CHAPTER 4
Results
4.1. Performance on the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT)
The VLT was administered to 98 students from the two different study programs.
Each level of the vocabulary test consisted of 30 questions. The scores of each level were
analysed, as were the total scores across the three levels of the test.
4.1.1. Results of the VLT
Initially, in order to know that the data obtained for answering the research
question was interpretable, it was necessary to obtain a reliability score for the VLT used
in this study. Test reliability for the VLT was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (Brown,
2001). The reliability of the total test, containing 90 questions, was .94. In detail, each
level of the VLT (2000, 3000 and 5000) also indicates high reliability. At the 2000 level,
the alpha was .85, whereas at the 3000 and 5000 levels, the alphas were .84 and .88
respectively. This indicates that the scores obtained were highly reliable.
Table 1 shows the results of each level of the test. Participants showed the best
performance in level 2000 where they know on average 19 words out of 30. In contrast,
at the 3000 and 5000 levels, students knew on average only 12 words out of 30. For the
overall result of the three test levels, the students knew approximately 43 words out of the
90 words tested.
26
Table 1
Mean Score, Percentage Correct and Standard Deviation in Different Levels of the
Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT)
Level Mean (% correct) Standard Deviation
2000 18.62 (62%) 6.07
3000 12.25 (41%) 5.75
5000 12.14 (41%) 6.95
Total 43.01 (48%) 16.76
Note. There are 30 questions in each level and 90 questions in total. N = 98.
4.1.2. Results of the VLT across the Two Programs
The vocabulary size scores were also compared by the two groups, Social Science
and Natural Science. As shown in Table 2, on average there was little difference on all
levels individually. However, the two groups showed the same results when the total
score for the three levels was combined. They answered 48% correct answers out the 90
questions and one student from each program obtained the highest score, 80%.
27
Table 2
Mean Frequency, Standard Deviation, Maximum and Minimum Scores in Different
Levels of the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) by Each Study Program
Program Social Science (N = 49) Natural Science (N = 49)
Level Mean Std. dev Max Min Mean Std. dev Max Min
2000 19.14 4.17 27 4 18.10 7.53 30 7
3000 12.55 6.60 24 1 11.94 4.80 22 4
5000 11.25 8.00 27 0 13.04 5.65 21 4
Total 42.93 16.90 72 6 43.01 16.80 72 19
Note. There are 30 questions in each level and 90 questions in the total.
Table 3 shows that a one-way ANOVA revealed no statistically significant
difference between the VLT scores of students from Social Science and Natural Science
programs at the three test levels as well as in the test as a whole.
Table 3
Analysis of Variance for Groups of Social Science (N= 49) and Natural Science (N=49)
Source f P
2 3 5 Total 2 3 5 Total
groups .716 .276 1.647 .002 .399 .601 .203 .967
Note. df = 1, 2 = VLT2000, 3 = VLT3000, 5 = VLT5000, Total = VLT total
28
4.2. Performance on the Morphological Awareness Tasks
The second part of the study assessed the degree of English morphological
awareness possessed by the participants in the study. Means, standard deviations,
maximum and minimum scores of the two tasks are first reported. Then students’
perceptions on vocabulary learning and morphological concepts are provided in the
section following. The responses are presented in percentages to get the average
judgment from all of the participants.
4.2.1. Results of Morphological Awareness Test
Table 4 shows a Morpheme Identification score of close to 5 for each group,
indicating that the students had reached the ceiling on this task. There were 22 and 31
students who obtained the maximum 100%, from the Social Science and Natural Science
program respectively. On the other hand, scores on the Morphological Structure task
showed a greater range. In total, the students averaged between 11 and 13 correct answers
(out of 20), for the Social Science and Natural Science groups, respectively.
Sabtu, 31 Oktober 2015
Chapter 3
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
3.1. Participants
The participants in this study were the students of the 12th grade in an Islamic
public senior high school in a rural area in West Sumatra, Indonesia. In addition to
English, the students also study Arabic as a foreign language, the latter reflecting the
Islamic curriculum in the school.
In total 98 students participated in the study, 29 males and 69 females, and have
learned English for about 5 years. They belong to two different programs of study, Social
Sciences (N=49, 14 males and 35 females) and Natural Sciences (N=49, 15 males and 34
females). The students were grouped into the programs based on their own interest and
their average grades for the first and second semesters of the 10th grade. Students in the
Social Science typically have high marks in economics, sociology, history and geography,
while Natural Science students are required to have high marks in math, physics,
chemistry and biology.
English was not a factor in the students’ program selection. However, English is
one of three subjects examined in a national final exam in the last semester of the 12th
grade for all students. It is also a requirement for university entrance for both programs.
Therefore, English is an important part of the curriculum for both Social and Natural
Science programs, and is taught in the two programs for four and six lesson hours (one
lesson hour is approximately 45 minutes) per week in the 11th and 12th grades,
respectively.
19
The English proficiency level for the students is based on the grades obtained in
the end of semester test. The test is done at school level, but the education department at
regional level provided the test papers. A group of teachers, selected as schools’
representatives in the regency, developed the test. The exams typically assess reading,
writing, listening, speaking and grammar proficiency. Based on test performance in the
last semester at the 11th grade, there were different results of the test across the two
groups, the students from the Natural Science program performed better than the students
from Social Science (the averages are 72.67 and 66.30 respectively). In addition to this
measure, the participants’ English proficiency level was also assessed by a Vocabulary
Levels Test (Nation, 2001) which was administered as part of the data collection.
3.2. The Testing Instruments
Nation's Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) was used to measure the students'
receptive vocabulary. This test was chosen because it is commonly used by other studies
and it is easy to administer and score. Since the participants were senior high school
students, the receptive vocabulary levels test used tested the participants’ knowledge of
vocabulary items from the 2000, 3000 and 5000 most frequently occurring words. These
are seen as words that all learners need to know to read basic texts and that should be
concentrated on in class (Nation, 2001). Each level had ten items containing six words
and three meanings. The participants must choose the right word to go with each meaning.
The following are the instructions and a sample item (see appendix B, Part A).
20
This is a vocabulary test. You must choose the right word to go with each meaning. Write
the number of the word next to its meaning.
1 business
2 clock ____ part of a house
3 horse ____ animal with four legs
4 pencil ____ something used for writing
5 show
6 wall
The learners’ morphological knowledge was tested by the Morphological
Awareness Test presented in Chang et al. (2005). This test consisted of two parts: a
Morpheme Identification Awareness test and a Morphological Structural Awareness test,
which are discussed below. The purpose of the first test was to verify the participants’
ability to distinguish homophones (words that have same pronunciation and possibly
same and/or different spelling), while the aim of the second test was to check if the
participants could demonstrate their ability to combine morphemes in a productive
manner.
The Morpheme Identification Test consisted of one example and five test items.
All the items have two pictures and the subjects were asked to look at the pictures and
then answer the question by choosing the correct picture containing the meaning of the
target word. The following is the instruction and an example (Chang et al., 2005, p. 430-
431).
Instruction
There is one example item and five test items. All the items have two pictures. Look at
the pictures and then answer the question by choosing the correct picture containing the
meaning of the target word.
Example:
There are two pictures for the example item, which means “the letter T” and a “teacup,”
respectively.
21
A. (1) (2)
Which contains the meaning of the “tea” in “tealeaf”?
Only five items were used because of the lack of time and resources to get the
appropriate pictures best presenting the homophones.
The Morphological Structural Test consisted of twenty scenarios illustrating
objects that are regularly encountered in daily life, as well as some which are rarer. As
was the case with previous test, the items were adapted from Chang et al. (2005). The
participants were asked to come up with words to describe the objects or concepts
presented by each scenario. Fourteen of the scenarios required responses involving
morpheme compounding, whereas the remaining six items involved syntactic
manipulations. One example of the compounding items was this: Early in the morning,
we can see the sun coming up. This is called a sunrise. At night, we might also see the
moon coming up. What could we call this? The correct response for this item is moonrise.
An example for manipulating grammar was this: John is stotting. Yesterday he did this.
What did he do yesterday? The correct response for this item is stotted.
However, there was an important change made to the two tests in this present
research. The scenarios for each item in the present study were in written form, not
presented orally as in the previous study (Chang et al., 2005). There are two reasons
behind this change; firstly, practicality in administering the test and validity of results.
This is because teachers at the school conducted the test; neither the researcher herself
nor English native speakers. It was practical for the teachers to administer the test by
simply delivering the test papers to the students; moreover, an oral test given by a non
22
native speaker may skew the result. Secondly, the participants were EFL senior high
school students, not L1 children; therefore, their exposure to English is mainly through
reading, not oral interaction.
Finally, in order to gain a better understanding of the participants’ perceptions of
the tests and their vocabulary learning, specific questions were included at the end of
each test (VLT, Morpheme Identification and Morphological Structure Awareness test)
and more general questions were given after completion of all three tasks. The questions
were created by the researcher to investigate the participants’ perception of their English
vocabulary knowledge, as well as their reactions to the morphological awareness tasks.
These questions were asked to provide a cross-check of what the test results show and to
ascertain the participants’ ideas about morphological awareness:
1. Which do you find easier? Morpheme Identification Test (Part 1) or
Morphological Structure Test (Part 2)?
For all three tests, instructions and examples were written in Bahasa Indonesia,
but the content of the tests was in English. On the other hand, all survey questions were
in Bahasa Indonesia in order to ensure that the participants would understand them.
Participants were instructed to respond in Bahasa Indonesia as well, so that they could
express their ideas and thoughts more easily.
3.3. Procedure
Before administering the tests, the researcher contacted one of the English
teachers at the school and explained the purpose of this study. The teacher then contacted
the principal to ask for his approval. After getting his approval, the tests were administered
to students at the beginning of their first semester in the 12th grade. The participants
23
completed the tests individually. The project received ethical clearance from the
University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) and Behavioural
& Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee (BSSERC).
The test consisted of three parts. Part 1 was Nation’s Levels Test (VLT - 90
items). Part 2 was the Morpheme Identification Test (5 items) and Part 3, the
Morphological Structural Awareness Test (20 items). The participants also completed a
10-question survey about their perceptions about vocabulary learning and morphological
awareness. The test was administered over two days to minimize fatigue. The first day of
testing consisted of the VLT, and two questions asking about the participants’ perception
of the test and their judgement on their vocabulary level. The second day of testing
included the morphological awareness test and questions on their view about the concept
of morphology and their beliefs on their vocabulary learning in general. The participants
received instruction for each part only on the day the particular test was done and they
were allowed to complete the tests in two hours on each test day.
3.4. Data Analysis
To answer research question 1, which investigates the vocabulary size of the
participants and compares the difference between groups, the results of the VLT were
summarized by mean frequency and standard deviation across the three different levels
(2000, 3000 and 5000). The scores obtained were added to get the total scores of the
three levels. In order to highlight the differences in the vocabulary knowledge that was
employed by each group of participants, the results of all the participants in total and the
separate results of each group (Social Science and Natural Science) were compared. Also,
24
a one-way ANOVA was performed to see if there is a statistical difference between the
vocabulary size of students from the Social and Natural Science programs.
The results of the morphological awareness test were also analysed for the mean
and standard deviation for the two parts (Morpheme Identification and Morphological
Structure) and the group as the whole. Independent group t-tests were carried out to see if
the groups mean differences were significant. The data were then analysed to emphasize
the difference between the two parts in light of research question 2. In order to ensure
reliability, all tests were scored twice, once by the researcher and once by a colleague.
In light of research question 3, for each participant, the correlations between both
the VLT total score and Morpheme Identification and the VLT total score and
Morphological Structure were analysed. These correlations highlight the relationship
between the vocabulary size and the morphological knowledge of each participant.
Moreover, the answers to the perception survey were analysed to investigate the
participants’ perception of the Morphological Awareness test as well as their interest in
applying these strategies for their future English vocabulary learning.
3.1. Participants
The participants in this study were the students of the 12th grade in an Islamic
public senior high school in a rural area in West Sumatra, Indonesia. In addition to
English, the students also study Arabic as a foreign language, the latter reflecting the
Islamic curriculum in the school.
In total 98 students participated in the study, 29 males and 69 females, and have
learned English for about 5 years. They belong to two different programs of study, Social
Sciences (N=49, 14 males and 35 females) and Natural Sciences (N=49, 15 males and 34
females). The students were grouped into the programs based on their own interest and
their average grades for the first and second semesters of the 10th grade. Students in the
Social Science typically have high marks in economics, sociology, history and geography,
while Natural Science students are required to have high marks in math, physics,
chemistry and biology.
English was not a factor in the students’ program selection. However, English is
one of three subjects examined in a national final exam in the last semester of the 12th
grade for all students. It is also a requirement for university entrance for both programs.
Therefore, English is an important part of the curriculum for both Social and Natural
Science programs, and is taught in the two programs for four and six lesson hours (one
lesson hour is approximately 45 minutes) per week in the 11th and 12th grades,
respectively.
19
The English proficiency level for the students is based on the grades obtained in
the end of semester test. The test is done at school level, but the education department at
regional level provided the test papers. A group of teachers, selected as schools’
representatives in the regency, developed the test. The exams typically assess reading,
writing, listening, speaking and grammar proficiency. Based on test performance in the
last semester at the 11th grade, there were different results of the test across the two
groups, the students from the Natural Science program performed better than the students
from Social Science (the averages are 72.67 and 66.30 respectively). In addition to this
measure, the participants’ English proficiency level was also assessed by a Vocabulary
Levels Test (Nation, 2001) which was administered as part of the data collection.
3.2. The Testing Instruments
Nation's Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) was used to measure the students'
receptive vocabulary. This test was chosen because it is commonly used by other studies
and it is easy to administer and score. Since the participants were senior high school
students, the receptive vocabulary levels test used tested the participants’ knowledge of
vocabulary items from the 2000, 3000 and 5000 most frequently occurring words. These
are seen as words that all learners need to know to read basic texts and that should be
concentrated on in class (Nation, 2001). Each level had ten items containing six words
and three meanings. The participants must choose the right word to go with each meaning.
The following are the instructions and a sample item (see appendix B, Part A).
20
This is a vocabulary test. You must choose the right word to go with each meaning. Write
the number of the word next to its meaning.
1 business
2 clock ____ part of a house
3 horse ____ animal with four legs
4 pencil ____ something used for writing
5 show
6 wall
The learners’ morphological knowledge was tested by the Morphological
Awareness Test presented in Chang et al. (2005). This test consisted of two parts: a
Morpheme Identification Awareness test and a Morphological Structural Awareness test,
which are discussed below. The purpose of the first test was to verify the participants’
ability to distinguish homophones (words that have same pronunciation and possibly
same and/or different spelling), while the aim of the second test was to check if the
participants could demonstrate their ability to combine morphemes in a productive
manner.
The Morpheme Identification Test consisted of one example and five test items.
All the items have two pictures and the subjects were asked to look at the pictures and
then answer the question by choosing the correct picture containing the meaning of the
target word. The following is the instruction and an example (Chang et al., 2005, p. 430-
431).
Instruction
There is one example item and five test items. All the items have two pictures. Look at
the pictures and then answer the question by choosing the correct picture containing the
meaning of the target word.
Example:
There are two pictures for the example item, which means “the letter T” and a “teacup,”
respectively.
21
A. (1) (2)
Which contains the meaning of the “tea” in “tealeaf”?
Only five items were used because of the lack of time and resources to get the
appropriate pictures best presenting the homophones.
The Morphological Structural Test consisted of twenty scenarios illustrating
objects that are regularly encountered in daily life, as well as some which are rarer. As
was the case with previous test, the items were adapted from Chang et al. (2005). The
participants were asked to come up with words to describe the objects or concepts
presented by each scenario. Fourteen of the scenarios required responses involving
morpheme compounding, whereas the remaining six items involved syntactic
manipulations. One example of the compounding items was this: Early in the morning,
we can see the sun coming up. This is called a sunrise. At night, we might also see the
moon coming up. What could we call this? The correct response for this item is moonrise.
An example for manipulating grammar was this: John is stotting. Yesterday he did this.
What did he do yesterday? The correct response for this item is stotted.
However, there was an important change made to the two tests in this present
research. The scenarios for each item in the present study were in written form, not
presented orally as in the previous study (Chang et al., 2005). There are two reasons
behind this change; firstly, practicality in administering the test and validity of results.
This is because teachers at the school conducted the test; neither the researcher herself
nor English native speakers. It was practical for the teachers to administer the test by
simply delivering the test papers to the students; moreover, an oral test given by a non
22
native speaker may skew the result. Secondly, the participants were EFL senior high
school students, not L1 children; therefore, their exposure to English is mainly through
reading, not oral interaction.
Finally, in order to gain a better understanding of the participants’ perceptions of
the tests and their vocabulary learning, specific questions were included at the end of
each test (VLT, Morpheme Identification and Morphological Structure Awareness test)
and more general questions were given after completion of all three tasks. The questions
were created by the researcher to investigate the participants’ perception of their English
vocabulary knowledge, as well as their reactions to the morphological awareness tasks.
These questions were asked to provide a cross-check of what the test results show and to
ascertain the participants’ ideas about morphological awareness:
1. Which do you find easier? Morpheme Identification Test (Part 1) or
Morphological Structure Test (Part 2)?
For all three tests, instructions and examples were written in Bahasa Indonesia,
but the content of the tests was in English. On the other hand, all survey questions were
in Bahasa Indonesia in order to ensure that the participants would understand them.
Participants were instructed to respond in Bahasa Indonesia as well, so that they could
express their ideas and thoughts more easily.
3.3. Procedure
Before administering the tests, the researcher contacted one of the English
teachers at the school and explained the purpose of this study. The teacher then contacted
the principal to ask for his approval. After getting his approval, the tests were administered
to students at the beginning of their first semester in the 12th grade. The participants
23
completed the tests individually. The project received ethical clearance from the
University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) and Behavioural
& Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee (BSSERC).
The test consisted of three parts. Part 1 was Nation’s Levels Test (VLT - 90
items). Part 2 was the Morpheme Identification Test (5 items) and Part 3, the
Morphological Structural Awareness Test (20 items). The participants also completed a
10-question survey about their perceptions about vocabulary learning and morphological
awareness. The test was administered over two days to minimize fatigue. The first day of
testing consisted of the VLT, and two questions asking about the participants’ perception
of the test and their judgement on their vocabulary level. The second day of testing
included the morphological awareness test and questions on their view about the concept
of morphology and their beliefs on their vocabulary learning in general. The participants
received instruction for each part only on the day the particular test was done and they
were allowed to complete the tests in two hours on each test day.
3.4. Data Analysis
To answer research question 1, which investigates the vocabulary size of the
participants and compares the difference between groups, the results of the VLT were
summarized by mean frequency and standard deviation across the three different levels
(2000, 3000 and 5000). The scores obtained were added to get the total scores of the
three levels. In order to highlight the differences in the vocabulary knowledge that was
employed by each group of participants, the results of all the participants in total and the
separate results of each group (Social Science and Natural Science) were compared. Also,
24
a one-way ANOVA was performed to see if there is a statistical difference between the
vocabulary size of students from the Social and Natural Science programs.
The results of the morphological awareness test were also analysed for the mean
and standard deviation for the two parts (Morpheme Identification and Morphological
Structure) and the group as the whole. Independent group t-tests were carried out to see if
the groups mean differences were significant. The data were then analysed to emphasize
the difference between the two parts in light of research question 2. In order to ensure
reliability, all tests were scored twice, once by the researcher and once by a colleague.
In light of research question 3, for each participant, the correlations between both
the VLT total score and Morpheme Identification and the VLT total score and
Morphological Structure were analysed. These correlations highlight the relationship
between the vocabulary size and the morphological knowledge of each participant.
Moreover, the answers to the perception survey were analysed to investigate the
participants’ perception of the Morphological Awareness test as well as their interest in
applying these strategies for their future English vocabulary learning.
Chapter 1 and 2
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Vocabulary is a key part of any language-teaching program. Nation (2001)
proposed four general goals that are important in a language classroom. These learning
goals concern: Language, which includes vocabulary; Ideas, which covers content and
subject matter as well as cultural knowledge; Skills; and finally Text or discourse (Nation
2001, p.1). Moreover, in learning a language, specifically for vocabulary goals, there are
three aspects to be looked at: the number of words in the language, the number of words
known by the native speakers, and the number of words needed by a learner to use the
language productively. The number of words in English and number known by English
native speakers are not the interest of the current study, which instead focuses on the third
aspect: the words needed to use English productively, specifically for EFL learners in
Indonesia.
The research literature in vocabulary learning in a second language (L2) has
revealed the importance of knowing a sufficient number of words to be able to function
in the language (Duin and Graves, 1987; Walker, Greenwood, Hart and Carta, 1994;
Nation, 2001; Read, 2004; Tschirner, 2004; Zimmerman, 2005). The development of
adequate vocabulary size is vitally important, and researchers have examined the use of
learning strategies as one means to foster the development of L2 vocabulary knowledge.
Strategies that have been proposed to help develop vocabulary learning include Memory
Strategies (MEM), Social Strategies (SOC), Cognitive Strategies (COG), Metacognitive
Strategies (MET) and Determination Strategies (DET) (Schmitt, 1997). Morin, 2003;
2
Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow, and Shu; 2005; and Schiff and Calif, 2007) have also
suggested that use of morphological cues for inferring meaning can help L2 learning.
Although only a handful of studies have examined the role of morphological
awareness in L2 vocabulary development, the findings suggest that various aspects of
morphological awareness may be particularly useful for vocabulary building.
Morphological awareness is defined as the "awareness of and access to the meaning and
structure of morphemes in relation to word" (Chang et al., 2005, p. 417). For example,
Wysocki and Jenkins (1987) found that students were able to learn new words by
generalizing from those sharing a root morpheme. Pica (1988, as cited in Morin, 2003)
also states the importance of the study of interlanguage morphology and the belief that
"morpheme analysis can provide important insights into the sequences, processes, and
input relevant to second language acquisition" (Morin, 2003, p. 107).
This paper builds on this body of research by examining the relationship between
the English vocabulary size of EFL senior high school students in Indonesia and their
morphological awareness. The study presented here attempts to evaluate and possibly
extend findings from previous studies to the context of EFL learners in Indonesia. The
obstacle that lack of vocabulary knowledge presents for Indonesian EFL learners has
been noted (Nur, 2004). An ultimate aim of the study is to assess the potential value of
incorporating instruction in morphological awareness as part of EFL vocabulary
instruction in Indonesian settings, similar to the one examined here. There are three
research questions to be tackled in the current study:
1. What is the vocabulary size of the Indonesian senior high school students in the
study, and does this differ by area of study, Social Science and Natural Science?
3
2. What level of English morphological awareness do these learners possess?
3. Can measures of morphological awareness be systematically related to the
measure of English vocabulary size?
Following the introduction, the review of previous studies in vocabulary learning
and morphological awareness are discussed in Chapter 2. At the end of the discussion,
the three research questions are presented. The methodology used in the study is
described in Chapter 3, and the report on the results obtained is presented in Chapter 4.
Those results then are analysed in Chapter 5 and compared to findings from previous
studies. Finally, in Chapter 6, a brief conclusion of the current study, the pedagogical
implication, limitations, and suggestions for the further study are provided.
4 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review
All languages have a vocabulary, a set of words that is the basis for making and
understanding sentences (Miller, 1991). Therefore, "without some knowledge of that
vocabulary, neither language production nor language comprehension would be possible"
(Anglin, 1993, p.2). Laufer and Nation (1999) stated that vocabulary provides the
enabling knowledge, which is required to be successful in other areas of language
proficiency. Thus, this chapter begins with a review of studies on the importance of
vocabulary learning, followed by a discussion on morphological awareness as a
vocabulary learning strategy and its two aspects, Morpheme Identification Awareness
and Structural Morphological Awareness. Finally, it presents the three research questions
examined in the present study.
2.1. Vocabulary Learning
There have been many studies about the significance of vocabulary in language
learning. For example, Walker, Greenwood, Hart and Carta (1994) stated that early
vocabulary knowledge has been shown to be a strong predictor of school progress in the
first language (L1). They found that vocabulary knowledge was particularly important in
reading achievement. In addition, Tschirner (2004) states that vocabulary size has been
identified as one of the most important indicators of L2 reading proficiency and of
academic language skills in general. He discusses the relationship between the extent of
participants’ L2 English vocabulary and other background information such as length of
time spent in English language-speaking countries, number of English books read per
5
year, learning strategies, etc. In other studies, the size of students’ vocabulary has also
been found to closely correlate with L2 writing ability (Laufer and Nation, 1995; Laufer,
1998; Beglar and Hunt, 1999; Zimmerman, 2005). Furthermore, Duin and Graves (1987)
found that if students are given a related set of words (through an intensive vocabulary
instruction as a prewriting technique) before they write an essay in which the words
might be used, the quality of their writing improves.
In another study, Read (2004) found that L2 learners are typically aware of the
extent to which limitations in their vocabulary knowledge hinder their ability to
communicate effectively in the target language. This is because lexical items carry the
basic information load of the meanings they wish to comprehend and express. In other
words, the learners realize that knowing more vocabulary will have a direct effect on
their ability to use and further develop the L2 they are learning. Thus, vocabulary can
lead the learners to be more confident in using the language.
Words are the primary carriers of meaning, and it is widely recognized that there
is a strong relationship between the individual’s vocabulary size and his/her general
language proficiency (Vermeer, 2001; Zimmerman, 2005). Methods for learning
vocabulary, then, are an important part of language learning.
There is variety of ways in which a child learns vocabulary in the L1. These
include:
1) Experiential learning (Armbruster, Lehr, and Osborn, 2001). The authors claim
that a child learns most vocabulary through reading or listening to words
being used in context. In other words, children are able to develop vocabulary
through their experiences with the words.
6
2) Memorizing (Levin, Levin, Glasman and Nordwall, 1992). These authors
believe that students learn new words by memorizing. If students are able to
connect words to a familiar image or visualization, they are more likely to be
able to remember, retrieve, and use the words in sentences.
3) Using words repeatedly, namely, the students are given practice (Long and
Rule, 2004). The learners are provided with worksheets to practice words that
have already been introduced.
Some of the viewpoints discussed above are also adopted for vocabulary learning in the
L2 teaching context. Additionally, Anglin (1993), referring to some previous studies,
proposed three approaches in the research literature to the development of vocabulary
knowledge:
1) Direct instruction of vocabulary in school (McKeown, Beck, Omalson, and
Perfetti, 1983)
2) Learning words and their meanings from context, especially during reading
activities (Miller, 1991; Nagy and Anderson, 1984). In addition, Zimmerman
(2005) emphasizes that the primary method for acquiring new vocabulary
(breadth) and deepen understanding for existing vocabulary (depth) is through
extensive reading. Furthermore, Krashen, (1985, 1989, as cited in Morin,
2003) believes that reading is the most efficient way to learn vocabulary
naturally.
3) Applying morphological knowledge to infer the meanings of words (Nagy and
Anderson, 1984; Wysocki and Jenkins, 1987).
7
The third approach is the focus of this thesis. In particular, it will consider the
individual learners’ application of morphological knowledge as a vocabulary learning
strategy. Learning strategies can play an important role in development because they
encourage the learner’s active involvement in the learning process. Vocabulary
instruction is most effective when students are positively and actively involved in their
learning and they are allowed to use their own strategies to learn the vocabulary (Long
and Rule, 2004). Therefore, investigating instructional approaches to the use of
morpheme or root word families in teaching vocabulary, Long and Rule (2004) found
that the learners could develop their vocabulary better when vocabulary was taught
through concrete representations (i.e. using pictures and real objects) and morphological
analyses rather than more traditional class instruction methods (e.g. simply writing words
down, students note taking, no morphological analysis).
The use of morphological knowledge as a potential strategy for vocabulary
learning was the focus of the following studies. Anglin (1993) found that the students
could analyze the morphological structure of complex words which they have not
actually learned before to figure out the meanings. Morin (2003) proposed the strategy of
using morphological knowledge to infer word meanings, and with it, the need to develop
morphological awareness in the L2. She characterizes morphological awareness as the
ability to reflect on and manipulate morphemes and word formation rules in a language
Morin (2003). Similarly, Chang et al. (2005) define morphological awareness as "the
awareness of and access to the meaning and structure of morphemes" (the smallest units
of meaning in a language) in relation to words. They quote Carlisle (1995, p. 194), who
defines morphological awareness as "children’s conscious awareness of the morphemic
8
structure of words and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure". The focus
is on children’s abilities to distinguish and manipulate morphemes at the word level, so
that children’s knowledge of both inflections and derivations in language are
simultaneously considered.
English morphology involves knowledge of both inflectional and derivational
processes, and each makes a distinctive contribution to language learning and use.
Fromkin, Blair and Collins (1999) define inflectional morphology as changes in the form
of a word according to its grammatical function, for example, talk becomes talked to
indicate activity in the past time. On the other hand, derivational morphology concerns
changes of a word to give additional meaning to the original word (e.g. sufficient
becomes insufficient) and may be in a different grammatical class from the underived
word as well (e.g. beauty, a noun, becomes beautiful, an adjective).
Knowledge of inflectional morphology plays a key role in grammatical accuracy,
while knowledge of derivational morphology plays a role in the development of
vocabulary knowledge. The role of learner knowledge of both inflectional and
derivational morphology in the development of L2 vocabulary is the focus of the present
study.
The study examines the relationship between morphological awareness and
vocabulary knowledge for the EFL Indonesian learners, with a focus on possible
implications this relationship might have for incorporating morphological awareness as a
part of vocabulary instruction in the L2 classroom. Morphological awareness will be
discussed in the next section.
9
2.2. Morphological Awareness as a Vocabulary Learning Strategy
As noted above, morphological awareness refers to the awareness of and access to
the meaning and structure of morphemes that are part of or related to the word. It
includes knowledge of derivational morphology such as prefixes (e.g., the un- in
undisciplined to indicate the antonym of the original, disciplined), suffixes (e.g., the -ion
in graduation changes the part of speech of the base word –graduate is a verb whereas
graduation is a noun), and compounding (e.g., cowboy to create new word combining the
two root morphemes: cow and boy). On the other hand, knowledge of inflectional
morphology focuses primarily on indicating grammatical changes in words (e.g., the s in
dogs to indicate the plural form of the base or the -ed in acted to refer to the action in the
past time).
Kuo and Anderson (2006) argue that morphological awareness in L1 English
becomes an increasingly important predictor of reading ability, as children grow older
because this awareness contributes to the decoding of morphologically complex words
and it is therefore assumed to contribute to the development of reading comprehension.
Vocabulary is a key part of any language-teaching program. Nation (2001)
proposed four general goals that are important in a language classroom. These learning
goals concern: Language, which includes vocabulary; Ideas, which covers content and
subject matter as well as cultural knowledge; Skills; and finally Text or discourse (Nation
2001, p.1). Moreover, in learning a language, specifically for vocabulary goals, there are
three aspects to be looked at: the number of words in the language, the number of words
known by the native speakers, and the number of words needed by a learner to use the
language productively. The number of words in English and number known by English
native speakers are not the interest of the current study, which instead focuses on the third
aspect: the words needed to use English productively, specifically for EFL learners in
Indonesia.
The research literature in vocabulary learning in a second language (L2) has
revealed the importance of knowing a sufficient number of words to be able to function
in the language (Duin and Graves, 1987; Walker, Greenwood, Hart and Carta, 1994;
Nation, 2001; Read, 2004; Tschirner, 2004; Zimmerman, 2005). The development of
adequate vocabulary size is vitally important, and researchers have examined the use of
learning strategies as one means to foster the development of L2 vocabulary knowledge.
Strategies that have been proposed to help develop vocabulary learning include Memory
Strategies (MEM), Social Strategies (SOC), Cognitive Strategies (COG), Metacognitive
Strategies (MET) and Determination Strategies (DET) (Schmitt, 1997). Morin, 2003;
2
Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow, and Shu; 2005; and Schiff and Calif, 2007) have also
suggested that use of morphological cues for inferring meaning can help L2 learning.
Although only a handful of studies have examined the role of morphological
awareness in L2 vocabulary development, the findings suggest that various aspects of
morphological awareness may be particularly useful for vocabulary building.
Morphological awareness is defined as the "awareness of and access to the meaning and
structure of morphemes in relation to word" (Chang et al., 2005, p. 417). For example,
Wysocki and Jenkins (1987) found that students were able to learn new words by
generalizing from those sharing a root morpheme. Pica (1988, as cited in Morin, 2003)
also states the importance of the study of interlanguage morphology and the belief that
"morpheme analysis can provide important insights into the sequences, processes, and
input relevant to second language acquisition" (Morin, 2003, p. 107).
This paper builds on this body of research by examining the relationship between
the English vocabulary size of EFL senior high school students in Indonesia and their
morphological awareness. The study presented here attempts to evaluate and possibly
extend findings from previous studies to the context of EFL learners in Indonesia. The
obstacle that lack of vocabulary knowledge presents for Indonesian EFL learners has
been noted (Nur, 2004). An ultimate aim of the study is to assess the potential value of
incorporating instruction in morphological awareness as part of EFL vocabulary
instruction in Indonesian settings, similar to the one examined here. There are three
research questions to be tackled in the current study:
1. What is the vocabulary size of the Indonesian senior high school students in the
study, and does this differ by area of study, Social Science and Natural Science?
3
2. What level of English morphological awareness do these learners possess?
3. Can measures of morphological awareness be systematically related to the
measure of English vocabulary size?
Following the introduction, the review of previous studies in vocabulary learning
and morphological awareness are discussed in Chapter 2. At the end of the discussion,
the three research questions are presented. The methodology used in the study is
described in Chapter 3, and the report on the results obtained is presented in Chapter 4.
Those results then are analysed in Chapter 5 and compared to findings from previous
studies. Finally, in Chapter 6, a brief conclusion of the current study, the pedagogical
implication, limitations, and suggestions for the further study are provided.
4 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review
All languages have a vocabulary, a set of words that is the basis for making and
understanding sentences (Miller, 1991). Therefore, "without some knowledge of that
vocabulary, neither language production nor language comprehension would be possible"
(Anglin, 1993, p.2). Laufer and Nation (1999) stated that vocabulary provides the
enabling knowledge, which is required to be successful in other areas of language
proficiency. Thus, this chapter begins with a review of studies on the importance of
vocabulary learning, followed by a discussion on morphological awareness as a
vocabulary learning strategy and its two aspects, Morpheme Identification Awareness
and Structural Morphological Awareness. Finally, it presents the three research questions
examined in the present study.
2.1. Vocabulary Learning
There have been many studies about the significance of vocabulary in language
learning. For example, Walker, Greenwood, Hart and Carta (1994) stated that early
vocabulary knowledge has been shown to be a strong predictor of school progress in the
first language (L1). They found that vocabulary knowledge was particularly important in
reading achievement. In addition, Tschirner (2004) states that vocabulary size has been
identified as one of the most important indicators of L2 reading proficiency and of
academic language skills in general. He discusses the relationship between the extent of
participants’ L2 English vocabulary and other background information such as length of
time spent in English language-speaking countries, number of English books read per
5
year, learning strategies, etc. In other studies, the size of students’ vocabulary has also
been found to closely correlate with L2 writing ability (Laufer and Nation, 1995; Laufer,
1998; Beglar and Hunt, 1999; Zimmerman, 2005). Furthermore, Duin and Graves (1987)
found that if students are given a related set of words (through an intensive vocabulary
instruction as a prewriting technique) before they write an essay in which the words
might be used, the quality of their writing improves.
In another study, Read (2004) found that L2 learners are typically aware of the
extent to which limitations in their vocabulary knowledge hinder their ability to
communicate effectively in the target language. This is because lexical items carry the
basic information load of the meanings they wish to comprehend and express. In other
words, the learners realize that knowing more vocabulary will have a direct effect on
their ability to use and further develop the L2 they are learning. Thus, vocabulary can
lead the learners to be more confident in using the language.
Words are the primary carriers of meaning, and it is widely recognized that there
is a strong relationship between the individual’s vocabulary size and his/her general
language proficiency (Vermeer, 2001; Zimmerman, 2005). Methods for learning
vocabulary, then, are an important part of language learning.
There is variety of ways in which a child learns vocabulary in the L1. These
include:
1) Experiential learning (Armbruster, Lehr, and Osborn, 2001). The authors claim
that a child learns most vocabulary through reading or listening to words
being used in context. In other words, children are able to develop vocabulary
through their experiences with the words.
6
2) Memorizing (Levin, Levin, Glasman and Nordwall, 1992). These authors
believe that students learn new words by memorizing. If students are able to
connect words to a familiar image or visualization, they are more likely to be
able to remember, retrieve, and use the words in sentences.
3) Using words repeatedly, namely, the students are given practice (Long and
Rule, 2004). The learners are provided with worksheets to practice words that
have already been introduced.
Some of the viewpoints discussed above are also adopted for vocabulary learning in the
L2 teaching context. Additionally, Anglin (1993), referring to some previous studies,
proposed three approaches in the research literature to the development of vocabulary
knowledge:
1) Direct instruction of vocabulary in school (McKeown, Beck, Omalson, and
Perfetti, 1983)
2) Learning words and their meanings from context, especially during reading
activities (Miller, 1991; Nagy and Anderson, 1984). In addition, Zimmerman
(2005) emphasizes that the primary method for acquiring new vocabulary
(breadth) and deepen understanding for existing vocabulary (depth) is through
extensive reading. Furthermore, Krashen, (1985, 1989, as cited in Morin,
2003) believes that reading is the most efficient way to learn vocabulary
naturally.
3) Applying morphological knowledge to infer the meanings of words (Nagy and
Anderson, 1984; Wysocki and Jenkins, 1987).
7
The third approach is the focus of this thesis. In particular, it will consider the
individual learners’ application of morphological knowledge as a vocabulary learning
strategy. Learning strategies can play an important role in development because they
encourage the learner’s active involvement in the learning process. Vocabulary
instruction is most effective when students are positively and actively involved in their
learning and they are allowed to use their own strategies to learn the vocabulary (Long
and Rule, 2004). Therefore, investigating instructional approaches to the use of
morpheme or root word families in teaching vocabulary, Long and Rule (2004) found
that the learners could develop their vocabulary better when vocabulary was taught
through concrete representations (i.e. using pictures and real objects) and morphological
analyses rather than more traditional class instruction methods (e.g. simply writing words
down, students note taking, no morphological analysis).
The use of morphological knowledge as a potential strategy for vocabulary
learning was the focus of the following studies. Anglin (1993) found that the students
could analyze the morphological structure of complex words which they have not
actually learned before to figure out the meanings. Morin (2003) proposed the strategy of
using morphological knowledge to infer word meanings, and with it, the need to develop
morphological awareness in the L2. She characterizes morphological awareness as the
ability to reflect on and manipulate morphemes and word formation rules in a language
Morin (2003). Similarly, Chang et al. (2005) define morphological awareness as "the
awareness of and access to the meaning and structure of morphemes" (the smallest units
of meaning in a language) in relation to words. They quote Carlisle (1995, p. 194), who
defines morphological awareness as "children’s conscious awareness of the morphemic
8
structure of words and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure". The focus
is on children’s abilities to distinguish and manipulate morphemes at the word level, so
that children’s knowledge of both inflections and derivations in language are
simultaneously considered.
English morphology involves knowledge of both inflectional and derivational
processes, and each makes a distinctive contribution to language learning and use.
Fromkin, Blair and Collins (1999) define inflectional morphology as changes in the form
of a word according to its grammatical function, for example, talk becomes talked to
indicate activity in the past time. On the other hand, derivational morphology concerns
changes of a word to give additional meaning to the original word (e.g. sufficient
becomes insufficient) and may be in a different grammatical class from the underived
word as well (e.g. beauty, a noun, becomes beautiful, an adjective).
Knowledge of inflectional morphology plays a key role in grammatical accuracy,
while knowledge of derivational morphology plays a role in the development of
vocabulary knowledge. The role of learner knowledge of both inflectional and
derivational morphology in the development of L2 vocabulary is the focus of the present
study.
The study examines the relationship between morphological awareness and
vocabulary knowledge for the EFL Indonesian learners, with a focus on possible
implications this relationship might have for incorporating morphological awareness as a
part of vocabulary instruction in the L2 classroom. Morphological awareness will be
discussed in the next section.
9
2.2. Morphological Awareness as a Vocabulary Learning Strategy
As noted above, morphological awareness refers to the awareness of and access to
the meaning and structure of morphemes that are part of or related to the word. It
includes knowledge of derivational morphology such as prefixes (e.g., the un- in
undisciplined to indicate the antonym of the original, disciplined), suffixes (e.g., the -ion
in graduation changes the part of speech of the base word –graduate is a verb whereas
graduation is a noun), and compounding (e.g., cowboy to create new word combining the
two root morphemes: cow and boy). On the other hand, knowledge of inflectional
morphology focuses primarily on indicating grammatical changes in words (e.g., the s in
dogs to indicate the plural form of the base or the -ed in acted to refer to the action in the
past time).
Kuo and Anderson (2006) argue that morphological awareness in L1 English
becomes an increasingly important predictor of reading ability, as children grow older
because this awareness contributes to the decoding of morphologically complex words
and it is therefore assumed to contribute to the development of reading comprehension.