effect of keyword

8/2/2019 Effect of Keyword

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effect-of-keyword 1/21

1

The Effect of Keyword Method on ESP Vocabulary Learning

I-Ju Chen Hui-Jing, Hsiao National Changhua University of Education Ling Tung University

[email protected] [email protected]

AbstractThis study aims to investigate the keyword method training effect in ESP

vocabulary instruction. With the use of quasi-experimental design and the open-ended

questionnaire, forty students from two intact classes in a university in central Taiwan

were randomly assigned as the keyword and traditional groups. The keyword group

received the keyword strategy training, while the traditional group focused on teaching

and learning specific words by means of presenting definitions or synonyms. Theresults indicated that after the treatment, students in the keyword group recalled more

target vocabulary than the traditional group did. Aside from the improvement of the

vocabulary recall, differences on the vocabulary memorization strategies between two

groups were found. Finally, students’ perceptions toward the keyword method were

discussed; meanwhile, suggestions for further research were provided at the end of the

study.Key words: keyword method, traditional method, vocabulary memorization strategies

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of vocabulary learning methods and instructional techniques has been

recognized as an important element in L1 and L2 pedagogy. It was claimed that learners need

to be given explicit instruction of vocabulary strategy in order to facilitate their awareness of

vocabulary learning strategies that they can use to learn their own outside the classroom (Atay &

Ozbulgan, 2007). Among the vocabulary learning methods, it was claimed that vocabulary

memorization strategies involving deeper processing may result in better retention of words than

strategies for shallow processing (Sagarra & Alba, 2006). Thus, one of the most popular and

the most extensively researched foreign language vocabulary teaching methods has been the

keyword method (Rodriguez & Sadoski, 2000; Pressley, Levin & Delaney, 1982) for that the

theoretical framework for the encouragement of using keyword method in vocabulary learning

lies in its strength of verbal linkage and visual imagery in the memory process. Such method



2

may trace back to the empirical support of Paivio’s (1997) Dual-Coding Theory (Rodriguez &

Sadoski, 2000; Shapiro and Waters, 2005). As Shapiro and Waters (2005) pointed out,

memories are stored in two different coding systems in Dual-Coding Theory with different

levels of processing ranging from shallow to deep. Shallow processing emphasizes surface

features of words to be remembered such as sounds, orthography, or physical features such as

the number of vertical lines in a word, while deep processing focuses on meaning. The richer

the meaning of an item to be remembered, the deeper the processing and the more it will be

recalled (Craik and Lockhart, 1972, as cited in Shapiro and Waters, 2005). Such strategy

associates the meaning, sound, and image of the L1 and L2 has been found to improve retention

(Hulstijn, 1997; Pressley, Level, & Miller, 1982, as cited in Fan, 2003).

Recent studies examined the facilitation of the keyword strategy on foreign language learning

and enhancement of vocabulary recall. Rodriguez and Sadoski (2000) conducted a study to

explore the effectiveness of training in the use of the keyword method for vocabulary

acquisition by students who are experienced in learning a foreign language. It was found that

the keyword-trained students maintained a significant and substantial advantage in recall of

word definitions over control students. Similarly, Shapiro and Waters (2005) indicated that the

keyword method of vocabulary learning is a mnemonic method to help students learn foreign

vocabulary. The keyword method was effective for that it provided a meaningful visual image

upon which to base memory for a new word’s meaning. In Taiwan, researchers also found

positive effect of the keyword method on elementary school and senior high school students’

vocabulary retention (Chen, 2006; Hsu, 2007; Lin, 2004) and on elementary school students’

learning of word meaning (Lin, 2009) as well.

When previous researchers explored the effect of the keyword method on learners’ retention

of vocabulary in L1 and L2 settings, few studies investigated the training effect of the keyword

learning strategy on the learners’ change of their vocabulary memory strategy use. When

recent studies showed a positive effect of the keyword method training on vocabulary learning



3

(Chen, 2006; Wyra, Lawson, Hungi, 2007), very few of them investigated the role of the

keyword strategy training effect on learners’ vocabulary memorization process (Wyra, Lawson,

Hungi, 2007) and explored students’ attitudes towards the keyword method training (Chen,

2006). Wyra, Lawson & Hungi (2007) examined the effects on recall of word-meaning pairs

of the training in the use of keyword procedure. The researchers used six Spanish words as

instruction and 22 Spanish-English pairs used as target words in the learning and testing part

and found that the training was a significant predictor of both backward and forward recall

performance. Chen (2006) investigated the effect of the keyword method on elementary

school students’ long-term vocabulary learning in EFL setting in Taiwan and found that the

elementary school students in the keyword-given and keyword-generated groups indicated that

the keyword method was not only an interesting tool for learning English vocabulary, but also a

skill helping them in acquiring the English words in a faster and easier way which can also

increase the level of retention. The lack of the research on the keyword strategy training

effect in learners’ vocabulary learning process motivated the researchers to conduct further

study.

When studies on the keyword method have been widely conducted, such issue is barely

discussed in the ESP setting. Many colleges were in the process of developing specific English

courses, having a content base or a skill focus, such as business writing, tourism English,

English for technology and the like. As Akbari & Tahririan (2009) claimed, students in an

ESP context frequently encounter unknown words in text material and they urgently need to

adopt some deliberate strategies to facilitate long-term retention of word meaning. The

vocabulary memorization seems to be the most important concern in ESP courses. However,

few studies investigated the effects of using memory strategies on recalling ESP vocabulary

(Atay & Ozbulgan, 2007) and even fewer studies applied the keyword method in ESP

vocabulary recall.

Based on the suggestions of the previous research, the present study aimed to investigate the



4

keyword method training effect in ESP vocabulary instruction. The ESP vocabulary learners’

use of memory strategies and students’ perceptions toward the keyword strategy training were

investigated by using open-ended questionnaires before and after the treatment. It is hoped that

this study may not only examine the effect of the keyword method in ESP vocabulary

instruction, but also compare the quality of the use of vocabulary memorization strategies before

and after the keyword method training across groups. In particular, the study seeks to answer

the following research questions:

1. Will there be any difference in the vocabulary knowledge between the keyword instruction

and the traditional instruction after training?

2. Will there be any difference in the vocabulary memory strategy use before and after the

treatment and between the keyword and traditional instructions?

3. What are students’ perceptions toward learning vocabulary through the keyword method?

METHOD

Design

Two intact classes taking Business English were randomly assigned to the treatment group and

control group. The treatment group received the keyword method training, while the control

group was involved in traditional vocabulary instruction, including repeating, translation, and

example sentence explanation. Students’ vocabulary knowledge was tested before the

treatment and immediately after the treatment for both experimental and control groups.

Participants

Participants were selected from two intact classes at one university of technology in central

Taiwan. Participants who were third-year students with various majors, including Psychology,

Health Care, Business Management, English, and Health Medical Care, took two-hour Business

English course as an elective course per week for one semester so as to enhance their reading

and writing abilities of business English. Each class consisted of 20 students aged from 20 to



5

22. All the participants have learned English for at least six years. Two intact classes were

randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Both classes were taught by the same

instructor using the same teaching material entitled English for Business with the same teaching

schedule.

In order to ascertain that both experimental and control groups’ English proficiency for

business-related areas was at the same level prior to different instructional treatments, an

independent samples t-test was used to compare participants’ scores of reading section of

TOEIC model test (2007) including 40 multiple-choice questions. Since the TOEIC test is

designed to evaluate learners’ ability to use English in the workplace, the test content involved

in business sectors is appropriate to use as a determinant of participants’ English proficiency in

ESP setting. With the total scores of 40, the score average for the control group was 29.20

(SD=6.50) and that of the experimental group was 29.80 (SD=5.35). No significant difference

existed between these two groups’ English proficiency levels (t=-3.19, p >.05).

Materials

All the participants use the same course book entitled English for Business (Lang & Hsiao,

2001). The course book focuses on different topics related to English in the business sector,

including topics for sales promotion letters, making inquiries, making offers, counter offers,

placing orders, acceptance of orders, and other social correspondence. Vocabulary items will

be selected from the glossary of each chapter in this textbook. A total of 259 word pools in the

list of the glossary from this textbook were chosen as the target training words. Based on the

suggestions proposed by the previous studies (Mastropieri, Scrugg & Fulk, 1990; Shapiro and

Water, 2005), only the concrete words or those which are easy to make a mental imagery were

selected.

The keyword training material consisted of a set of 15 Chinese-English translation pairs

from the pre-selected vocabulary pool for the keyword training. All the participants were asked

to complete a word recognition list so as to examine their knowledge of ESP vocabulary before



6

the treatment and elicited possible 15 unfamiliar words reported by the participants. These

words consisted of 13 nouns, one verb, and one adjective.

According to Uberti, Scruggs, and Mastropieri’s (2003) procedures of the keyword method

instruction, the researcher first examined the class reading materials, identified important and

challenging vocabulary words, and made a list of those vocabulary words and their definitions.

The researcher then examined each vocabulary word, recoded that word to an acoustically

similar keyword or cue word, and related that keyword in an interactive picture with the

to-be-remembered information. After that, the researcher found the pictures before delivering

some relevant instruction for students. Finally, students were asked to remember the picture of

the keyword and the definition together and to think of the keyword and what was happening in

that picture so as to retrieve the definition. Each unfamiliar word in the present study was

shown through three slides with the use of the overhead projector. The first and the third slides

showed the English word and the English vs. Chinese translation, while the second slide

provided the keyword and the mnemonic picture for the memory linkage of the target word.

Instruments

The vocabulary knowledge test used in the present study was designed based on the form of

Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham’s (2001) Vocabulary Level Test which has been widely used in

vocabulary assessment and research and which also presented validity evidence by investigating

the item discrimination and test reliability indices (Schmitt, Schmitt & Clapham, 2001). The

self-designed vocabulary knowledge test covered all 15 target words in the keyword training

process. Since the use of keyword method relies heavily on the acoustical similarities between

the first language (L1) keyword and the target word (L2), participants were required to choose

the right word to go with each Chinese meaning rather than the English definitions of the target

words. Thus, participants identified a set of six target words with a set of three Chinese

meanings. In total, the vocabulary test was composed of five sets of six target words with five

sets of three Chinese meanings. One point was given for each correct item in a total of 15



7

points. The vocabulary knowledge test was piloted on 44 students with similar educational

background in order to obtain the reliability for the test. The test-retest reliability of the

vocabulary knowledge test with the one-week interval was .8223 which showed an acceptable

reliability value since tests that yield scores with a reliability of .80 or higher are sufficiently

reliable for most research purposes (Gay, 1992, as cited in Chen, 2006). The vocabulary

knowledge test was used as the vocabulary pretest and posttest. Although both tests were

identical in order to compare participants’ vocabulary performance before and after the training

between groups, the items for these tests were re-arranged each time in a different order to

minimize possible rote memorization (Levine & Reves, 1990, as cited in Sildus, 2006).

Aside from the test instrument, a vocabulary memory strategy questionnaire and a

vocabulary learning perception questionnaire were used to elicit participants’ use of vocabulary

memory strategies and their perceptions toward learning vocabulary through the keyword

method. All the participants were asked to write down their use of vocabulary memory

strategies for five new words which were not included in the instruction and vocabulary test.

Procedures

Two intact classes were randomly assigned to the experimental (the keyword method condition)

group and the control group (the traditional method condition) with the same instructor and the

same teaching material. Before the treatment, a reading comprehension test adopted from the

reading section of a TOEIC practice test was conducted to identify the homogeneity of their

English proficiency level. Meanwhile, all the participants were asked to complete a word

recognition list to elicit the target 15 unfamiliar words. Also, all the participants were asked to

write down their use of vocabulary memory strategies for five unfamiliar words which were not

included in the treatment in order to elicit their vocabulary memory strategies before the

treatment. Before the treatment, all the participants were also received a vocabulary

knowledge test as a vocabulary pretest to evaluate their vocabulary knowledge before the

training. During the treatment, the experimental group received the keyword method training,



8

while the control group was instructed under traditional vocabulary presentation.

For the experimental group, certain instruction guidelines suggested by previous researchers

(Atay & Ozbulgan, 2007; Mastropieri, Scrugg & Fulk, 1990; Avila and Sadoski, 1996) were

followed. On the first day of the experiment, the instructor talked about the importance of

vocabulary knowledge in language learning and illustrated the importance role that the keyword

method plays in vocabulary memorization. Then, the instructor explained the logic of the

keyword method. After that, the keyword method was suggested to be modeled by the teacher

for the students (Mastropieri, Scrugg & Fulk, 1990). Students were first taught keywords for

the two practice examples from the preselected word list. They were then shown the new

vocabulary word first, followed by a mnemonic picture and keyword linkage for this new word.

Then, the Chinese meaning of this new word was demonstrated. On the second day of the

experiment, students were shown the 15 target vocabulary words, presented in a randomized

order. Students were shown each picture while the instructor described the keyword and the

pictorial strategy. Again, students saw the Chinese meaning of each new vocabulary word once

and then described the interactive picture once. One the third day of the experiment, students

reviewed the 15 words with the instructor, briefly repeating the procedures of the second session.

Then, all the participants were told that they were later asked to recall their meanings and 15

minutes were allotted for studying the words independently.

Students in the control group were received the traditional vocabulary instruction which

focused on teaching and learning specific words and had students work with meanings by

presenting definitions or synonyms (Brabham & Villaume, 2002). On the first day of the

experiment, students were asked to repeat the target 15 English word several times. Then, the

Chinese translation, the word usage and the example sentences for each word were presented.

On the second day of the experiment, the same procedure was conducted again. On the third

day of the experiment, students reviewed the words by repeating and were asked to recall their

meanings by memorizing these words independently in 15 minutes.



9

Following the study interval, the instructor gave all the participants an immediate vocabulary

knowledge recall posttest for the Chinese equivalents of the English words. The posttest

consisted of the 15 English words previously studied, with no other information such as

keywords or interactions. After the posttest, all of the participants were asked to write down

their vocabulary memorization strategies for the five unfamiliar words which were not included

in the training process. Meanwhile, the students in the treatment group were asked to write

down their perceptions toward learning vocabulary through the keyword method.

Data Analysis

With the use of the vocabulary knowledge test scores from all the participants, the means were

first computed for the two groups and for the pre- and the posttest. The preliminary descriptive

statistics for cell means will be examined to see if they differed from one another and from

overall means. Furthermore, in order to find out if the differences among the cell means will

be large enough to be statistically significant, t-test was first performed to see whether the

differences of three vocabulary tests between the traditional and the keyword groups existed.

For the statistical analyses, the alpha level was set at .01.

For the qualitative data, the researcher analyzed, synthesized, and categorized the

vocabulary memory strategies and the vocabulary learning perceptions reported by all the

participants in the open-ended questionnaire. The reported strategies between the traditional

and keyword groups were compared before and after the treatment.

Results and Discussion

The preliminary descriptive statistics for the vocabulary knowledge tests appear in Table 1.

The pretest scores were considered as scores of vocabulary knowledge before the treatment and

those of the posttest were the performance of students’ recall of the vocabulary after the

treatment.



10

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of pretest and posttest for the traditional and keyword groups

Group n Test Mean SD

Traditional Pretest 4.25 1.89

Posttest 8.40 3.94

Keyword Pretest 5.70 2.85Posttest 14.30 2.03

a n= 20 for each group.

As shown in Table 1, both groups’ performances in the posttest were better than those in

the pretest. It was also revealed that the performances on the pretest and posttest increased

4.15 words with the traditional instruction and 8.6 words with the keyword instruction. The

findings suggest that the keyword treatment involved more beneficial effects than the traditional

treatment from pretest and posttest.

Comparative Effectiveness Between Traditional and Keyword Groups Before and

After the Treatment

The results of scores between the pretest and posttest in the keyword group were shown in

Tables 2. Table 2 indicates that the students in the keyword group gained more knowledge of

the target vocabulary after the instructional treatment. The mean difference between the

keyword group’s pretest and posttest scores (M=-8.60) indicated that students had significant

vocabulary gains after keyword instruction (t=-14.44, p<.01). The traditional group also made

significant vocabulary gains on the posttest after the traditional vocabulary treatment (M=-4.15,

t=-4.17, p<.01).

Table 2 Differences on the scores between Pre- and Post Tests

Groups tests Mean SD Std. error mean t

Keyword Pre/Post -8.60 a 2.66 .60 -14.44 **

Traditional Pre/Post -4.15 a 4.45 .99 -4.17 **a The negative mean demonstrates that the mean of the pretest is lower than that of the posttest.

** p<.01, df =19

In order to compare the effectiveness of the two instructional treatments on vocabulary

performances, the independent sample t-test demonstrated in Table 3 indicated that the mean

difference between the traditional and keyword groups’ scores measured at the time of posttest



11

was significant (t = 5.96, p<.01). This indicates that the keyword group recalled more target

vocabulary than the traditional group. The result demonstrates that the keyword group retained

significantly more lexical knowledge than the traditional group.

Table 3 Differences on the scores Between the Traditional and Keyword Groups

Test Mean differences Std. error

(Traditional/ Keyword) differences t

Pretest 1.45 .76 1.90

Posttest 5.90 .99 5.96 **

** p<.01, df = 38

The first finding that students in the keyword group significantly recalled more target

words than the traditional group right after the treatment corroborated previous researchers’

assertion on the effectiveness of the keyword method in vocabulary memorization (Chen, 2006;

Condus, Hsu, 2007; Lin, 2004; Mastropieri, Scrugg & Fulk,1990; McDaniel & Pressley, 1984;

McDaniel and Pressley, 1989; Raugh & Atkinson, 1975; Rodriguez & Sadoski, 2000; Shapiro &

Waters, 2005). The theoretical framework for the encouragement of using keyword method in

vocabulary learning lies in its interactions between auditory and visual cues to enhance

meaningful information and to promote strong associations between target word and its meaning

(Raugh and Atkinson, 1975).

Strategy Use in Vocabulary Memorization

In order to investigate the keyword method training effect in ESP vocabulary instruction, the

researchers provided five more words aside from the 15 words in the treatment so as to know

whether or not learners may transfer the use of keyword method in new vocabulary

memorization tasks. The strategy types were identified based on the finding in previous

studies (Oxford, 1990; Lawson & Hogben, 1998; Sanaoui, 1995). The strategies used by the

participants included segmenting, recombination, rote memorization, association, placing new

words into context, and linking of sound and meaning. Segmenting means that students

separate words into several syllables, as one participant indicated, “I need to separate the word



12

‘bottle’ into several syllables ‘bo-ttle’ so as to help me pronounce the word and memorize its

spelling pattern.” Recombination indicates that students put together known elements to form

a new word, such as using prefixes or suffixes, as one participant said, “The word ‘unique’ can

be divided into ‘uni-’ and ‘que’.” Rote memorization means saying or writing target words

several times till they were memorized, as one student expressed, “The only way is to repeat the

words several times by speaking it out or writing it down.” Association is that relating new

words to be learned to another word to create associations in memory, as a student said, “I

associated the word ‘bonds’ to the known word ‘bank.’ Placing new words into a context

means that placing a word in a meaningful sentence or conversation in order to remember it, as

one student reported, “I put the word ‘bottle’ into a sentence like ‘Please give me a bottle of

mineral water’.” Linking of sound and meaning indicates that students memorize a new word

based on its similar sound in Chinese, as one participant said, “The word ‘bottle’ is pronounced

as “ ’ in Chinese and such sound also links the image of a bottle cap which is removed.”

As shown in Table 4, the keyword group reported using rote memorization (76%) the most

frequently, followed by segmenting (15%), linkage of sound and meaning (5%), association (2%)

as well as recombination (2%) in the pretest. In the posttest, most students (47.57%) preferred

using rote memorization (47.57%), followed by segmenting (33%), linkage of sound and image

(17.48%), and association (.97%) as well as placing words into a context. The most often used

strategy ‘rote memorization’ decreased from 76% on the pretest to 47.57% on the posttest,

indicating that the keyword group showed a decrease of 28.43% in the rote memorization

strategy after the instruction. On contrast, the less frequently used strategy ‘linking of sound

and meaning’ increased from 5% to 17.48%. The result indicates that when only three students

used the keyword strategy in the pretest, nearly half of the students (8 out of 20) reported using

such strategy after the instruction.



13

Table 4 Descriptive statistics on category of students’ strategy use in the keyword group

Strategy Strategy Use (%) Number of students using

Pretest Posttest strategy type (n=20)

Segmenting 15 33 6 / 10

Recombination 2 0 2 / 0Rote memorization 76 47.57 17 / 12

Association 2 .97 2 / 1

Placing words into a context 0 .97 0 / 1

Linkage of sound and image 5 17.48 3 / 8

In a similar vein, Table 5 indicates that the traditional group reported using rote

memorization (72%) the most frequently, followed by linkage of sound and meaning (12%),

segmenting (9%), association (4%), and recombination (3%) strategies in the pretest. In the

posttest, most students used rote memorization (42.42%), followed by segmenting (39.39%),

linkage of sound and image (14.14%), association (3.03%), and recombination (1.01%). The

most often used strategy ‘rote memorization’ decreased from 72% on the pretest to 42.42% on

the posttest, indicating that the keyword group showed a decrease of 29.58% in the rote

memorization strategy after the instruction. When 14 out of 20 students used rote

memorization in the pretest, only 9 out of 20 students used the same strategy in the posttest. 6

out of 20 students used the keyword strategy in both the pretest and posttest, showing that

linkage of sound and image was the strategy with nearly the same tendency in the traditional

group. Segmenting strategy showed a great increase of from 9% to 39.39%, indicating that

students in the traditional group used not only used rote memorization, but also the segmenting

strategy after the treatment.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics on category of students’ strategy use in the traditional group

Strategy Strategy Use (%) Number of students using

Pretest Posttest strategy type (n=20)

Segmenting 9 39.39 3 / 11

Recombination 3 1.01 3 / 1

Rote memorization 72 42.42 14 / 9

Association 4 3.03 1 / 2

Linkage of sound and image 12 14.14 6 / 6



14

Table 6 presents an overall difference of the strategy use for both groups across tests. In

the pretest, both groups showed the same preference on strategy use. Rote memorization was

the strategy frequently used by both groups of the students. However, when students in the

keyword group (76%) and traditional group (72%) frequently used rote memorization in their

vocabulary memorization process before the treatment, nearly half of the students in the

keyword group (47.57%) and in the traditional group (42.242%) preferred using rote

memorization after the treatment. It seems that both groups relied heavily on the rote

memorization before the treatment.

However, after the treatment, when rote memorization was adopted nearly half of the

students in both groups, the segmenting strategy was also reported as higher frequently used

strategy in both groups. When similar frequency of the strategy of the linkage between sound

and image before the treatment (12%) and after the treatment (14.14%) was found in the

traditional group, the frequency of the keyword method increased from only 5% before the

treatment to 17.48% after the treatment in the keyword group.

Table 6 Differences on category of strategy use between the keyword and traditional groups

Strategy Strategy Use (%)

Pretest Posttest

Keyword Traditional Keyword Traditional

Segmenting 15 9 33 39.39

Recombination 2 3 0 1.01

Rote memorization 76 72 47.57 42.42

Association 2 4 .97 3.03

Placing words into a context 0 0 .97 0

Linkage of sound and image 5 12 17.48 14.14

The second finding that both groups reported using rote memorization strategy most

frequently before the treatment is consistent with Sanaoui’s (1995) ESL learners’ approaches to

vocabulary learning, including writing words, repeating words mentally or aloud several times,

and returning to lexical item after repeating it several times mentally or aloud. After the

treatment, both groups still preferred rote memorization, followed by segmenting and the



16

Table 7

Total number of students (n=20)

Students’ Perceptions toward

vocabulary learning through the

keyword method ReponsesNumber of students Percentage

The keyword method is interesting in

vocabulary learning

Yes

No

Not Sure

15

0

5

75 %

0 %

25 %

The keyword method is helpful in

memorizing the pronunciation of

English words

Yes

No

Not Sure

12

1

7

60 %

5 %

35 %

The keyword method is helpful inmemorizing Chinese meanings of the

English words

YesNo

Not Sure

125

3

60 %25 %

15 %

The keyword method helps me

acquire the vocabulary more

efficiently

Yes

No

Not Sure

16

1

3

80 %

5 %

15 %

The keyword method helps me

retrieve vocabulary easier

Yes

No

Not Sure

14

4

2

70 %

20 %

10 %The keyword method makes my

vocabulary retention longer

Yes

No

Not Sure

12

2

6

60 %

10 %

30 %

I like to memorize words through the

keyword method

Yes

No

Not Sure

13

2

5

65 %

10 %

25 %

From the open-ended questionnaire for students’ perceptions toward the keyword method,

students reported that the keyword method was interesting in vocabulary learning because such

method can connect sounds and image so that they can recall words easily. Furthermore, the

keyword method can help students memorize the pronunciation of English words and Chinese

meanings of the English words for that such method was impressive and can help them recall

English and Chinese words at the same time by means of sounds and pictures linage.

Furthermore, the keyword method also helped students acquire new words more efficiently,

retrieve vocabulary easier, and make vocabulary retention longer in that such method aroused



17

students’ interest to learn new vocabulary, made vocabulary learning more impressive, and

connect the pronunciation of the English words to the Chinese similar sounds with the bridge of

pictorial image to associate the English words and its Chinese meanings. Based on these

assertions, it was found that students liked to memorize words through the keyword method

because such method helped them recall words easily and aroused their interests to learn English

words.

The benefits of the keyword can be explained in terms of Paivio’s (1997) dual coding

theory because the method uses two memory systems (Rodriguez & Sadoski, 2000; Shapiro and

Waters, 2005), verbal and image, so that if one of them fails, the other can still be used for

learning. Another explanation is that the image memory system strengthens the shared and

distinct features of the keyword and the L1 translation of the target word during the association

learning phase (Marschark, Richman, Yuille & Hunt, 1987, as cited in Sagarra & Alba (2006).

With the basis of Dual-Coding Theory proposed by Paivio (1997), when shallow processing

involves remembering characteristics other than the meaning of a word like sounds or spelling,

deep processing focuses on meaning. Students using keyword methods which help retrieve the

target foreign words may involves in a deep processing of learning. This is because students

need to think of a keyword sound with a visual image so as to associate target word and its L1

translation. Therefore, with deep processing, students in the keyword group can make

connection with L1 when learning L2, and thus help them recognize the word easier (Palmber,

1987, as cited in Chen, 2006). The richer the meaning of a word to be remembered, the deeper

the process, and the better the recall (Craik & Lockhard, 1972, as cited in Chen, 2006).

When students stated that the keyword method can facilitate their vocabulary

memorization, it was cautioned that such method still had its limitation as one student said,

“This method may not be applied to every English word because it is hard for me to find the

linkage between the English pronunciation and the Chinese similar sound for some words.”

Another student reported, “Changing my habitual strategy use of the vocabulary learning is hard



18

for me.” Another student noted, “The method sometimes confuses me by the linkage between

sounds and images because the Chinese similar sounds are different from those of English

pronunciation.” Another one claimed, “Although the method helps me recall the Chinese

meanings easily, spelling out the English words is still a problem.” Another one reported, “I

think this method is better for beginners because it can only enhance the ability of word

recognition rather than the ability of word production.”

The positive attitudes toward the keyword method in the present study echoes the findings of

Chen’s (2006) assertions that such method is an interesting tool for acquiring English

vocabulary and most of the students believed that such skill can help them acquiring English

words in a faster and easier way, and thus increase the level of retention. Nevertheless, the

limitations of the keyword method which were reported by some the students in the present

study corroborates the assertions that the keyword method is most helpful for the beginners

(Atkinson and Raugh, 1975) and was designed for use with concrete words (Rodriguez &

Sadoski, 2000). Such limitations may be one of the factors interfering students with the

application of the keyword method in new vocabulary learning tasks, and thus need to be taken

into further consideration.

Although the present study provided insight into the effectiveness of the keyword strategy

instruction in ESP context, the present study suffered from certain limitations. Firstly, the

effects of the practice effect due to the same test items on pretest and posttest was unknown.

Further study may examine the effects of foregoing variables on vocabulary growth. Secondly,

the sample size was small and thus needs further expansion of more samples with various

backgrounds in the future study. Finally, most of the target words used in the present study

were nouns. Further research may investigate other parts of speech in order to examine the

effectiveness of the keyword method from different dimensions.

References



19

Akbari, Z. & Tahririan, M. H. (2009). Vocabulary learning strategies in an ESP context: The

case of para/medical English in Iran. Asian EFL Journal, 11 (1), 39-61.

Atay, D. & Ozbulgan, C. (2007). Memory strategy instruction, contextual learning and ESP

vocabulary recall. English for Specific Purposes, 26 , p. 39-51.

Atkinson, R. C. & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the Mnemonic keyword method to

the acquisition of a Russian Vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104 (2), p.

126-133.

Avila, E. & Sadoski, M. (1996). Exploring new applications of the keyword method to acquire

English vocabulary. Language Learning,46 (3), p. 379-395.

Brabham, E. G.. & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Vocabulary instruction: Concerns and visions. The

Reading Teacher, 56 (3), p. 264-268.

Chen, Y. M. (2006). The effect of keyword method on English vocabulary long-term retention of

elementary school students in Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis. Department of

Applied English, Southern Taiwan University.

Condus, M. M., Marshall, K. J. & Miller, S. R. (1986). Effects of the keyword mnemonic

strategy on vocabulary acquisition and maintenance by learning disabled children.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19 (10), p. 609-613.

Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second

language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong Learners. The Modern Language

Journal, 87 (2), p. 222-241.

Hsu, C. T. (2007). Effects of the keyword method on vocabulary learning of elementary school

EFL children. Unpublished Master Thesis. Department of English Instruction, Taipei

Municipal University of Education.

Lang, Y. C. & Hsiao, J. M. (2001). English for Business. Taipei: New Wun Ching

Developmental Publishing Co.

Lawson, M. J. & Hogben, D. (1998). Learning and recall of foreign-language vocabulary:



20

Effects of a keyword strategy for immediate and delayed recall. Learning and Instruction,

8 (2), p. 179-194.

Levin, J. R., McCormick, C. B. Miller, G. E., Berry, J. K. & Pressley, M. (1982). Mnemonic

versus nonmnemonic vocabulary learning strategies for children. American Educational

Research Journal, 19 (1), p. 121-136.

Lin, C. N. (2004). The effects of the keyword method on vocabulary learning of senior high EFL

students in Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis. Department of English, National

Kaohsiung Normal University.

Lin, F. Y. (2009). T he combined effects of keyword method and phonics instruction on 5th

graders’ English vocabulary learning in Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis. Department

of English Instruction, Taipei Municipal University of Education.

Mastropieri, M. A. Scruggs, T. E. & Fulk, M. J. (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the

keyword method: Effects on recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

23 , p. 92-96.

McDaniel, M. A. & Pressley, M. (1984). Putting the keyword method in context. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 76 (4), p. 598-609.

McDaniel, M. A. & Pressley, M. (1989). Keyword and context instruction of new vocabulary

meanings: Effects on text comprehension and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology,

81 (2), p. 204-213.

Oxford, L. R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.

Massachusett: Heinle & Heinle.

Pressley, M., Levin, J. R. & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of

Educational Research, 52 (1), p. 61-91.

Raugh, M. R. & Atkinson, R. C. (1975). A mnemonic method for learning a second-language

vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67 (1), p. 1-16.

Rodriguez, M. & Sadoski, M. (2000). Effects of rote, context, keyword, and context/keyword

effect of keyword

Documents