVI d. IIIVIVVIIIIIVI 2. Read and match the instruction with the diagram.

There is an aircraft overtaking you on your right!.

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

49

3. Which of the following instructions would an ATC use in order to request a pilot to activate the aircraft transponder identication? a. Initiate b. Acknowledge c. Verify d. Ident 4. Select the answer that is in correct order. PLT: __________ CTR: Taco 21, Laughlin Tower, change to Departure, wind three four zero at eight, runway 31 Center, cleared for take o. PLT: Taco 21, switching to departure, runway 31 Center, cleared for takeo. a. Taco 21, ready for takeo, runway 31 Center, IFR, Laughlin Tower. b. Laughlin Tower, Taco 21, ready for takeo, runway 31 Center, IFR. c. Taco 21, Laughlin Tower, runway 31 Center, IFR, ready for takeo. d. Ready for takeo, Laughlin Tower, Taco 21, runway 31 Center, IFR. 5. Look at the diagram and choose the correct one.

a. Slightly below glidepath and coming up. b. On glidepath. c. Well above glidepath and coming down rapidly. d. Slightly above glidepath and holding. 6. The temperature to which air must be cooled to reach saturation is called ________ a. ceiling b. dew point c. visibility d. cloud cover Appendix B Please, identify the Memory Strategies you have used in learning the new vocabulary during the Air Trac Terminology and Phraseology Course.

50

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Connecting the new word to a previous personal experience Associating the word with its coordinates Using semantic maps Using physical action when learning a word Grouping words together within a storyline Using scales for gradable adjectives Peg method Loci method Paraphrasing the words meaning Underlining initial letter of the word Studying the spelling of the word Grouping words Using keyword method Connecting the word with its synonyms and antonyms Saying new word aloud when studying Imaging words meaning Imaging word form Studying word with a pictorial representation of its meaning

References
Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. Meara (Ed.), Beyond words (pp. 314). London: British Association for Applied Linguistics. Carlson, R. F., Kincaid, J. P., Lance, S., & Hodgson, T. (1976). Spontaneous use of mnemonics and grade point average. Journal of Psychology, 92(1), 117122. Cohen, A. D. (1996). Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7(1), 524. Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman. Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second-language vocabulary over time: investigating the role of mnemonic association. System, 8(3), 221236. Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. F., & Li, T. (1998). The impact of strategic-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. In A. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 107156). London: Longman. Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222241. Fang, F. A. (1985). The investigation and evaluation of the teaching methods on medical terminology. Paper presented at the Second National Conference on TESOL, Taipei, Taiwan. Geerke, J., Fluhrer, H., & Ptzenmaier, G. (2000). Aviate navigate communicate English language skills for communication language activities. San Antonio: Defense Language Institute Publications. Gu, P. Y. (1994). Vocabulary learning strategies of good and poor Chinese EFL learners.. In B. Bird, P. Flavey, A. B. M. Tsui, D. M. Allison, & A. McNeill (Eds.). Language and learning (pp. 376401). Hong Kong: the Education Department (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 370 411). Gu, P.Y. (2005). Learning strategies: Prototypical core and dimensions of variation. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.crie..org.nz/research_paper/Peter_Gu.pdf. Hall, J. W., Wilson, K. P., & Patterson, R. J. (1981). Mnemotechnics: Some limitations of the mnemonic keyword method for the study of foreign language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 345357. Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 203224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levin, J. R. (1983). Pictorial strategies for school learning: practical illustrations. In H. Presssley & J. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research. New York: Springer.

D. Atay, C. Ozbulgan / English for Specic Purposes 26 (2007) 3951

51

Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in second and foreign language classrooms. London: Continuum. Macaro, E. (2005). Fourteen features of a language learner strategy. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http:// www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/1Ernesto_Macaro_WP4.pdf. and from http://www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/2Ernesto_Macaro_WP4.2.pdf. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Fulk, B. M. (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the keyword method: eects on recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 9296. McDaniel, M. A., & Pressley, M. (1989). Keyword and context instruction of new vocabulary meanings: eects on text comprehension and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 204213. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Newbury House. Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 175187. Oxford, R. L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7(1), 2545. Roediger, H. L. (1980). The eectiveness of four mnemonics in ordering recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(5), 558567. Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages. Modern Language Journal, 79, 1528. Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 198218). New York: Longman. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, G. (1987). Using bilingual dictionaries. ELT Journal, 41, 282286. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall International. Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Derin Atay (Ph.D. Bogazici University, 2001) currently works at the Department of English Language Education at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Her research interests are the use of learning strategies, in-service teacher education and multiculturalism in teacher education. Cengiz Ozbulgan is an instructor in the Army Aviation School and Training Center, Istanbul, Turkey. He is currently doing his MA at the ELT department of Marmara University.