The Effects of the Keyword Method on Junior High School
Students’ Vocabulary Learning
Cheng, Pei-fen 鄭佩芬
Department of Applied Foreign Language
National Pingtung Institute of Commerce
國立屏東商業技術學院
Abstract
Among various mnemonic strategies, the keyword method has been widely
studied for its effectiveness and applicability in facilitating memory retention of new
vocabulary and their meaning (Lawson ＆ Hogben, 1998；Wang ＆ Thomas, 1995).
Nevertheless, the effectiveness and the long-term effects of the keyword method still
remain in dispute. Furthermore, very little research (i.e., Chen, 2006 ＆ Lin, 2005）
discussing the keyword method was conducted in Taiwan. The current study aimed to
probe into the effectiveness and the long-term retention of the keyword method on
EFL junior high school students’ vocabulary learning. Additionally, students’ in-depth
perceptions of the keyword method were examined. Two intact ninth-grade EFL
classes with 84 students from a junior high school in Kaohsiung County participated
in the study. They were randomly assigned to either the experimental group（the
keyword method group, n=42）or the control group（the rehearsal method group,
n=42）. A vocabulary pretest, immediate and one-week delayed vocabulary recall
posttests and the interview were used as instruments to collect data. The
independent-sample t-test was applied to analyze the data from all tests. Based on data
analysis, three major findings were summarized as follows. First, the keyword method
group significantly outperformed the rehearsal method group, indicating that the
keyword method was more beneficial to vocabulary learning. Second, compared to
the rehearsal method, the keyword method had better long-term effects on vocabulary
retention. Third, most students had positive attitudes towards the keyword method.
From the findings mentioned above, two pedagogical implications in EFL vocabulary
teaching and learning can be derived. First, since the keyword method facilities
students in vocabulary learning, teachers are encouraged to adopt this method to
enhance students; vocabulary learning. Second, teachers should teach students more
vocabulary learning strategies so that students can become independent and strategic
in order to cope with different learning situations.
Key words: vocabulary learning, vocabulary learning strategy, the keyword method
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Motivation
Nowadays, when it comes to English learning and teaching, almost everyone
would think of four skills－listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Each of them is
known to be important and cannot be ignored. To be good at any one of them,
vocabulary, undoubtedly, plays an important and dominant role. The mastery of
vocabulary is an essential component of second language acquisition. Vocabulary is
also primary concern in L2 settings because it plays prominent role in classroom
success (Krashen ＆ Terrell, 1983). Indeed, to understand or produce a simple
sentence, a paragraph, or even an article, enough vocabulary is essential. It’s just like
building a house. Without adequate bricks and steel bars, it’s impossible to build a
steady house. Likewise, being in lack of ample vocabulary knowledge and grammar
knowledge, it is difficult for learners to have good comprehension or express
themselves well. Therefore, sufficient vocabulary knowledge can apparently benefit
our comprehension or communication.
However, for learners, how can they enlarge their word bank？On the other hand,
what strategies or methods should teachers teach to help their students learn new
words？ Many EFL or ESL students really have problems enlarging their word bank.
Most of them often feel frustrated because no matter how hard they try to memorize
new vocabulary, they still cannot commit those new words to memory. Such problem
should be taken seriously and solved urgently. English teachers are supposed to take
the responsibility for facilitating their students’ learning. Vocabulary memorization is
no longer just left to the individual learner. Teachers should not only provide learning
materials but also train learners with useful strategies to help them acquire and
remember vocabulary effectively and efficiently. Among some vocabulary learning
strategies, the keyword method has been found to be effective for foreign language or
second language vocabulary acquisition, for recall and comprehension of word
definition in various content areas, and for students at various ability levels. For
example, according to Avila ＆ Sadoski (1996), the keyword method, one of the
most extensively studied mnemonic devices, has proven effective in improving both
immediate and delayed recall of second language or foreign language vocabulary.
Hence, EFL or ESL teachers may adopt it in their real-life classroom.
Most English teachers in Taiwan seldom teach vocabulary learning strategies in
class despite that some of them are actually interesting and helpful. However,
teaching vocabulary learning strategies to students may be one of the useful ways to
facilitate students’ vocabulary learning. With an interest to discover the effects of the
keyword method on English vocabulary learning junior high school students, the
researcher decided to conduct this study. It was hoped that the results of this study
1
would contribute to the teaching and learning of English vocabulary.
1.2 Statement of the problem
In Taiwan, most English teachers agree that the mastery of vocabulary is
essential for students. Therefore, they try their best to teach students a plenty of new
words. Moreover, teachers always ask their students to memorize English vocabulary
as many as possible on their own, but seldom mentioning vocabulary learning
strategies. As a matter of fact, teachers should not merely give students fish, a large
amount of English vocabulary. Instead, teaching students how to fish (teaching them
different vocabulary learning strategies) is more important and efficient. Once
becoming independent learners, students can really benefit from the teaching and
improve the English ability by themselves.
Among many vocabulary learning strategies, the keyword method is very
popular. It is one of the most extensively studies mnemonic techniques. According to
some studies, it is an effective method for vocabulary learning ( Elhelou, 1994；
Lawson ＆ Hogben, 1998；Levin, McCormick, Miller, Berry, ＆ Pressley, 1982；
Lin, 2005). Nevertheless, there are also other studies showing the opposite result. For
instance, in Campos, Gronzalez, ＆ Amor’s（2003）study, they found that the rote
method was significantly more effective than the keyword method. Hence, the
effectiveness of the keyword method remains in dispute. Furthermore, the long-term
effect of the keyword method is still in question. According to Chen (2006), learning
English vocabulary by the keyword method is superior to the traditional method
concerning the long-term retention of beginning learners. However, Wang and
Thomas (1995) supported the contention that mnemonic recall is not impressive－
especially in comprehension to repetition controls and in the absence of an immediate
test. Although several studies conducted in Taiwan (Chen, 2006；Lin, 2005) have
discussed similar topics, no one used junior high school students as participants. As an
English teacher in junior high, the researcher desires to know whether the keyword
method is effective and useful for junior high school students or not. It is really
teachers’ duty to provide students with efficient and useful language learning methods.
Therefore, the researcher would like to conduct a study to examine the effects and
long-term retention of the keyword method on junior high school students’ vocabulary
learning.
2
1.3 Purpose of the Study
In the present study, there were three main purposes in the following. The first
one was to explore the effectiveness of the keyword method on the junior high school
students’ English vocabulary learning compared that with the rehearsal method. The
findings would provide junior high school students in Taiwan with a more efficient
and beneficial vocabulary learning method and help them achieve better performance
and longer retention. The second one was to examine the long-term effects of the
keyword method. Through the postponement of the delayed posttest, the long-term
benefits could be confirmed. Finally, it was hoped that the participants’ in-depth
perceptions toward the keyword method could be elicited by means of the oral
interview.
1.4 Research Questions
To conduct the whole study, three research questions are set as follows：
1. Does the keyword method group perform better than the rehearsal method group
in vocabulary retention？
2. Does the keyword method instruction have better teaching effects on junior high
school students’ vocabulary learning than the rehearsal method over a longer time
period？
3. What are the students’ perceptions of the keyword method？
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Key word Method
The key word method is a tool for rapid and efficient vocabulary memorization.
Due to its using both verbal and nonverbal systems in learning process, the Dual
Coding Theory, developed by Sadoski and Paivio, can serve as a theoretical
foundation for it. Furthermore, it is a two-stage mnemonic technique, developed by
Atkinson and his collaborators. The first stage (verbal) is to identify a concrete
keyword, which sounds familiar to the target word. The second (visual) stage requires
one to figure out a corresponding image or to respond to an interactive picture
provided. Moreover, it has been one of the most popular and certainly the most
extensively researched vocabulary learning method.
2.1 The Origin
In 1975, Atkinson conducted a study using mnemonics for foreign vocabulary
learning and called it the keyword method. That is, Atkinson was the first one to name
the “keyword” method. Over a period of two years, Atkinson and his collaborators
3
conducted a series of experiments to test the effectiveness of the keyword method.
The keyword method is a two-stage mnemonic technique: acoustic link stage and
imagery link stage. In Atkinson’s model (Atkinson ＆ Raugh, 1975), the keywords
could facilitate the memorization in two aspects. One was the acoustic similarities to
the target information. The other was the imagery connection the learner builds with
the keywords and the new information. On the other hand, according to Lin (2005),
the keyword method, as a technique of associative mnemonics, used keywords to
build a strong link between the “target” information and the “already known”
information so that the to-be-learned information could be better retained in memory.
2.2Theorectical Rationale
The Dual Coding Theory, developed by Sadoski and Paivio (1994), serve as a
theoretical foundation for mnemonic systems, including the keyword method.
According to Dual Coding Theory (Sadoski ＆ Paivio, 1994), previous experiences,
or prior knowledge, were bases from which mental representations derive. The
experiences could be linguistic and nonlinguistic, which developed into two mental
systems, one for representing and processing language and the other for processing
nonlinguistic information. The latter was frequently referred as processing imagery
(cited in Zhang ＆ Schumm, 2000). Although functionally distinct, the two systems
were assumed to be interconnected so that activity in one system could trigger activity
in the other. The activation of both systems could have additive effects on recall (cited
in Zhang ＆ Schumm, 2000).
2.3 Studies on Long-term Effects
The long-term benefits of the keyword method have been mixed. Some studies
showed that the keyword method really facilitated long-term memory (Avila ＆
Sadoski, 1996；Chen, 2006；Lawson ＆ Hogben, 1998； Sagarra ＆ Alba, 2006；
Zhang ＆ Schumm, 2000). However, other studies have found that the keyword
method was effective only for immediate recall. Wang, Thomas, and Ouellette (1992)
found that the rate of word loss was greater for learners using the keyword method
than for the learners who used rote memorization. Besides, Wang and Thomas (1995)
indicated that the use of the keyword method increased learning speed and immediate
recall, but that did not show any advantage in delayed recall.
2.4 Studies on Age
The keyword method could be applied to enhance vocabulary learning for
language learners of different ages (Elhelou, 1994；Gruneberg ＆ Pascoe, 1996；
Lawson ＆ Hogben, 1998； Sagarra ＆ Alba, 2006；Zhang ＆ Schumm, 2000).
4
However, Levin et al. (1979) suggested that young learners seemed to have
difficulties generating interactive images by themselves. It was necessary to provide
them with actual line drawings during the image link stage. Namely, younger children
relied more on given pictures for maximum effect.
2.5 Studies on Ability
Most previous studies about the keyword method showed that such mnemonic
technique helps the students with limited English proficiency (Avila ＆ Sadoski,
1996；Zhang ＆ Schumm, 2000). As a matter of fact, high-proficient learners also
benefited from it (Lin, 2005). What makes the different was that high-achievers may
utilize more strategies or just integrate all of them.
2.6 Different Applications of the Keyword Method
The keyword method has been applied in many contexts to aid memory such as
in vocabulary learning, face-name association, and retention of core facts. However, it
has been especially advocated as an effective strategy for learning vocabulary.
METHODOLOGY
Design
A 2 (treatment) × 2 (retention interval) between-participants experimental design
was used in the present study. Two intact ninth-grade EFL classes from a junior high
school in Kaohsiung County were recruited as participants. They were randomly
assigned to either the experimental group（the keyword condition）or the control group
（the rehearsal condition）. Prior to the intervention, participants were given a
vocabulary pretest. Then, after the orientation stage, it came to the instruction stage.
After four-session instruction, a vocabulary recall posttest was given to all of the
participants immediately. One week later, participants were all asked to taken the
delayed vocabulary recall posttest, the same content and order as the immediate
posttest. After the experiment, ten participants were randomly selected from the
keyword condition to take part in the oral interview.
3.2 Participants
Two intact classes of ninth-graders from a junior high school in Kaohsiung
County were recruited as the participants in this study. Totally, there were 84 students,
42 in class A and 42 in class B. Participants in each class shared similar backgrounds.
For instance, roughly speaking, they all had learned English at least three years. In
addition, they had the same English teacher. Moreover, they had a similar level of
English proficiency, which was evaluated according to their English scores of the two
5
mock exams in the third year. From the result of t-test, there was no difference
between these two classes, Hence, students in class A and those in class B actually
had the same English proficiency. According to two different vocabulary teaching
methods they received, two classes were randomly assigned to two groups. The
experimental group received the keyword method instruction. In order to make sure
that participants in different conditions had the same prior knowledge with the
learning materials, the researcher, also being the instructor, gave these two groups a
vocabulary pretest.
3.3 Materials
Teaching materials in the current study were twenty English words, containing
seven verbs, three adjectives, and ten nouns. These twenty to-be-learned words were
divided into two categories. Two of them were chosen as practice items. They were
gorilla and handkerchief. The remaining eighteen items were used in the actual
learning task. These experimental items included insist, suffer, bouquet, despise,
brutal, melancholy, cemetery, struggle, bungalow, sentimental, needle, obey, manual,
abacus, destroy, dilemma, sycophant, and elope.
These target words were chosen according to two criteria. First, they were not
contained in the English textbook of junior high school students. Therefore, it was
presumed that participants would not know these to-be-learned words. Namely, the
participants were unfamiliar with these words. Second, they had to be appropriate for
EFL students at the junior high school level. In other words, they were not too
difficult for the ninth-grade junior high school students to learn.
In order to ascertain which method benefit students’ vocabulary learning more,
these twenty words would be taught to two groups in two different methods－the
keyword method and the rehearsal method. Needless to say, teaching materials for
each group were presented in different ways. Therefore, the handout for each group
was necessary. On the handout for the keyword condition, students could see the
target word, the Chinese keyword, its Chinese definition and an interactive picture
connecting the keyword its definition. As for the handout for the rehearsal condition,
students could see only the target word and its Chinese definition.
3.4 Instruments
In the present study, three kinds of instruments were utilized. One is a vocabulary
pretest. Another is a vocabulary recall test（posttest）. The other is an oral interview.
They are described in detail in the following sections.
3.4.1 Vocabulary pretest
With a view to ascertain that participants in either the experimental group or the
6
control group had not acquired the to-be-learned vocabulary, the researcher
administered a vocabulary pretest. There were 18 questions in the pretest, testing
those eighteen target words. All these questions were fill-in-the-blank questions.
Participants were required to write down the Chinese definition in a blank right after
each English word. For example, after the English word “gorilla”, students had to
write down its Chinese definition “大猩猩”. For the purpose of achieving the content
validity and reliability, the pretest was checked by several experimental English
teachers and also some experts.
Some of the scoring, the total score was eighteen. One point was for each correct
answer. The researcher did not correct test papers for the sake of being fair. Such task
was given to two other graders. The criteria were set for the grader to correct students’
test papers. For each question, Chinese definition given by the instructor and its
synonym were acceptable. The researcher would provide the correct Chinese
definition and some synonyms of each word for the graders. While correcting test
papers, the graders could also judge by themselves. Therefore, the researcher had to
run correlation between from two graders. In this way, the scoring could achieve the
scoring validity and reliability.
3.4.2 Vocabulary Recall Test
After the learning period, there was a vocabulary recall test used to evaluate the
relative retention effects of the two different learning methods. The posttest and the
pretest were almost the same, such as the test form and the content of the test. The
only difference is the order of the questions. Still there were 18 questions in the
pretest, testing eighteen target words. All these questions were fill-in-the-blank
questions. Above all, no keyword is provided. Participants were required to write
down the Chinese definition in a blank right after each word. For example, after the
English word “destroy”, students had to write down its Chinese definition “摧毀”.
The posttest was examined by several experienced English teachers and also some
experts. Hence, the content validity and reliability were affirmed.
As for the scoring, the total score was eighteen. One point was for each question.
The researcher set the criteria for two graders to correct students’ test papers. For each
question, Chinese definition given by the instructor and its synonym were acceptable.
The researcher would provide the correct Chinese definition and some synonyms of
each word for the graders. Furthermore, while correcting test papers. For each
question, Chinese definition given by the instructor and its synonym were acceptable.
The researcher would provide the correct Chinese definition and some synonyms of
each word for the graders. Furthermore, while correcting test papers, the graders
could judge by themselves. Afterwards, the researcher had to run correlation between
scores from two graders. In this way, the scoring could achieve the scoring validity
7
and reliability. For the purpose of examining longer retention of the vocabulary,
one-week delayed recall test was conducted. It was of the same form and order as the
immediate recall test.
3.4.3 Interview
After the experiment, ten participants in the keyword condition were randomly
selected to take part in an oral interview. They were encouraged to answer all the
interview questions. Totally, there were nine questions. For example, do you think that
using the keyword method to learn new vocabulary is helpful? Or will you utilize the
keyword method to learn new vocabulary in the future? Participants’ responses were
recorded. From the oral interview, participants’ perceptions of the keyword method
were elicited in detail. The interview lasted approximately 10 minutes per person, and
it was conducted in Chinese.
3.5 Procedure
The overall experiment could be generally composed of six stages. The first stage
was the researchers’ preparing stage. The researcher not only chose the teaching
materials but also designed the pretest, posttest, and interview questions. Afterwards,
the researcher recruited 84 students in two classes as participants and randomly
assigned them to either the experimental group（the keyword method group, n=42）
or the control group（the rehearsal method group, n=42）. Later, the researcher, also
being the instructor, administrated the pretest. Time allotted to conduct the pretest was
ten minutes. The aim of the pretest was to make sure that all participants were
unfamiliar with all target words. Participants in different conditions took the
vocabulary pretest separately. Then, it came to the orientation stage. First of all, the
instructor briefly introduced the learning program to the participant in either the
keyword group or the rehearsal group. For instance, students were informed that they
were going to learn some English new words. All they had to do was try their best to
memorize these new words by using the taught method. In addition, their scores here
would have nothing to do with their school handout with teaching materials. Students
in different condition had their own handouts. Next, the instructor gave students two
examples. One was gorilla, and the other was handkerchief. Through the presentation
of examples, the researcher expected that all the participants understood how to use
the taught method to remember new words. For instance, while teaching gorilla to the
keyword group, the instructor pronounced the word first, and then asked students to
repeat. Then, the instructor provided the Chinese Keyword（鴿驢拉）which sounded
like the target word（gorilla）. Afterwards, an interactive picture connecting the
keyword（鴿驢拉）and the meaning of the target word（大猩猩）was shown to all
8
participants. The instructor pointed out the interacting relationship depicted in the
picture and told the participants that a good way to remember the vocabulary
translation（大猩猩）was to remember the interactive picture. Then, the instructor led
students to review the steps one more time. Students were later asked to review the
word by themselves. The other example handkerchief was taught in the same way. As
for the rehearsal condition, the instructor only led the participants to pronounce the
English words and told them the translation. The control class was told to do their
utmost to remember the meaning of the English words. Likewise, students were given
some time to review the word and memorize it. After examples teaching, the
instructor randomly asked some students the definition of these two example words to
make sure that they not only understood the taught method but also knew how to use
it.
In the instruction phrase, different intervention was conducted in different groups.
Instruction time allocated for each group was the same. The instructor would teach
each group eighteen target words for about 45 minutes. The instructor taught eighteen
target words to the experimental group with the keyword method. The step of
presentation for each word was like the above example teaching. First, the instructor
showed the word and led students to pronounce the word. Second, the instructor gave
students the Chinese keyword. Third, the interactive picture that connected the
keyword and the meaning of the target word was shown. At last, the instructor asked
students to remember the interactive picture so as to memorize the target word and its
Chinese definition. After teaching each word, the instructor gave students about 30
seconds to do the retrieval practice. On the other hand, when learning the same target
words, the control group received the rehearsal method. The instructor led the
participants to pronounce the English word for two times and told them the translation.
For example, after leading students to pronounce the English word “elope” was “私
奔”. Then, the control class was told to do their best to remember the Chinese
meanings of all the English words. Likewise, after illustrating each word, the
instructor would give students about 30 seconds to memorize the new word and its
definition. In the following assessment stage, students under each condition had to
finish the vocabulary recall posttest in different time. One was immediately after the
instruction, and the other was taken one-week delay. Before taking the immediate
posttest, students reviewed the eighteen experimental items and briefly repeated the
procedures demonstrated in the instruction stage. In the beginning, the instructor
would lead them to practice. Next, they were asked to review themselves. Participants
were not informed about immediate and delayed posttests for fear that they tool the
learning too seriously. All of the answer sheets of the two vocabulary recall posttests
were collected and scored for later analyses. Afterwards, ten selected participants
9
from the keyword condition were asked for an oral interview. Through the interview,
the researcher could realize the subjects’ perceptions of the keyword method in detail.
This was so-called the interview stage. All of the data collected above would be
analyzed with both quantitative and qualitative method.
3.6 Data Analysis
The present study used both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the
research questions, including the pretest, two vocabulary recall tests, and an oral
interview. The t-test with software SPSS（Statistical Package for Social Science）was
applied to analyze data.
RESULTS
4.1 The comparison of the English Proficiency Between Two Classes
Before conducting the study, it was essential to comparer the English proficiency
of the students in two different classes. Therefore, the researcher adopted the scores of
their two mock exams and analyzed them by conducting the t-test. Before conducting
the t-test, Levene test had to be done first for the equality of two classes. If the
variances were not equal, the original t-test equation could not be applied. The
alternative methods would be the Cochran Cox t-test equation. The results were all
played in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1
T-test Results for English Proficiency Between Two Classes
Exam
The Seventh Mock Exam
The eighth Mock Exam
Mean
Class A Class B
(n=42) (n=42)
41.571
40.191
Levene test
F
Sig.
44.024
43.238
0.393
0.138
0.533
0.712
T test
t
df Sig.
-1.167 82 0.247
-1.583 82 0.117
As shown in Table 4.1, on the seventh mock exam, the F=0.393 and the
Sig.=0.533. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was proved. Hence, the
original t-test equation could be applied. The results of t-test indicated that there was
no significant difference between two classes（t=-1.167, Sig.=0.247＞0.05）. On the
eighth mock exam, the F=0.138 and Sig.=0.712. The assumption of homogeneity of
variances was proved. Hence the original t-test equation could be applied. Likewise,
the results of the t-test indicated that there was no significant difference between two
classes（t=1.167, Sig.=0.247＞0.05）.In short, participants in these two classes did not
differ significantly in their scores of two mock exams. They had a similar level of
English proficiency. Therefore, the researcher could randomly assign them into either
the experimental group or the rehearsal group.
10
4.2 Graders’ Reliability
Before the statistics could be processed, the two scores of the pretest and two
posttests checked by the graders had to be computed to verify their concordance.
Pearson Correlation Coefficients was adopted to measure how consistent the scores
were. All the scores of the pretest, the immediate posttest and the one-week delayed
posttest were computed（See Table 4.2）.
The Comparison of the Two Graders’ Scores on Three Tests
Test
r
Pretest
0.997
0.000
0.956
0.998
0.000
0.000
Immediate Posttest
One-week Delayed Posttest
Sig.
Shown from Table 4.2, the correlation between the scoring of two graders in the
pretest, the immediate posttest, and the one-week delayed posttest was statistically
significant（Sig.=0.000＜0.05）. Therefore, the null hypothesis should be rejected. In
other words, in all the three tests, there was a significant correlation between the two
scores. Further, the statistics indicated that the stronger the coefficient was, the closer
the pair interaction was. Moreover, the value of the pair correlation coefficients turned
out to be positively related. The correlation coefficient was 0.997 in the pretest. The
strength was very strong. To sum up, the two graders’ scores were consistent. This
meant that the scores of these three test were worthy of being adopted and reliable for
close scrutiny.
4.3 The Comparison of the Vocabulary Pretests Between Two Groups
In order to make sure that participants in each group had the similar prior
knowledge about the target words, the researcher administered the pretest. Then, the
data collected were analyzed by the independent-sample t-test to compare the
performance of the experimental group and the control group. The results are shown
in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3
T-test Results for the Two Pretests of Two Groups
Group
The keyword Group
n
Statistics
Mean
SD
42
0.262
0.735
F
vs.
The rehearsal Group
Levene test
Sig.
t
1.664
42
0.191
0.201
T test
df
Sig
-0.536 82 0.593
0.455
As demonstrated in Table 4.3, the F=1.664 and Sig.-0.201(＞0.05). The null
hypothesis could not be rejected. The assumption of equal variances was proved.
Therefore, the original t-test equation could be applied. The results of t-test revealed
11
that there was no significant difference between two groups on the vocabulary pretest
（t=-0.536, Sig.=0.593＞0.05）. Briefly, participants in the keyword group and those
in the rehearsal group did not differ significantly in their scores of the pretest. Namely,
they had the same prior knowledge about the learning materials, eighteen
to-be-learned words. What’s more, from the two mean scores(M-0.262 in the keyword
group；M=0.191 in the rehearsal group), the researcher supposed that those
to-be-learned words were new to almost all the participants.
4.4
Table 4.4
T-test Results for the Two Immediate Posttests of Two Groups
Group
Statistics
n
The keyword Group
42
Levene test
Mean
15.738
SD
42
10.976
F
Sig.
t
df
13.504
0.001
-4.578
70.960
Sig
3.709
vs.
The rehearsal Group
T test
0.000
5.629
Table 4.4 revealed that the F=13.054 and the Sig.=0.001(＜0.05), showing that
the assumption of equal variances was rejected. However, the alternative method
would be the application of Cochran Cox t-test equation. The results of t-test indicated
that the difference of the immediate posttest between two groups reached a significant
level (t=4.578, Sig.=0.000＜0.05). In addition, the mean score of the keyword group
was 15.738, higher than that of the rehearsal group (M=10.976). Hence, the keyword
method was superior to the rehearsal group in the immediate posttest. In the long run,
the keyword group outperformed the rehearsal group significantly. In other words, the
keyword method was more beneficial on English vocabulary learning.
4.5 The Difference of Delayed Vocabulary Recall Tests Between Two Groups
In order to examine the long-term effect of the keyword method, a one-week
delayed vocabulary recall posttest was administered. It was of the same form and
order as the immediate recall test. The t-test results for the one-week delayed posttest
between two groups were demonstrated in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5
T-test Results for the One-week Delayed Posttests of Two Groups
Group
The keyword Group
n
Statistics
Mean
SD
42
14.810
4.068
F
vs.
The rehearsal Group
1.194
42
7.405
Levene test
Sig.
t
0.278
-7.700
T test
df
Sig
82 0.000
4.722
As shown in Table 4.5, the F=1.194 and the Sig.=0.278(＞0.05). Obviously, the
assumption of equal variances was proved. Hence, the original t-test equation could
12
be applied. The results of t-test showed that there was a significant difference between
two groups one the delayed posttest scores (t=-7.700, Sig.=0.000＜0.05). On the other
hand, the mean score of the keyword group was 14.810, which was higher than that of
the rehearsal group (M=7.405). Needless to say, the keyword group still performed
significantly better than the rehearsal group in the delayed posttest. Since the keyword
method superior to the rehearsal method in the delayed posttest, it was concluded that
the keyword method had long-term effects on English vocabulary retention.
4.6 Participants’ Perception of the Keyword Method
After the experiment, the researcher randomly selected ten participants from the
keyword group to have the oral interview. They were encouraged to answer all the
nine interview questions. The results in regard to each interview question were
presented as follows.
Question 1: Do you think that using the keyword method to leaning English
vocabulary is helpful?
All students who participated in the interview thought that the keyword method
was beneficial in learning vocabulary, For instance, one student remarked, “Yes, it is
helpful！I remembered those twenty new words by using this method. (是阿！很有
幫助耶！我用這方法記了二十個單字。)” Another student also shared, “Yes, it is.
With the keyword and the picture, I memorize all those new vocabulary taught by the
teacher.(是的。因為圖片和諧音字的關係，我輕鬆地背了那些老師教的新單字。)”
Question 2: Do you think that the keyword method is logical?
Half of the students thought that it was logical, for the keyword really sounded
like the target word. Moreover, the picture actually combined the keyword and the
meaning of the word. However, the other half of the students remarked that it was not
so logical. For example, one student said, “The association of the keyword method is
not so logical and too far-fetched.(關鍵字學習策略的聯想不太合邏輯、過於牽強。)”
Question 3: Is it interesting to learn English vocabulary by means of the keyword
method?
With regard to this question, every student thought that learning English
vocabulary by means of the keyword method was interesting. It was impressed them a
lot. Compared with the rote learning, it was for more amusing. One student remarked,
“Yes it is interesting. Such method not only arouses students’ attention but also makes
the atmosphere of the class better.(是的，十分有趣。關鍵字學習法可以引起學生的
注意，也能使上課氣氛更好。)”
Question 4: Is it easier for you to retain English vocabulary using the keyword
method?
13
All students stated that it was easier for them to retain English vocabulary using
the keyword method. However, two students indicated that it was truly easier to
remember the Chinese meaning of the new word. But they still had to use the
conventional way to memorize the spelling of the word. As one student claimed,
“Hmm…It is easier for me to memorize the Chinese definition of the new word;
nevertheless, if I want to memorize the spelling. I still have to utilize the rehearsal
method. (嗯…我覺得記住單字的中文意思真的挺容易的，但是英文單字的拼音部
分還是得用背誦的方式。)” Besides, some of the students thought that using the
keyword method to learn new words might take more time.
Question 5: Do you think that the keyword method has long-term effects in
memorizing English vocabulary?
When answering this question, six students thought that the keyword method had
long-term effects in memorizing English vocabulary. One of them stated,” Yes, I
haven’t forgotten them at all since I learned them last week.(是的。上星期學的到現
在一點都沒忘。)” However, four students indicated that the long-term effects of the
keyword method were not so sure. Two of them shared that if they forgot the keyword
or the interactive picture, they would not remember the new vocabulary. The other
two students remarked that it was still necessary to review the words and did more
practice. In this way, they could not only remember the words for a longer time but
also avoid the confusion.
Question 6: Does the keyword method help you memorize a large amount of English
vocabulary in a short time?
Most of the students agreed that the keyword method helped them memorize a
large amount of English vocabulary in a short time. For instance, one student
remarked, “Yah, that’s true. It really helped me memorize a lot of words in a short
time because the pictures are so interesting. They impressed me a lot. (嗯嗯！它真的
可以讓我在短時間內記很多，因為圖片很好玩，印象很深刻。 )”
Question 7: Will you utilize the keyword method learn new vocabulary in the future?
Seven of the students expressed that they were willing to utilize the keyword
method to learn new vocabulary in the future. Nonetheless, they would not always use
it. It depended on the characteristic of the new word and the situation. As one student
said, “If I have time, I will adopt it. (如果我有空閒，我會採用這個方法。)” Still
another student remarked, “I will utilize this method sometimes. (我有時候會用這個
方法。)” As for the rest three students, they did not prefer to use the keyword method
in the future. To them, it was hard to generate the keyword and the interactive picture.
What’s more, if the words were not so difficult, they would memorize them by the
rote learning. Compared with the keyword method, it took less time to them.
14
Question 8: Which do you prefer, the keyword method or the rehearsal method?
With regard to this question, two students loved both of them. Sit students
preferred the keyword method, and the other two students preferred the rehearsal
method. Those who loved both thought that different vocabulary should be learned in
different ways. As for the students in favor of the keyword method, they preferred it
for it was easier and fun to them. In other words, the keyword method turned the
boring work (vocabulary learning) into interesting learning. To the two students
preferred the rehearsal method, using the rote learning was useful and quick. Above
all, they could also memorize the English spelling.
Question 9 : Have you ever used any other methods to memorize English words?
Most of the students indicated that they have never used any other methods to
remember the new words. The rehearsal method was the only method to them. Just
two of the students have utilized the prefixes, the word roots, and the suffixes.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Summary of the Major Findings
The findings of the current study will be presented in accordance with the three
research questions. They are summarized as follows.
Question1. Does the keyword group perform better than the rehearsal group?
Form the results, it was found that the differences between the keyword group
and the rehearsal group reached a significant level (Sig.0.000<0.05). Furthermore, the
mean score of the keyword group was 15.738, higher than that of the rehearsal group
(M=10.976). Hence, the keyword group indeed performed better than the rehearsal
group. That is to say, the keyword method was more beneficial on students’
vocabulary learning. From this viewpoint, my study is consistent with some previous
studies (i.e., Avila & Sadoski, 1996; Elhelou, 1994; Levin, McCormick, Miller, Berry, &
Pressley, 1982; Lin, 2005; Zhang & Schumm, 2000).
Question2. Does the keyword method instruction have better teaching effects on
junior high school students’ vocabulary learning than the rehearsal method over a
longer time period?
According to the results, it was obvious that there were significant differences
between the keyword group and the rehearsal in their one-week delayed posttest
(Sig.0.000<0.05). On the other hand, the mean score of the keyword group was
14.810, which was higher than that of the rehearsal group (M=7.405). Apparently, the
keyword group performed significantly better than the rehearsal group in the delayed
posttest. Since the keyword method was superior to the rehearsal method in the
delayed posttest, it was concluded that the keyword method had better long-term
15
effects on English vocabulary retention. Briefly, the keyword method instruction have
better teaching effects on junior high school students’ vocabulary learning than the
rehearsal method over a longer time period. This finding is in conformity with that of
previous research (i.e. Lawson & Hogben, 1998; Chen, 2006; Sagarra & Alba, 2006).
Question3. What are students’ perceptions of the keyword method?
Most students in the keyword group thought that the keyword method was
helpful and interesting, though sometimes it was not so logical. Through this method,
vocabulary learning became not so boring and difficult to them. In addition, then
could memorize a large amount of vocabulary in a short time. More importantly, they
could remember almost all of the words they learn by the keyword method for a
longer time. Above all, many of them were willing to utilize this new method to learn
vocabulary in the future. It could be concluded that students really benefited a lot
from the keyword method.
5.2 Pedagogical Implications
The results of this study support the positive effects that the keyword method has
on vocabulary learning and teaching. From the findings mentioned above, some
pedagogical can be derived.
First, since the keyword method is more beneficial to students’ vocabulary
learning, teachers are encouraged to adopt this method to enhance students’
vocabulary teaching. Furthermore, the keyword method really makes vocabulary
learning fun, colorful and easier. Students can see the interactive pictures and practice
to make a link between the keyword and the definition of the target words. Indeed,
there are some advantages of this technique. First, it helps the learners remember the
words immediately, especially unfamiliar or difficult words. Second, it is an
alternative way for learners to learn vocabulary. Third, it can be applied to either
young learners or adult learners with high or low proficiency. Moreover, the humor in
the keyword stimulates the subjects’ interest in learning English. Briefly speaking,
such method can not only help students memorize the new words but also enhance
their motivation to learn English. Nevertheless, such a method is new to most learners,
so maybe it takes more time. Students may have to practice using it again and again
until they really have the ability to make good use of it by themselves in the future.
Teachers may have the responsibility of helping students get familiar with this
method.
Second, from the results of the interview, it is found that students love the new
method, for it facilitates their vocabulary learning. However, they did not know many
vocabulary learning strategies. Therefore, teachers should teach students more
vocabulary learning strategies so that they can become independent and strategic
learners. After all, that is the optimal goal of our teaching. Most important of all, there
16
is no the best method in language learning and teaching. With many vocabulary
learning strategies, students can learn new words on their own and combine some of
the strategies depending on different situations.
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research
Although this study has yielded several valid findings concerning the
effectiveness of keyword method, there is still much room for further research.
First, the long-term benefits of the keyword method need to be examined beyond
a one-week testing interval. Second, researchers can focus on the comparison between
L1 & L2 keywords in the future. Third, there should be more studies about comparing
the effect of keyword-given by the instructor and keyword-generated by participants
themselves. Fourth, the researcher can study on the effect of the keyword method for
receptive and productive vocabulary learning. Fifth, more participants should be
recruited to take part in the study for the study to be more representative. Moreover,
other schooling level of students, like elementary school students, senior high school
students or college students, can be used as participants to conduct another study. Last
but not least, it may be useful to administer questionnaires to the participants for the
purpose of understanding their general conceptions toward the taught method.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechniques in second-language learning. American
Psychologist, 30, 821-828.
Atkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword
method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 126-133.
Avila, E., & Sadoski, M. (1996). Exploring new applications of the keyword
method to acquire English vocabulary. Language Learning, 46 (3), 379-395
Campos, A., Gonzalez, M. A., & Amor, A. (2003) Limitations of the
Mnemonic-keyword Method. The Journal of General Psychology, 130 (4),
399-413.
Chen, Y. M. (2006). The Effect of Keyword Method on English Vocabulary Long-Term
Retention of Elementary School Students in Taiwan. Master's thesis,
Southern Taiwan University of Technology.
Elhelou, M. W. A. (1994). Arab children's use of the keyword method to learn
English vocabulary words. Educational Research, 36(3), 295-302.
Gruneberg, M. M., & Pascoe, K. (1996). The effectiveness of the keyword method
for receptive and preductive foreign vocabulary learning in the elderly.
Contemporary Educatonal Psychology, 21, 102-109.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition
17
in the classroom. San Francisco: Alemany Press.
Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1998). Learning and recall of foreign-language
vocabulary: effects of a keyword strategy for immediate and delayed recall.
Learning and Instruction, 8(2), 179-194
Levin, J. R., McComick, C. B., Berry, J. k., & Pressley, M. (1982).
Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies for children.
American Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 121-136.
Levin, J. R., Pressley, M., McCormick, D. Bm., Miller, G. E. & Pressley, M. (1982).
Assessing the classroom potential of the keyword method. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 583-594.
Lin, C. N. (2005). The effects of the keyword method on vocabulary learning of senior
high EFL students in Taiwan. Master's thesis, National Kaohsiung
Normal University.
Rodriguez, M., & Sadoski, M. (2000). Effects of rote, context, keyword, and
context/keyword methods on retention of vocabulary in EFL classrooms.
Language Learning, 50 (2), 385-412.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (1994). A dual coding view of imagery and verbal
processes in reading comprehension. In R. B. Ruddell, & H.
Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 4, 414-447.
Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Sagarra, N., & Alba, M. (2006). The key is in the keyword: L2 vocabulary learning
method with beginning learners of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal,
90 (2), 228-243.
Wang, A. Y., Thomas, M. H, & Ouellette, J. A (1992). Keyword mnemonic and
retention of second-language vocabulary words.Journal
of
Educational
Psychology, 84 (4), 520-528.
Wang, A. Y. & Thomas, M. H. (1995). Effect of keywords long-term retention:
help or hindrance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 468-475.
Zhang, Z., & Schumm J. S. (2000). Exploring effects of the keyword method on
limited English proficient students' vocabulary recall and comprehension.
Reading Research and Instruction, 39 (3), 202-22
18