Faculty of
Education
and Society
Degree Project in English Studies and Education
15 Credits, Advanced LevelVocabulary Teaching in the Swedish and
Turkish Upper-Secondary School: A
Comparative Study
Ordförrådsundervisning i den svenska och turkiska
gymnasieskolan: en komparativ studie
Zeyneb Dogala
Department of English and Education Examiner: Thanh Vi Son Master of Science in Secondary Education, 300 hp Supervisor: Anna Wärnsby Date of Submission: 2019-06-07
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank various people for their contribution to this project; a very special gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr. Anna Wärnsby, whose expertise, guidance and support has been much appreciated. I will forever remember you as one of the best teachers I have had. I would also like to thank the Turkish teachers who participated in my study and accepted me with open arms during my internship. Moreover, I want to thank the Swedish teachers who made this comparative study possible. Also, thanks to Allah for giving me the strength and ability to complete this project.
Abstract
Recent numbers on English Proficiency Index (2018) indicate that Sweden is in the lead of English proficiency, whereas Turkey is lagging far behind. Vocabulary plays a vital role in language learning, and research confirms that learners become more confident and proficient users of English when they receive enough support to expand their word knowledge. This comparative study is twofold: one aspect focuses on how the steering documents in Sweden and Turkey support integration of vocabulary teaching through a content analysis, and the other is on what teachers, in qualitative interviews, report they do to help their learners increase their vocabulary knowledge. Although Sweden is in the lead of proficiency, the support for vocabulary teaching in the syllabus is relatively absent, whereas the Turkish syllabus puts an emphasis on teaching and learning words. Furthermore, Swedish and Turkish teachers incorporate vocabulary in their classrooms differently as a result of how they
interpret what the respective syllabus require. However, neither of these syllabuses are
exemplary in describing vocabulary teaching and learning, and one could argue for combining the approaches in the two syllabuses, which could perhaps lead to a decrease in the gap
between “word poor” learners and “word rich” learners.
Keywords: explicit and implicit vocabulary teaching, syllabus, Swedish upper-secondary
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Aim and Research Questions ... 3
3. Background ... 4
3.1 Pedagogical research on vocabulary learning ... 4
3.2 Implicit and explicit learning and teaching ... 5
3.3 The Swedish Education System ... 5
3.4 The Turkish Education System ... 6
3.5 Overview of CEFR ... 6
4. Method ... 7
4.1 The content analysis on steering documents ... 7
4.2 The interviews ... 8
4.2.1 Participants ... 8
4.2.2 Ethical considerations ... 9
4.2.3 Procedure ... 10
5. Results ... 11
5.1 The integration of vocabulary teaching in Swedish and Turkish steering documents ... 11
5.2 The Swedish and Turkish teachers: Integration of vocabulary in their classrooms ... 14
5.2.1 Steering documents ... 14
5.2.2 Importance of vocabulary ... 15
5.2.3 Pedagogical interventions ... 16
6. Discussion ... 19
6.1 To what extent do the steering documents in Sweden and Turkey support integration of vocabulary teaching? ... 19
6.2 In what way do Swedish and Turkish teachers report integrating vocabulary teaching in their classrooms and why? ... 21
6.3 Limitations of study and suggestions for future research ... 22
1
1. Introduction
When I did my VFU in Turkey in spring 2018, I realized that there was an emphasis on teaching vocabulary in contrast to my VFU experiences in Swedish schools. I therefore started to wonder in what way vocabulary teaching affects students’ language learning process. According to Milton (2009), syllabuses have become less focused on vocabulary teaching, and he claims that this area needs a larger focus. Furthermore, Milton claims that teachers mistakenly believe that vocabulary teaching is a waste of time, which does not align with current research and the curriculum (2009, p. 195). Carter (2012) explains that the neglect of vocabulary teaching could be due to a larger focus on syntax and phonology in linguistic research, which has made vocabulary seem like a less important area in learning a second language (L2) (p. 178).
Every year, statistics over English proficiency skills are presented that allows one to understand how much or little these skills may vary in different countries. According to a report published by Education First (EF), the English Proficiency Index revealed in October 2018 that Sweden was ranked the first out of 88 other countries and came in the “very high proficiency” category, whereas Turkey was placed in the “very low proficiency” category and came on place 73 (EF, 2018, p. 6–7). These numbers moreover indicate the need for
investigating the language teaching in the two different countries, however, this study is restricted to vocabulary teaching only.
The Swedish and Turkish classrooms have different types of approaches in the teaching of English. English is considered a second language (ESL) in Sweden and a foreign language (EFL) in Turkey. The Turkish syllabus states that there is “a lack of effective communicative competence” (p. 5), which is an issue for many learners of English in Turkey. Although the syllabus states that too much priority has been given to grammatical structures in the teaching before, and that the solution is to now integrate all aspects of communicative competence, the form-focused teaching is nonetheless still central in the syllabus. The Swedish syllabus, on the other hand, is largely influenced by the Vygotskian socio-cultural approach (Skolverket, 2016). This has resulted in a syllabus that is designed to aim for a communicative classroom in Sweden, which is why the Swedish syllabus is focused on communication in all its forms, whereas the Turkish syllabus has a more cognitive approach.
In the syllabus for English 5 in the Swedish upper secondary school, the core content includes that English teaching must cover “[h]ow words and phrases in oral and written
2
communications create structure and context by clarifying introduction, causal connection, time aspects, and conclusions” (Skolverket, 2011a, p. 3). While the Swedish National Agency for Education offers a syllabus that describes general principles that should guide the teachers, the Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MoNE) offers a more concrete and detailed perspective on teaching vocabulary with specific suggestions such as “[m]aximum seven new Vocabulary [sic] items per lesson” (MoNE, 2018, p. 7).
The European Commission has developed The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) as a tool to make the teaching of foreign languages more similar between different countries. Both Sweden and Turkey are members of the Council of Europe, which means that the levels of the CEFR should be applied and met in all foreign-language courses offered in the countries. Turkey has explicitly used this framework as a base in the syllabus, whereas the Swedish syllabus does not mention CEFR; instead the framework is described in a commentary material, which is used as a complement to the syllabus.
Although research proves that vocabulary teaching is one of the most important areas to teach in L2, it is seldom an evident teaching area. To understand how vocabulary teaching is carried out in the classroom, this paper investigates and compares Swedish and Turkish steering documents and what teachers report that they do to support their students when learning new vocabulary. Furthermore, this is a comparative study, that, it is directed to both Swedish and Turkish teachers working on upper-secondary school level to help them gain understanding of how vocabulary can be introduced in the classroom content from the teacher perspective and based on current research on the issue.
3
2. Aim and Research Questions
According to Quigley (2018), the demands on academic curricula are increasing.
Furthermore, he states that we must learn how to close the gap between “word poor” and “word rich” learners, and by doing so we consequently support our learners with their school success and capability to communicate with confidence (p. 2). This study therefore aims to answer the following questions:
1. To what extent do the steering documents in Sweden and Turkey support integration of vocabulary teaching?
2. In what way do Swedish and Turkish teachers report integrating vocabulary teaching in their classrooms and why?
As language teachers, we should be open to how to improve our teaching. Generally, all teachers are working towards the same goal: to increase our students’ knowledge, and perhaps we can learn from other countries’ way of teaching English to gain new insights.
4
3. Background
In this section I present a theoretical framework that is the point of departure for the study. I also provide a brief overview of the Swedish and Turkish education systems to situate the syllabuses in their respective contexts.
3.1 Pedagogical research on vocabulary learning
Language is taught through reception and production. Three of Nation’s (2007) four strands that are relevant for vocabulary teaching are Meaning-focused input, Meaning-focused output, and Language focused learning. Meaning-focused input means that learning happens through reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, the learner’s main focus is on understanding and gaining knowledge from both listening and reading. In terms of vocabulary, there are, however, some limitations in this strand. For the learner to successfully understand a new spoken or written word, at least 95-98 % of the surrounding words must be familiar to the learner. Nation consequently states that learning new vocabulary from meaning-focused input alone is doubtful since the learning is restricted to a student’s level of current language
knowledge (p. 2–3). The Meaning-focused output means that the learner gains linguistic knowledge through productive skills, which are speaking and writing. Most spoken activities are considered to have a combination of both meaning-focused output and meaning-focused input (Nation, 2007, p. 3). Language-focused learning focuses on the form of language, which is a conscious process. It is about learning features of the language, such as morphological and phonological forms of the new vocabulary. A typical activity in this strand is using
flashcards, which can have a positive outcome in the target language. However, Nation (2007) states that the activities should be limited timewise so that they do not take up the entire teaching. Although these activities should not become the main focus in the teaching, he asserts that deliberate vocabulary learning has shown to have a positive impact on learners’ language proficiency (p. 7).
There are certain components that make vocabulary learning effective. Laufer and
Hultstijn’s (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis suggests that need, search and evaluation are factors of a task which may lead to an increased opportunity for acquiring vocabulary. Need means that one needs to know a particular word to understand content. Search is when the learner attempts to find appropriate or required information, for example, by searching for words’ meanings in a dictionary. The last component, evaluation, is where the learner compares words with each other to assess and determine which one is suitable or whether
5
there are other better word options. The researchers, furthermore, notice other factors
involved in tasks such as frequency, exposure and noticing, to have an impact on vocabulary learning (p. 1–22).
According to Schmidt (1995), noticing is the essential starting point when learning a language. Schmidt’s (1995) noticing hypothesis is based on the claim that what a learner notices in the input also becomes the intake for learning. He furthermore clarifies the difference between input and intake. The definition of input is that it is the language that a learner is exposed to, whereas intake is “that part of the input that the learner notices” (1990, p. 139). The reason for why Schmidt makes this distinction is because input does not
necessarily mean that a learner has retained everything he or she has been exposed to, due to e.g. inattention or incomprehension (1995, p. 20). This could also benefit vocabulary
knowledge as it is an essential part of language learning.
3.2 Implicit and explicit learning and teaching
Ellis (1994) explains the difference between implicit and explicit learning. Implicit learning is: “[a]cquisition of knowledge about the underlying structure of a complex stimulus
environment by a process which takes place naturally, simply and without conscious operations” (p. 1). In contrast to implicit learning, explicit learning is a conscious process where the learner both makes and tests hypotheses in order to create structure (p. 1–2).
3.3 The Swedish Education System
The Swedish education system is divided into the following stages:
• Pre-school (age <0-5) • Pre-school class (age 6) • Compulsory school (age 7-16) • Upper secondary-school (age 16-19)
• University, college, Folk High School, or Higher Vocational Education (from age 18-19).
It is mandatory to attend to the nine years in the compulsory school only, which means that all the other stages are voluntary (Skolverket, 2011).
In year 2011, the Swedish school went through a reform that changed the grading system with a grade scale from F to A, where A is the highest grade and E is the lowest one to pass. In order to achieve a D, the student has to fulfill all the criteria for grade E and most of the
6
criteria for C. In the same way, the grade B requires the student to fulfill all the criteria for C and most for A (Skolverket, 2011a).
3.4 The Turkish Education System
The Turkish education system consists of the following stages:• Pre-school (age 3-6)
• Compulsory school: level 1 (age 6-10) and level 2 (age 10-14) • Upper secondary-school (age 14-17,5)
• University, college, Vocational/Technical high school (from age 18)
The Ministry of National Education in Turkey administers the pre-school, compulsory school and upper secondary school levels. The formal education in Turkey, which is primary and upper secondary education, constitutes of a so called “4-4-4” system. According to this system, each stage in primary and secondary school is four years. After completing compulsory school, students are no longer obligated to continue their education in upper-secondary school (2004, p. 21–26).
In upper secondary school, students are graded according to a 0-5 scale, where 5 is the highest and 1 means that the student has not passed a certain examination or course. In this scale, a student must therefore at least receive 2 in order to pass. This paper will concentrate on vocabulary teaching and learning in both the Swedish and Turkish school systems.
3.5 Overview of CEFR
CEFR is a framework of reference that has been designed after over 20 years of research to provide “a transparent, coherent and comprehensive basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses and curriculum guidelines, the design of teaching and learning materials, and the assessment of foreign language proficiency” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 1). The framework describes six stages of proficiencies for measuring learners’ progress at each stage, where A1 is the lowest and C2 the highest. Learners are furthermore categorized into three distinct groups: the Basic User (levels A1 and A2), the Independent User (levels B1 and B2), and the Proficient User (levels C1 and C2) (2001, p. 23).
7
4. Method
In this section, I explain the two types of qualitative methods I have used in this paper: content analysis on the steering documents and the qualitative research method for the
interviews. Since the study is based on two methods, this section is divided into two parts: one for each method. I explain the procedures and the ethical considerations, and analysis of the collected data.
4.1 The content analysis on steering documents
Regarding the syllabuses, I have conducted a content analysis which is a method for analyzing text-based data. The Turkish syllabus that I have analyzed is the one from year 2018, and covers all the four years of upper-secondary school in Turkey; year 9, 10, 11, and 12. The Swedish syllabus was published in 2011 and is used for all the three years of upper-secondary school; year 1, 2, and 3.
Hsieh and Shannon (2005), present three approaches to qualitative content analysis. To provide a more detailed analysis, I decided to not just use one of them, so I combine two of them: the conventional content analysis and the summative content analysis. Hseish and Shannon (2005) suggest that one begins with reading the material repeatedly to “achieve immersion and obtain a sense of whole” (p. 1279), and afterwards move on to reading with a focus on words. Therefore, I firstly read the two documents to know what kind of documents I was dealing with. Thereafter, I started to search for how many times an identified word
occurs, so I used the Control+F on the computer keyboard in the respective pdf-documents, which is a way for searching for a specific word or phrase. In the table below, all the words I searched for are presented:
Table 1: Word searches in syllabus
Word searches word vocabulary phrase lexical lexis terminology glossary
8
dictionary
In this search process where I searched for specific words, I wanted to make sure that it included every word that can be linked to the word “vocabulary”. The words presented in the table have been selected based on the ideas from reading the documents repeatedly. After gaining these results, I took out the sentences in which the words I searched for appeared in and made use of them in this study as the base for the analysis. What is important to bear in mind is that the documents vary in length of pages, where the Swedish is 14 pages and the Turkish 69 pages.
4.2 The interviews
The research method that I decided to use with the participants was qualitative research method in the form of interviews. I chose the qualitative interview as a method because it aims to discover and collect rich data, which is the contrast to quantitative knowledge which generally deals with numbers. Furthermore, the interviews had a semi-structured form as it made it possible to change the order of questions if I explored further thoughts or ideas of the interviewees. The semi-structured form also means that there are a number of themes and prepared questions (Kvale, 2007, p. 11–12). The themes are: steering documents, importance
of vocabulary, and pedagogical interventions, where each theme has at least one question
linked to it (see Appendix 1 and 2). The themes are also related to the aim and research questions, as they cover the question on steering documents and how and why vocabulary is integrated in the teaching. I wanted to make sure that all important contents were covered, therefore I formulated questions that sought answers to reflections and ideas about vocabulary teaching both on a general level and on a more specific level. On the general level for
example, I have questions relating to the syllabus and how much focus there is on vocabulary in the classroom. What concerns the theme about pedagogical interventions, I have more specific questions such as what the teacher does to increase his or her students’ vocabulary skills (see Appendix 2).
4.2.1 Participants
Four teachers in English on upper-secondary school level have voluntarily participated in this study, all of whom have been anonymized by replacing their real names with pseudonyms.
9
The first two teachers are Turkish located in southern Turkey and were interviewed in spring 2018 when I did my internship at a school there. The Swedish teachers have been interviewed approximately one year later, in spring 2019. Teacher 3 works at a school that I
have previously completed one of my internships at, and the other Swedish teacher, Teacher 4, works as a substitute teacher and is about to complete her five-year teacher degree in two weeks. Despite of not yet being a certified teacher, Teacher 4 reports to have approximately 4 years of experience in teaching as a substitute as well as in her school practice as a part of her teacher education programme.
4.2.2 Ethical considerations
In 25th May 2018, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was enacted: a law on how personal data is to be handled. Since the interviews with the Turkish teachers were conducted slightly before this date, they are exempt from GDPR requirements, although the interviews have been conducted according to the general ethical guidelines (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002). Vetenskapsrådet (2002) presents four main concepts for conducting research: 1. the
information requirement, 2. the consent requirement, 3. the confidentiality requirement, and lastly 4. the requirement of usage.
The information requirement was clearly met with the teachers in Sweden, where they received a consent form (see appendix 3) and signed it. The Turkish teachers received information differently: I informed them orally of the purpose, what the focus was on, and in what way their participation was to be used in the study. I also made sure that they knew that they were to be anonymous, no personal information was of interest, and that they could end their participation whenever they wanted without any negative consequences. Also, I
Teacher Profession Experience Region
Teacher 1: Hakan Upper-secondary school teacher
20 years Southern Turkey
Teacher 2: Esma Upper-secondary school teacher
1 year Southern Turkey
Teacher 3: Maria Upper-secondary school teacher
5 years Southern Sweden
Teacher 4: Emma Substitute upper-secondary school
teacher
4 years Southern Sweden
10
informed the teachers that I was taking notes and recording the conversation during the interview, to which they agreed. Lastly, Vetenskapsrådet (2002) states that in the requirement of usage, the collected material should only be used for research purposes, and this
requirement is met since the material is used in this study only (p. 14).
4.2.3 Procedure
The search for Turkish teachers was easy since I had met several teachers in English the very first day of my internship at the VFU-school in spring 2018. I took the opportunity and asked a few teachers if they had the time and wanted to participate in an interview for this research that I intended to use the data for. They were briefly informed individually on why and what my intentions were before deciding a time to conduct the interview, and when we finally met for the interviews, I provided them with further information about my study. The interview with Teacher 1 was conducted a week before the interview with Teacher 2, because of differences in schedule. Each interview with the two Turkish teachers took between 20-25 minutes to finish, where I both followed the interview guide (appendix 2) and sometimes asked further questions for the sake of clarification.
It was a difficult process to find Swedish teachers. Initially, I e-mailed up to eight different schools in southern Sweden and some had answered that they were not available or did not respond at all. I had to take into consideration that the timing was not the most flexible since spring time is when most teachers in Sweden are quite occupied with national exams.
Therefore, I decided to contact two of my previous supervisors from my latest VFU-school that I completed just a semester ago (in fall 2018) by mail and also asked them to forward it to their colleagues if they could not or did not want to participate. One of them responded
positively within a day whereas there was no response from the other teacher. Since the time was of importance, and I still had not found a second teacher, I asked a student who is working as a substitute teacher in southern Sweden and is soon to completing her teacher education as mentioned before, to participate. The interview with Teacher 3 was conducted a week before the interview with Teacher 4, and both took approximately 20-25 minutes to complete. All four interviews have been conducted in English, which makes the analysis of the data more efficient if I for example quote a participant.
The last phase was where I analyzed the data. The interviews have all been recorded, partially transcribed, and have notes that I took during the interviews to highlight certain focus points. I listened to the recordings only if anything was unclear when analyzing the data.
11
5. Results
This section is divided into two parts, where I display, present, and sort the collected data. The first part is connected to the first research question about the content analysis and the other part is linked to the second research question. The first part presents the data found in the content analysis on the steering documents. In the second part, the interviewee data is presented according to the themes covered in the interviews (steering documents, importance of vocabulary, and pedagogical interventions).
5.1 The integration of vocabulary teaching in Swedish
and Turkish steering documents
The Swedish and Turkish syllabuses differ much in content in how different aspects are presented. To gain a general perspective on these documents, the following tables display how they differ in inclusion of the specific words (word searches).
Table 3: Words searches in the Swedish syllabus
Word searches Results
word 2 vocabulary 0 phrase 2 lexical 0 lexis 0 terminology 0 glossary 0 dictionary 0
Table 4: Word searches in the Turkish syllabus
Word searches Results
word 27
vocabulary 22 phrase 16 lexical 0
12
terminology 0 glossary 0 dictionary 0
These word searches display the fact that the Swedish syllabus barely has anything to state about vocabulary teaching, whereas the Turkish syllabus is more explicit in the area. To show further clarification on this, it is worth to present calculated percentages of the amount of words related to vocabulary in each syllabus. Although the difference is not very significant, it is still indicative of the different foci in the syllabuses in relation to vocabulary teaching and learning.
Table 5: Percentage (%) of words related to vocabulary in the syllabuses
The table shows that the vocabulary words comprise 0,10 % of the total number of words in the Swedish syllabus, whereas the words related to vocabulary in the Turkish syllabus constitute 0,35 % of the total number of words.
MoNE (2018) has designed a syllabus for English language teaching that is detailed and includes numerous suggestions of materials to use in the classroom. The syllabus includes all the upper-secondary school grades, 9th-12th, where each grade has its own language syllabus. The model for English language teaching that is presented in the syllabus prescribes the teacher to introduce the learners to “[m]aximum seven new Vocabulary [sic] items per lesson” (MoNE, 2018, p. 7). This intention applies to all the grades in upper-secondary school. With regards to the organization of the 9th-12th grades in the English curriculum is presented, the following described vocabulary teaching:
Special focus on sample vocabulary items are not given in the 9th-12th grades English curriculum to avoid the use of long word lists isolated from real-life use contexts which typically end up being the subject of rote memorization for exams. However, the number
1 2
0,00% 0,10% 0,20% 0,30% 0,40%
Turkish syllabus Swedish syllabus
13
of new words to be learnt in each lesson is limited to seven to ensure meaningful learning and active use of vocabulary. Material designers and teachers can select the vocabulary items depending on the themes of the units and the needs of learners and all vocabulary should be taught in context with reference to meaning, form, pronunciation, collocation, and example sentences. Futhermore [sic], the vocabulary items to be selected in the syllabus must be commonly and frequently used in daily life and this must be taken into consideration by material designers while preparing all the instructional materials. (MoNE, 2018, p. 13)
In a section there is a list of materials for the teaching, in which
“Flashcards/Picturecards/Wordcards” (p. 17) are mentioned as a suggestion which can be linked to vocabulary teaching specifically. Additionally, there are different themes presented in the form of tables that are to be used in the teaching in respective grade (9th-12th). All tables include three columns each one for: functions and useful language, language skills and
learning outcomes, and suggested materials and task. In language skills and learning outcomes, vocabulary is explicitly mentioned as a part of reading and listening activities. Many of the reading and listening activities, especially in 9th grade, require that the learner among others is able to identify words, phrases, or expressions, and “familiar words” in particular. In one of the themes, the following is a part of the learning outcome in reading: “[s]tudents will be able to guess the meanings of unknown words from the contexts” (p. 23), which applies to all the four grades on upper-secondary school. Only two times is vocabulary mentioned in relation to a productive skill, where the student, in grade 10, is to use key words and phrases in speaking (p. 43), and in grade 11 “complete the missing parts of a short story with their own words” (p. 47). Guessing a word’s meaning as a form of learning vocabulary, is mentioned several times regardless of the learner being in grade 9, 10, 11 or 12.
In the Swedish steering documents, words and phrases are perceived as parts of the linguistic competency which also includes pronunciation, spelling, and grammar. The following is written in the core content for English 5 regarding reception: “[h]ow words and phrases in oral and written communication create structure and context by clarifying
introduction, casual connection, time aspects, and conclusions” (Skolverket, 2011a, p. 3). In production, the following should be covered: “[…] the use of words and phrases that clarify connections and time aspects” (Skolverket, 2011a, p. 4). In the receptive ability, students are supposed to study how words and phrases are used in texts. In the productive ability, the words and phrases are to be used to vary and enrich the communication and to create
14
there are no formulations that support the fact that word tests may be graded as an isolated learning area.
Commentary material is used as an additional source for interpreting the Swedish syllabus. The all-round communication skills that consist of reception, production, and interaction are mentioned in the syllabus include the ability to express oneself “with variation and complexity” (Skolverket, 2011a, p. 1). In the commentary material, the all-round
communication skills mean that the learner is able to handle the form of the language, which includes vocabulary as an essential part. Moreover, the choice of words or expressions is important in order to adapt one’s language to different situations, aims, or recipient
(Skolverket, 2011b, p. 2). What concerns the meaning of structure and context in the syllabus, the commentary material explains that the teaching must show why and how words and phrases are used so that the learners can apply not only the literal meaning of the expressions, lexical meaning, spelling, or pronunciation, but also how they can be used in order to create structure and context in oral and written communication (Skolverket, 2011b, p. 2). In oral and written communications, variation is important and Skolverket (2011b), states that variation is among other things the learner’s repertoire of words. Furthermore, the choice of words is also explained as important for fluency in production, because it creates coherency in language and makes it approachable (p. 9–10).
5.2 The Swedish and Turkish teachers: Integration of
vocabulary in their classrooms
The data from the four interviews is presented in this part in three subsections following the specific themes covered in the interviews.
5.2.1 Steering documents
Teachers use regulations to form their teaching content. When it comes to the Turkish teachers, Hakan admits that he complies with the syllabus when planning the content in his teaching, whereas Esma explains that she tries to use the regulations as the base for her teaching and thinks that it guides and assists her in choosing appropriate material. She also claims that the regulations do not restrict her teaching content but does not go into further details. When it comes to the Swedish teachers, Maria believes that the regulations help her decide the study plan for the entire course that she is to teach and is the first place she goes to before constructing the plan. Emma, on the other hand, believes that the regulations are sometimes too broad and could be a bit “more detailed” so that there are for example clearer
15
directions for assessment. Furthermore, she states that because of its broadness, she can often choose the content without being restricted by the regulations.
5.2.2 Importance of vocabulary
The importance of different teaching areas according to the teachers’ beliefs in English language teaching was a theme that all the teachers pondered upon before giving a clear answer to. For example, Hakan claimed that vocabulary is the first area he prioritizes in his classroom, followed by (2) spelling, (3) grammar, (4) speaking, (5) writing, (6) listening and lastly (7) reading. As Hakan placed the receptive skills as the least important areas, Esma claimed that input is what should come first in language teaching because the productive skills will later be based on what knowledge one has about the language. Later, she made a clear statement that “[w]ithout vocabulary, you cannot make any sentences”, which is similar to Maria’s beliefs. However, Emma mentioned “the four skills” as a concept where she put (1) reading first, (2) listening, (3) speaking, and (4) writing. Only two of the teachers believed that vocabulary should come first in the teaching, whereas the other two believed that it could come later, in this case after the receptive skills that are reading and listening.
Table 5: Teaching areas put in order of importance according to beliefs
Teachers Grammar Spelling Vocabulary Reading Writing Speaking Listening
Hakan 3 2 1 7 5 4 6
Esma 7 6 5 2 4 3 1
Maria 7 6 1 3 5 2 4
Emma 6 7 5 1 4 3 2
When asking the teachers what their general thoughts on vocabulary as a teaching area is, they all answered that it is essential. All the teachers immediately explained what the consequences are if one has not acquired any words in a target language. Hakan stated that “Without vocabulary, it is like building a building - but you do not have any bricks”. Esma, Maria, and Emma all mentioned the importance of vocabulary in communication. Moreover, they all agreed with Hakan: vocabulary lays the foundation for using a language.
Vocabulary may be as equally important for learners at beginner’s level as for learners at more advanced levels, according to three out of the four teachers. One of the teachers
answered that although it is equally important, beginners are more dependent on vocabulary, whereas advanced learners can often find other ways to express their thoughts and ideas in production and guess what a word means in a context in reception. Esma was the only teacher
16
to stress that vocabulary may be more important for beginners, since she believes that
advanced learners already know common words in the language and are therefore also able to communicate. However, she mentioned that the type of vocabulary to teach should be
according to what level the students are at. For example, if the students are “on a more advanced level, they should be taught more uncommon words”.
5.2.3 Pedagogical interventions
On the question of how the teachers’ experiences help them predict their learners’ vocabulary skills, Hakan and Maria answered that their experiences have helped them create patterns in predicting what their learners may know or may not know. For example, Maria works with a specific course book that she has used in her teaching for the past few years, which has helped her prepare for what could be problematic in for example, understanding a word’s meaning. Esma and Emma use a more practical strategy, where Esma usually has quizzes on
vocabulary specifically, and Emma uses a mix of exercises where the students have a chance to show their ability to express themselves or their reading comprehension. Moreover, Emma added that “research says that 90 % of the words must be familiar in order to understand a text fully”, which she can confirm in reading comprehension activities.
Assessing students’ vocabulary skills is something that Esma does at the end of every unit that they have been working with in the students’ English course book. She does it in the form of quizzes where the students are asked to both translate words from Turkish, and to mark synonymous words with the English word in question. She also emphasizes that teachers “should use the mother tongue” when teaching vocabulary. At the same time, she advises her learners to learn vocabulary “naturally, for example, through listening” but also to use more classical techniques such as translation. Hakan lets his students write when he intends to assess them, for example, by giving the students pictures where their task is to write a text to it. Maria, on the other hand, lets her students work with vocabulary exercises in their course book, and also through the writing part of the National Exams in English, there is a specific examination part which is called “fill in the gap”, which she finds quite useful when assessing her students’ vocabulary skills. Furthermore, she states that her learners make it possible for her to understand their current level of vocabulary through discussions in the classroom, which is something that Emma also does because it “pushes the learners to use certain words in their production”.
One can use specific strategies when it comes to learning new words. Both Hakan and Maria point out that students can use their first language as a resource, where they are advised
17
to use dictionaries in order to understand the meaning of a word. Maria also explains that the course book she is using often supports her learners in learning new words, and sometimes she uses additional texts in class to work with new texts. Esma, however, only emphasizes listening as a way for learning new words because she believes that “[…] language should come as naturally as possible”. Emma strongly believes that exposing oneself to the target language through different activities is a successful way in learning new words, such as engaging in extramural activities, watching tv-series, reading books and articles, and listening to podcasts.
The teaching for high-frequency words respectively low-frequency words may vary. According to Esma, high-frequency words are considered easy to teach and can be taught through creating dialogues and conversations. She states that low-frequency words are taught in specific contexts and may therefore be taught in, for example, reading exercises. Maria shares the same belief as Esma. Hakan, on the other hand, strongly believes that “it is of importance to first teach the high-frequency words because learners cannot move further in their language without the most basic words”. Emma explains that since the need for the most basic words is higher, the high-frequency words should come first in the teaching, just as Hakan believes. Furthermore, Emma argues that low frequency words can be taught when working with more specific subjects, for example when the students are working with the photosynthesis process.
When it comes to what way a teacher should implement vocabulary in the classroom, Esma immediately identifies implicit teaching as the more effective one because “[…] students are more likely to remember words from what context they have encountered them in”. Although she prefers to use implicit instruction, she believes that both implicit and explicit instruction can be combined. While she uses implicit vocabulary teaching in input activities, she uses explicit instruction for examinations such as the quizzes that Esma mentioned before. She goes on by clarifying that she sometimes uses ways for exposing her students to language through listening tasks such as tv-shows or movies, which she finds effective in her teaching. Hakan explains that teaching words implicitly or explicitly highly depends on the aim of the teaching. His final argument is, however, that these two ways for teaching vocabulary should be combined. Maria reports that both implicit and explicit methods for teaching and learning vocabulary are necessary but puts an emphasis on reading activities as one of the most effective ways for learning new words. Moreover, she supports her argument with research findings, which claims that one must encounter “a new word at least seven to ten times in different types of texts to be able to understand how you can use it”. Emma states that implicit
18
and explicit vocabulary teaching should be combined, but that it can vary between different learners when it comes to what works best for them. Her argument is however similar to what both Esma and Maria believe, where implicit teaching is preferred. Despite not always
prioritizing vocabulary teaching, all of my informants report engaging in these activities to a considerable extent. However, the teachers’ approaches to teaching vocabulary varies significantly and can be to a degree traced back to the syllabuses’ foci on reception and production respectively.
19
6. Discussion
In this section, I discuss the results in light with the findings in the background with current research, which is divided into two parts. I have structured this section in accordance with the two research questions for this study. The section ends with a description of the limitations in this study.
6.1 To what extent do the steering documents in Sweden
and Turkey support integration of vocabulary
teaching?
The Turkish syllabus offers detailed descriptions and suggestions on concrete ways for teaching vocabulary. In most of the suggestions, there is a larger focus on acquiring vocabulary through receptive tasks, which does not align with Nation’s (2007) research, where a combination of Meaning-focused input activities and Meaning-focused output activities is essential to maximize learning. Moreover, some formulations in the syllabus suggest that learners guess the meaning of words in texts, and by simply noticing a word one is in the starting point to learn it too (Schmidt, 1990). However, if the learner does not recognize at least 95-98 % of the rest of the words (Nation, 2007), this type of exercise will become totally meaningless. Another concern is the fact that the syllabus specifically expects seven new words to be introduced in each lesson, however, there is no reason stated for why it must be maximum seven words. Although it is clear that the syllabus expects the teaching content to cover explicit vocabulary teaching in each lesson, it is vague in terms of research. Surprisingly though, flashcards, picture cards, and word cards are suggested in an extensive list of useful materials in the teaching. Because Nation (2007) believes that deliberate vocabulary learning is beneficial, one cannot ignore the fact that the syllabus in this aspect does support the integration of vocabulary teaching. To take this claim further, Nation’s (2007) language focused strand confirms that focus on language form is important, but that it should not take up too much space in the classroom. Instead, as stated before, the focus should be on the balance between meaning-focused input and meaning-focused output, which aligns with the Swedish syllabus since it is based on teaching and learning the English
20
Vocabulary learning is not explicitly commented on in the Swedish syllabus, but it appears as a part of the receptive, productive, and interactive abilities. These so called all-round communicative skills include the choice of words and expressions, which means that without knowledge of vocabulary one can neither produce nor understand language. The Swedish syllabus can primarily be supported by Nation (2007) as the vocabulary learning is expected to take place through both Meaning-focused input and Meaning-focused output. Moreover, learning vocabulary in the Swedish upper-secondary school is about understanding how one can produce language with the help of words. What concerns the receptive abilities, learners are supposed to learn how words and phrases are used in texts. There is a need to highlight that the syllabus also states that learners will learn to understand how or in what way words are used in texts, and not what they mean or why they are used. There is a large difference between working with words to create meaning (content) as the Swedish syllabus prescribes and working with words to create structure (form) as the Turkish syllabus prescribes. One can question whether the Swedish syllabus, similarly to the Turkish syllabus, fails to follow research evidence where 95-98 % of the words in the surrounding context must be recognized for the acquisition of a new word to occur (Nation, 2007). The Swedish syllabus is relatively restricted when it comes to approaching vocabulary teaching and learning explicitly, as shown in section 5, but one does receive a clearer understanding with the help of the commentary material. The commentary material states that the choice of words or expressions is an essential part of the learning, since it is important to adapt the language to the situation, aim, or recipient. This leads us to see a link to Laufer and Hultstijn’s (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis, and more specifically the evaluation component, because when a learner compares words in order to find a suitable alternative, he or she explicitly uses his or her ability to assess one’s vocabulary skills.
Although the two syllabuses follow the CEFR, there are quite large differences between them, which indicates that the framework has been interpreted differently. In contrast to the Turkish syllabus, the Swedish syllabus is more research based and can be linked to various theories for language learning. Additionally, whereas the Swedish syllabus is lacking in terms of providing explicit guidelines for teachers with regards to vocabulary teaching and learning, the Turkish syllabus confirms the explicit approach and as a result succeeds better with lifting the status and priority of dealing with vocabulary in the classroom. In addition, even though the Turkish syllabus makes a reference to CEFR, it is still quite influenced by the cognitive approach to language learning (form-focused), which, of course, is not negative; however,
21
looking at the solid body of research, cognitive approach should be combined with other approaches for best learning.
6.2 In what way do Swedish and Turkish teachers report
integrating vocabulary teaching in their classrooms
and why?
All four teachers seem to be mindful of how they introduce their learners to new words to some extent but do so in slightly different ways. The Turkish teachers, Hakan and Esma, admit following the syllabus, which can clarify why they claimed certain things and explained the importance of vocabulary and how it may be taught. The Swedish teachers, Maria and Emma, also claim to follow the syllabus but do not seem to use it as strictly as the Turkish teachers, since they claim to use it more as a guide for creating their teaching content.
There seem to be some contradictions in what Esma reports, as she claims to use more vocabulary focused activities and tests compared to the other teachers, but at the same time she priorities vocabulary lower than the other teaching areas. It could be that she values vocabulary without aiming to letting it set the basis for her teaching content and believes that it can be taught implicitly, as she actually states so regarding the pedagogical interventions. Although she claims to follow the regulations, she seems to be stuck between what the regulations demand and what research presents. Because, on one hand she explains that she follows the syllabus, and on the other hand, she hints to be aware of the importance of the four communicative abilities (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) as she placed these as the four first important areas to teach. She, moreover, whether consciously or unconsciously, follows Nation’s (2007) research on integrating a combination of meaning-focused input and meaning-focused output activities in her teaching based on what she reports. Likewise, Emma prioritizes the four abilities, and seems to have been making this priority based on research as well.
Since Hakan’s top three prioritized areas of teaching are vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, this reveals that his teaching is of the more traditional type, which Carter (2012) also addresses. An explanation to this could be his 20 years of experience in the profession as a teacher, because MoNE also admits that the syllabus has, to a large extent, been written with a focus on teaching the features of English before. Similar to Hakan, Maria puts vocabulary as the first important area to teach, however, the area is followed by the productive and receptive
22
skills instead. As the Swedish teachers appear to focus more on content, the Turkish teachers seem to have a more form focused teaching where Hakan and Esma both claim that they follow the syllabus, in which the form focused teaching is apparent. According to a reflection of mine, is that the fact that both based on what Hakan reports and what MoNE admits about the traditional teaching, this could be one of the indications for why the level of proficiency in English in Turkey is so low. Moreover, to make learners more proficient in a language, one should limit the focus on the form (Nation, 2007) - which is the case in Swedish classrooms, but not in the Turkish – and because we know that learners gain linguistic knowledge through productive skills as well, a larger focus should be given to meaning focused output activities. The Swedish teachers report not using any specific forms of exams for vocabulary
acquisition, because they believe that students show what they can or what they know through the receptive and productive abilities, whereas Esma uses more specific types of examinations in the form of quizzes. However, one can question to what extent such quizzes may benefit the acquisition of vocabulary, mainly because of what we know about the distinction between input and intake (Schmidt, 1995) – to what extent do the learners actually acquire vocabulary through quizzes where words are used out of context? Furthermore, when Turkish classrooms begin to include more meaning-focused input and meaning-focused output activities,
including some language focused learning activities, learners could certainly become much more proficient in the target language (Nation, 2007).
One should draw attention to that more explicit vocabulary teaching could be supported in Swedish steering documents, as it was shown to be beneficial (Quigley 2018; Nation 2007; Laufer and Hultstijn 2001). This could help make the teachers more secure and comfortable in integrating this type of teaching in their classrooms. In addition, as learners become more advanced in their language, they will need more low-frequency words which are easier to teach explicitly, which the Swedish teachers hint in what they report.
6.3 Limitations of study and suggestions for future
research
There are three aspects worth to mention as limitations in this study. Firstly, students’ exposure to the English language is a factor that has not been investigated. The fact that Swedish students are predominantly ESL-students and Turkish students are considered EFL-students has probably had a large impact on the different approaches in the teaching of
23
engage in extramural activities to different extents, it is not only an interesting aspect to analyze in future research, but also crucial, primarily because of what the English Proficiency Index (2018) reveals. The second limitation is that in order for me to be able to make fair comparisons regarding the interviews, it was necessary to use the exact same method with the exact same questions for both the Turkish and Swedish teachers, which I did. However, the interviews in Turkey were conducted approximately one year before the interviews in
Sweden, which made me realize that certain questions could have been formulated differently to elicit more rich data, which could have possibly changed the conclusions of this study. Lastly, the choice of words that are presented in Table 1 may be lacking in terms of including all types of words that can be related to vocabulary. The words that I chose to include in the analysis have either been based on what I collected from reading the documents repeatedly or what I believed to be included in the documents based on my previous knowledge. Instead, I could have also included terminology found in relevant research. The outcome of that investigation may not have changes, however.
24
7. Conclusion
The demands on academic curricula are increasing. The Turkish syllabus is strictly regulated whereas the Swedish one is more generally regulated. This means that there is room for interpretation in the Swedish syllabus but not so much in the Turkish. One may state that what the one syllabus has, the other one lacks with regards to vocabulary teaching and learning. It can be questioned in what ways and how much the syllabuses actually follow the CEFR as they clearly seem to have interpreted the framework differently, although both claim
connecting to it. The extensive focus on form rather than content could be one of the reasons for why the level of proficiency in English in Turkey is so low. Instead of having either a content-focused teaching or a form-focused teaching, the most effective way could be to combine these two approaches in the syllabuses irrespective of if it is in Sweden or Turkey. After all, as Nation (2007) states, teaching should be balanced between the different abilities. The teachers who have participated in this study work with vocabulary differently, but all agree on vocabulary constituting the foundation in learning a target language. The largest difference is that whereas some of the teachers use more explicit teaching, others believe that vocabulary can be acquired through receptive abilities. On this issue, however, research has established that explicit vocabulary teaching is beneficial but to a limited degree, and that implicit vocabulary teaching through receptive tasks requires the learner to be very proficient. In conclusion, vocabulary may be successfully taught when the two syllabuses become based on Nation’s (2007) strands for language learning, which can help teachers create teaching content that is balanced yet effective enough to result in further acquisition in language.
25
References
Carter, R. (2012). Vocabulary – applied linguistic perspectives. Taylor & Francis Ltd. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages
(2019-04-30).
Education First (EF). EF EPI: EF English Proficiency Index. Retrieved from:
https://www.ef.se/epi/ (2019-04-30).
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hsieh, H.F., & Shannon, S. (2005). “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis”.
Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, November 2005, (1277–1288).
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. (1. ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). “Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language:
The construct of task-induced involvement”. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 22, Issue 1, 1 March 2001, (1–26).
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ministry of National Education. (2004). Basic Education in Turkey: Background Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/39642601.pdf (2019-06-07). Ministry of National Education of Turkey. (2018). İngilizce Dersi. Retrieved from:
http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342 (2018-05-07).
Nation, P. (2007). “The Four Strands”. In International Journal of Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching (p. 2–13). Retrieved from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2167/illt039.0 (2019-04-25).
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (red.) (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: Second language teaching and curriculum center.
Skolverket. (2011a). English. Retrieved from:
https://www.skolverket.se/polopoly_fs/1.174542!/English%20120912.pdf (2019-04-18).
Skolverket. (2011b). Om ämnet Engelska. Retrieved from:
https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6011fe501629fd150a28916/1536831518394/Kom
26
Skolverket. (2016). Att skapa ett flerstämmigt klassrum. Retrieved from:
https://larportalen.skolverket.se/LarportalenAPI/api- v2/document/path/larportalen/material/inriktningar/5-las-skriv/Gymnasieskola/025_sprak-i-yrkesamnen/del_02/Material/Flik/Del_02_MomentA/Artiklar/M25_02A_01_flerstammigt. docx(2019-05-22).
Vetenskapsrådet (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig
forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Retrieved from:
https://www.gu.se/digitalAssets/1268/1268494_forskningsetiska_principer_2002.pdf
27
Appendix 1
Themes Questions Follow-up (traits,
challenges, key words) Steering documents
(syllabus)
Where in the syllabus does vocabulary teaching show? To what extent does the teacher connect vocabulary teaching to the syllabus?
Skills (receptive and productive), assessment
Importance of vocabulary Why is vocabulary teaching important?
How is vocabulary teaching important?
Learning, high-frequency words and low-frequency words
Pedagogical interventions What concrete strategies are implemented?
28
Appendix 2
Interview guide
Area Questions Answers
Background of the interviewee
1. For how many years have you been working as a teacher?
Background of the interviewee
2. At what college or university did you receive your teacher education? Theme: Steering
documents
3. How do the regulations (the school law, curriculum and syllabus) help you form your teaching content? Theme: Importance of
vocabulary
4. Can you put the following teaching areas in order of importance, according to your beliefs? 1 = most important 7 = least
important. Please motivate.
___ Grammar ___ Spelling ___ Vocabulary ___ Reading ___ Writing ___ Speaking ___ Listening Theme: Importance of vocabulary
5. What are your general thoughts of vocabulary as a teaching area?
Theme: Importance of
vocabulary
6. Do you believe that vocabulary teaching is equally important for learners at beginner’s level as well as for learners at advanced levels? Theme: Pedagogical
interventions
7. How does your experience as a teacher help you predict your learners’ vocabulary skills?
Theme: Pedagogical
interventions
8. In what way do you assess your learners’ vocabulary skills?
Theme: Pedagogical
interventions
9. How do your learners learn new words in English? Theme: Pedagogical
interventions
10. In your opinion, in what ways should a teacher teach high-frequency words respectively low-frequency words? Theme: Pedagogical interventions 11. According to your experience, should vocabulary be taught implicitly or explicitly? Do you believe that they could they be combined?
29
Appendix 3
LÄRANDE OCH SAMHÄLLE
INSTITUTION
Samtycke till medverkan i studentprojekt
Jag är student på lärarutbildningen på termin 10 och tar min examen i juni. Jag har inhämtat skolans godkännande till att genomföra den här studien.
I mitt examensarbete kommer jag att fokusera på lärares tillvägagångssätt i arbetet med ordförrådskunskap.
Du kommer att få delta i en intervju som kommer att ta mellan 20-30 minuter att genomföra, och jag kommer att spela in hela intervjun samt anteckna under tiden. Endast jag kommer att ha tillgång till det inspelade materialet.
Allt insamlat material och personuppgifter lagras på Malmö universitets server under arbetet med examensarbetet och samtyckesblanketterna förvaras oåtkomligt på Malmö universitet.
Projektet utgår från Vetenskapsrådets forskningsetiska principer i bl.a. följande avseenden:
- Medverkan baseras på samtycke och detta samtycke kan när som helst återkallas. Du som tillfrågas har alltså rätt att tacka nej till att delta, eller (om du först tackar ja) rätt att avbryta din medverkan när som helst, utan några negativa konsekvenser.
- Du som deltagare kommer att avidentifieras i det färdiga arbetet.
-
Materialet kommer enbart att användas för aktuell studie och kommer att förstöras när denna är examinerad.Zeyneb Dogala
På lärarutbildningen vid Malmö universitet skriver studenterna ett examensarbete på avancerad nivå. I detta arbete ingår att göra en egen vetenskaplig studie, utifrån en fråga som kommit att engagera studenterna under utbildningens gång. Till studien samlas ofta material in vid skolor, i form av t.ex. intervjuer och observationer. Examensarbetet motsvarar 15 högskolepoäng, och utförs under totalt 10 veckor. När examensarbetet blivit godkänt publiceras det i Malmö universitets databas MUEP
