SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 8

Effects of Studying Vocabulary Enhancement Activities on Students' General Language Proficiency Levels

Sözcük Geliştirme Aktivitelerinin Öğrencilerin Sahip Oldukları Genel Dil Seviyeleri Üzerindeki Etkisi

Mert TOPKARAOĞLU
Hakan DİLMAN
Pages
15–29
Publication Date
2013-02-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

After the implementation period, it was determined by using the Cambridge Quick Placement Test (QPT) Version 1 that the levels of improvement were significantly better for the students in the experimental group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of vocabulary enhancement activities on the general language proficiency levels of foreign language students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 88 male, second-year students participated in the study in the academic year of 2010–2011.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:After the implementation period, it was determined by using the Cambridge Quick Placement Test (QPT) Version 1 that the levels of improvement were significantly better for the students in the experimental group.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010–2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Genel dil seviyesi · Sözcük geliştirme aktiviteleri · Sözcük öğretimi

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of vocabulary enhancement activities on the general language proficiency levels of foreign language students. Students in the “control” group followed the regular curriculum which included learning the second one thousand most frequently used words in English; students in the “experimental” group had a fourteen-week schedule of vocabulary enhancement activities which included integrating the same second one thousand words into the regular curriculum. The students sampled were from a vocational school in Yalova. A total of 88 male, second-year students participated in the study in the academic year of 2010–2011. After the implementation period, it was determined by using the Cambridge Quick Placement Test (QPT) Version 1 that the levels of improvement were significantly better for the students in the experimental group.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacını, sözcük geliştirme aktivitelerinin iki grup öğrenci arasında genel dil seviyeleri bakımından bir farklılık yaratıp yaratmadığının belirlenmesi oluşturmaktadır. Kontrol grubunda yer alan öğrenciler ek bir kelime çalışmasının yapılmadığı İngilizcede en sık kullanılan ikinci bin sözcüğü içeren normal müfredatı takip ederken, deney grubundaki öğrenciler ise İngilizcede en sık kullanılan ikinci bin sözcüğü içeren sözcük geliştirme aktivitelerinin normal müfredata entegre edildiği on dört haftalık programı izlemişlerdir. Bu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Yalova ilinde bir meslek yüksek okulunda 2010–2011 eğitim-öğretim yılında ikinci sınıfta öğrenim gören 88 erkek öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Bu çalışmada, Cambridge Hızlı Seviye Belirleme Testinin birinci versiyonu veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Uygulamanın ardından, deney grubu ile kontrol grubu arasında, genel dil seviyeleri açısından deney grubu lehine anlamlı bir fark oluşmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOPKARAOĞLU, M., DİLMAN, H. (2013). Effects of Studying Vocabulary Enhancement Activities on Students' General Language Proficiency Levels. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 8, 15–29. https://ajindex.com/articles/55822

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Aksoy, E. (2008). The Effects of Lexical Approach on Speaking Skills of Students Who Learn English As a Foreign Language. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Ankara University, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Ankara.
  2. Bozkurt, N. (2007). The Effect of Vocabulary Notebooks on Vocabulary Acquisition. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Bilkent University, Graduate School of Education, Ankara.
  3. Büyükkarcı, K. (2006). Teaching Phrasal Verbs to Freshman Students at Universities by Using Communicative Approach. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Selçuk University, Institute of Social Sciences, Konya. Chen, K. (2009). An Explanatory Mixed Methods Study of EFL College Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge, Syntactic Knowledge, and Reading Comprehension. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University Kingsville, College of Graduate Studies, Texas. Conzett, J. (2000). Integrating collocation into a reading and writing course. In M. Lewis (Ed), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. 70 87). Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications. Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  4. Harwood, N. (2002) Taking a LA to teaching: Principles and problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 139–155.
  5. Hatch, E., Brown, C. (1995).
  6. Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education, Cambridge University Press,
  7. Cambridge. Hwang, K. & Nation, P. (1989). Reducing the vocabulary load and encouraging vocabulary learning through reading newspapers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 6(1), 323-335.
  8. Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. U.S.: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.
  9. Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. System, 31(4), 537–561.
  10. Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in a postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295–320.
  11. Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics 19,(2), 255–271.
  12. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
  13. Meara, P.(1996). “T