Keywords
comprehension-based instruction
production-based instruction
visual arts
vocabulary
How to Cite
Number of views: 365
Number of downloads: 123
Abstract
Research on young English language learners has been gaining popularity in recent years, but to this day remains underdeveloped. The present study aimed to add to this body of research by exploring the effects of visual arts activities implemented via comprehension and compared to more commonly used flashcard activities implemented via comprehension-based instruction on young English language learners’ vocabulary acquisition and retention. The study specifically focused on very young learners who do not have access to the English language outside of the classroom. This study employed a within-subjects counterbalanced design with young English language learners (N = 47) with a mean age of three years and eight months. The results provided evidence that both instruction types are highly effective in the productive and receptive learning of vocabulary among young English language learners. Furthermore, the positive effects of visual arts activities implemented via comprehension-based instruction on vocabulary retention were found to be significantly higher than those of the production-based instruction.
References
Albaladejo, S. A., Coyle, Y., & de Larios, J. R. (2018). Songs, stories, and vocabulary acquisition in preschool learners of English as a foreign language. System, 76, 116-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.05.002
Andrade, C. (1990). Integrating the arts in the foreign/second language curriculum: Fusing the affective and the cognitive. Foreign Language Annals, 23(4), 315-316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1990.tb00376.x
Bassano, S., & Christison, M. A. (1982). Drawing out. Alemany Press.
Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 377-396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.3.2
Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3577.001.0001
Brouillette, L. (2012). Supporting the language development of limited English proficient students through arts integration in the primary grades. Arts Education Policy Review, 113(2), 68-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2012.656494
Butler, Y. G. (2015). English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004-2014). Language Teaching, 48(3), 303-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000105
Butler, Y. G. (2019). Teaching vocabulary to young second- or foreign-language learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 4-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00003.but
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733109
Cameron, L. (2003). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57(2), 105-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.2.105
Campaña Rubio, E. B., & Ecke, P. (2001). Un estudio experimental sobre la adquisición y recuperación (parcial) de palabras en una lengua extranjera. In G. López Cruz & M. del Carmen Morúa Leyva (Eds.), Memorias del V Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste (pp. 63-84). Editorial Unison.
Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554377
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coyle, Y., & Gracia, R. G. (2014). Using songs to enhance L2 vocabulary acquisition in preschool children. ELT Journal, 68(3), 276-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu015
DeKeyser, R. (2018). Input is not a panacea. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(1), 79-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918768371
Einarsdóttir, J. (2007). Research with children: Methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 197-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930701321477
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N., & Beaton, A. (1993). Factors affecting the learning of foreign language vocabulary: Imagery keyword mediators and phonological short-term memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A(3), 533-558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401062
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition in the word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002077
Farokhi, M., & Hashemi, M. (2012). The impact/s of using art in English language learning classes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 923-926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.170
Fenyvesi, K. (2020). English learning motivation of young learners in Danish primary schools. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 690-713. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818804835
Fleta, T. (2019). From research on child L2 acquisition of English to classroom practice. In J. Rokita-Jaśkow & M. Ellis (Eds.), Early instructed second language acquisition: Pathways to competence (pp. 57-79). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922517-007
Gordon, T. (2007). Teaching young children a second language. Praeger Publisher. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216023326
Greenfader, C. M., & Brouillette, L. (2013). Boosting language skills of English learners through dramatization and movement. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 171-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1192
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-125). Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_11
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press Inc.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Krashen, S. (1991). The Input Hypothesis: An update. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1991 (pp. 409-431). Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. (2004). Applying the Comprehension Hypothesis: Some suggestions. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 21-29.
Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775661
Laufer, B. (1990). Why are some words more difficult than others? – Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 28(4), 293-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1990.28.4.293
Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.1
Leśniewska, J., & Pichette, F. (2014). Songs vs. stories: Impact of input sources on ESL vocabulary acquisition by preliterate children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(1), 18-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.960360
Li, S. (2013). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 68(2), 196-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct076
Ludke, K. M. (2016). Singing and arts activities in support of foreign language learning: An exploratory study. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 371-386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1253700
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Ma, Q., & Sin, C. (2015). Teaching young learners English vocabulary with reading-based exercises in a real classroom situation. Porta Linguarum, 23, 125-138.
McArdle, F., & Wright, S. (2014). First literacies: Art, creativity, play, constructive meaning-making. In G. M. Barton (Ed.), Literacy in the arts: Retheorising learning and teaching (pp. 21-37). Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04846-8_2
McDonough, C., Song, L., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lannon, R. (2011). An image is worth a thousand words: Why nouns tend to dominate verbs in early word learning. Developmental Science, 14(2), 181-189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00968.x
Milosavljevic, M., & Reynolds, B.L. (2023). Comprehension-based instruction activities and production-based instruction activities. Instructional/Intervention/Teaching/Training materials from “Investigating the effectiveness of comprehension-based and production-based instruction on young English language learners’ vocabulary acquisition and retention,” [Text/Materials], IRIS Database, University of York, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.30183
Moore, C. R., Koller, J. A., & Arago, M. K. (1993). The role of art in language learning. MinneTESOL Journal, 11, 1-20.
Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Heinle Cengage Learning.
Ng, M. L., & Rao, N. (2013). Teaching English in Hong Kong kindergartens: A survey of practices. International Journal of Literacies, 19(3), 25-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0136/CGP/v19i03/48780
Pichette, F. (2002). Second-language vocabulary learning and the Additivity Hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 117-130.
Rao, Z. (2013). Teaching English as a foreign language in China: Looking back and forward. English Today, 29(03), 34-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078413000291
Rassaei, E. (2012). The effects of input-based and output-based instruction on L2 development. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 16(3), 1-25.
Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of enhanced input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 281-302). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-014
Reynolds, B. L. (2016). Investigating the effects of target word properties on the incidental acquisition of vocabulary through reading. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 20(3), 1-31.
Reynolds, B. L., & Teng, M. F. (2021). Editorial: Introduction to the special issue on teaching English reading and writing to young learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(3), 325-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.3.1
Rieg, S. A., & Paquette, K. R. (2009). Using drama and movement to enhance English language learners’ literacy development. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(2), 148-154.
Rokita-Jaśkow, J., & Ellis, M. (2019). Introduction. In J. Rokita-Jaskow & M. Ellis (Eds.), Early instructed second language acquisition: Pathways to competence (pp. 1-6). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922517-002
Shier, J. H. (1990). Integrating the arts in the foreign/second language curriculum: Fusing the affective and the cognitive. Foreign Language Annals, 23(4), 301-314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1990.tb00375.x
Shintani, N. (2011a). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 137-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388692
Shintani, N. (2011b). A comparison of the effects of comprehension-based and production-based instruction on the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar by young Japanese learners of English The University of Auckland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388692
Shintani, N. (2011c). Task-based language teaching versus traditional production-based instruction: Do they result in different classroom processes? University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 97-120.
Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12001
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 495-508). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700-38
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371
Tragant, E., Muñoz, C., & Spada, N. (2016). Maximizing young learners’ input: An intervention program. Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(2), 234-257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2942
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Maja Milosavljevic, Barry Lee Reynolds
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.