Palavras-chave: Inglês; vocabulário,
semântica; linguística; panorama; aprendizagem significativa.
Introduction
Vocabulary is one crucial element
in English language acquisition (Chambers et al., 2005; Dalton & Grisham,
2011; Richards, 1976; Zarfsaz & Parisa, 2021). However, learners are under
restricted circumstances when they try to learn English in a non-English
speaking country. On the one hand, Richards and Renandya (2002) reported that
acquiring a language is a complex process. In most cases, second language
learners use English only during classes (Willingham & Price, 2009).
Tomlinson (2013) stated that there are limitations when English is a second
language in the classroom and research indicates that Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) learners have fewer opportunities of interaction.
Some
authors highlight the setbacks of vocabulary acquisition on language learning.
For instance, Schmitt (2000) suggested that it is too ambitious for learners to
reach the vocabulary size of native speakers. Similarly, Hunt and Beglar (2005)
stated that students have limited vocabulary input possibilities and
acknowledged that vocabulary acquisition requires special attention. However,
several decades ago, Krashen (1989) reported that vocabulary acquisition
facilitates language learning. Furthermore, new vocabulary increases curiosity
in students and helps learners to seek opportunities to gain experience more
words (Richards & Renandya, 2002).
Research
points out several reasons to use adjectives as a starting point in this study.
For instance, Schmitt (2008) emphasized that English language learners (ELL)
need a tangible goal in language acquisition and adjectives are a feasible
start (Kartal, 2017). They are the second easiest word class to learn (Ellis
& Beaton, 1993). They ignite students’ imagination (Zerkina, et al., 2016).
Ludvigsen
(2015) stated that there is a need for an effective vocabulary instruction.
Authors mention that poor vocabulary is related to poor comprehension of the
language (Karakoç & Köse, 2017). Although research points to vocabulary
acquisition through extensive reading, Nation (2015) conceded that using the
language in productive skills, such as speaking or writing, is also a key part
in learning a word. This belief is based on the Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) approach that arose in the early 80’s (Richards, 2003), promoting the use
of the language in real-life tasks, such as role-plays, discussions (Oxford,
2002), and picture description (Ghout-Khenoune, 2012).
Ecuador
included CLT and Common European Framework of References for languages (CEFR)
in a document for teachers and students in 2012. In the documents “the English
Teacher Standards” and the “English Language Learning Standards” (Ministerio de
Educación, 2012) and “The English Language Curriculum” (Ministerio de
Educación, 2016), there are “can do” statements under each grade of school and
high-school. These statements come from the CEFR learners’ competences
(abilities) of the language on four skills (listening, speaking, writing, and
reading) in varied contexts. These competences are classified in three levels
(A, B, C) that, in turn, are subdivided in A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 (Little,
2005).
Despite
the standards implementation, Education First (2022) ranked Ecuador in position
82 of English proficiency level out of 111 countries. The country’s level is
inferior to other countries in the region, such as Colombia and Argentina,
which may imply that there are basic communicative skills in the country.
Particularly, in the case of the present study, the students should have had an
A2 level but in a preliminary proficiency test, most students obtained a pre-A1
level. This gap in Ecuadorians English knowledge gives opportunity to new
research that would provide local solutions based on international research.
The
present study explored the connection of vocabulary acquisition to current CLT
activities. Particularly, this study focused on picture description not only as
a tool to acquire vocabulary and to provide vocabulary input but also because
pictures interest learners, they motivate learners to learn and increase
participation (Lavalle & Briesmaster, 2017). Furthermore, picture description
gives the opportunity to perform and offers students a greater experiencing
of the language (Celce-Murcia et al., 1998).
This
study took place in an English Language Institute in Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Participants were students from 10 to 17 years old, who took English classes in
the evening as school support. The native language of the students is Spanish.
The standards complied with (a) vocabulary range for Level A2 (Ministerio de
Educación, 2014); (b) using
familiar everyday expressions and basic phrases, according to the level A2 of
University of Cambridge (2011); (c) A2 writing standard of producing simple
sentences with detail (Ministerio de Educación, 2012); and, (d) the context for
these sentences is for personal and social domains: vocabulary of family and
friends (Council of Europe, 2011).
Literature
Review
Vocabulary Acquisition
The study considered two aspects of the term vocabulary
acquisition: how students acquire vocabulary and how to measure this
acquisition. On the first aspect, acquisition refers to learning a word
naturally (Tomlinson, 2013) which, according to Moudraia (2001) is a beneficial approach
in English language learning. However, there is research that suggests inserting moments of
attention on the words in the class (Schmitt, 2008). On this disjunctive, the
mix of both conscious and natural learning can come together. According to Tang
(2020), vocabulary can be taught in a way that the learner is focused on
achieving goals other than learning “words”, through game-like activities. The
author affirmed that although listening and reading are great ways of input, the
increment of the word knowledge is limited unless production, or use, of the
word happens. In other words, writing is suggested to be included in a
vocabulary acquisition test to evidence its growth.
On the second aspect, vocabulary in this study refers to one unit
of lexis, or one word, that is used in a specific moment (Moudraia, 2001). Words have dimensions, such as recognizing the words,
recalling the words, and knowing the collocation of the words. This knowledge
may translate to identifying the increment of acquisition (Tang, 2020).
According to Gass (1999), in knowledge of a word, there should be knowledge of
form (spelling) and meaning (definition). Similarly, Pigada and Schmitt (2006)
used form, meaning, and function (use in context) to measure vocabulary
acquisition. However, Duan (2018) used students’ prior knowledge of meaning, form, and function to determine vocabulary
acquisition.
In a study of vocabulary learning of university students with
intermediate level of English (Duan, 2018), one of the first steps was
determining the familiarity of students towards the words. This author measured
if students knew the definition of the words (meaning), the spelling of the
word (form) and the use of the word in context (function). The VKS test (vocabulary
knowledge scale) used by Duan (2018) included four categories and was described
by the mentioned author as an effective instrument to measure vocabulary
learning.
Context would have to be enough to show the meaning of the word,
and avoid ambiguity (Swenson, 2017). Even though writing is not a variable of
the study, it was a way to measure one part of the word knowledge, which is the
use in context. The written sentences gave students the opportunity to think
through their answers and to put together their ideas (Marulanda et al., 2017). Similarly, the
process of thinking made possible that students checked, with the classmates
and the teacher, the texts they created.
Picture Description
In a study conducted several decades ago, there were not many
positive findings towards the benefit of using pictures with young learners
(Samuels, 1970). However, in a more recent study, Ghout-Khenoune (2012) found,
in her study of 16 students from 19 to 25 years old, that students negotiated
meaning and had more time for preparation in written tasks to describe pictures
compared to spoken activities.
The study reflected that picture description (PD) had positive
outcomes. Although Ghout-Khenoune (2012) aimed at long sentences from the
students, the brief amount of communication is enough for the present study’s
group and their English language level. For example, students were able to
provide short sentences and used specific words as reference for the objects
from the pictures. The author mentioned that students did not fully use the
time to describe the pictures and suggested that it might have happened because
they were not able to communicate independently. Another reason may be that
short phrases seemed enough to refer to the object from the picture.
Additionally, in the field of picture description, De Temple et al.
(1991) reported a better performance of 150 children in both oral and written
tasks using pictures. More recently, Lavalle and
Briesmaster (2017) reported in their study of 28 students from 11 to 13 years
old that PD had great acceptance from students. Some of the findings were that
the strategy promoted interaction and communication, it helped students to have
a starting point for production.
Perspectives Towards Picture Description
Studies show positive rapport towards PD as a mean of learning
vocabulary in English. For example, Lavalle and Briesmaster (2017) reported
that students considered PD engaging, helpful for learning vocabulary, and that
it helped their imagination to thrive. Furthermore, students expressed having
increased class participation and that they would recommend PD in sentence writing.
Similarly, Baralaei and Najmabadi (2015) found that
students felt enthusiastic and paid more attention to classes. In the same way,
Ranjbar (2016) found, in a study of the impact of PD on students, that most
students had positive perspectives towards PD in written activities.
In this study, students submitted an English proficiency test as a
starting point on the whole lesson plan and activities. Some studies took into
consideration the initial knowledge that students had or their vocabulary size
(Duan, 2018). Other research points to plan the classes beforehand based on
student’s level and move forward from there (Childre et al., 2009). For this
reason, the lessons were planned according to the proficiency of the students
and the expected results (Richards, 2013).
To help students from the institute gain
more vocabulary and considering the benefits of acquiring vocabulary through
picture description activities, this study aimed to answer two questions:
1.
To what extent does picture description help students’ acquisition
of new vocabulary?
2.
What are students’ perspective towards vocabulary acquisition?
Methodology
Design
This
study is an action research study in education. According to Amin et al.
(2019), this type of research aims to “improve the quality of education” (p.
31). The authors explained that action research involves making changes in
teaching practice by first identifying a problem experienced in real life.
Furthermore, they stated that these
changes may increase teachers’ competences, and improve learning through
“questioning the teacher’s personal belief” (p. 31).
Participants
The sample comprised of 10 young students from
a private English language school in Guayaquil. Students attended to different
private schools of the city. Now of registration, parents were informed about
the study and consented to let their children participate in the study, both by
text message and in writing. The parents that showed to the office signed a
letter accepting their children´s participation. The students’ ages ranged from
10 to 17. Regarding the English level, 40% of students were pre-A1, another 40%
were A1 and 20% were A2 according to the
placement test taken at the beginning of the study.
Classroom Procedures
The study took place throughout four weeks of vocabulary classes.
In total, there were 24 hours of class in one month. Class days were Tuesday
through Thursday with a duration of two hours (120 minutes). The lesson plan
included activities that: adhered to the standards for the level A2 of the
CEFR; were
built onto the final test; and aligned with
communicative principles. There were also activities that involved describing
pictures.
Activities varied throughout the classes but stages in each lesson
remained the same. For example, each class consisted of first informing
students of that day’s learning
goals. Second, the teacher introduced grammar and students
connected ideas to link all the content, which led to describing a picture on
their own by the end of the class. Third, students were encouraged to use the
new vocabulary through various picture description activities. By the end of
the innovation students took the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) test again,
the same that they took on the first day of classes. Students created ten
sentences, under the same instructions of the first day of class that was to
provide context. In other words, students took the VKS test and the
vocabulary-in-context test again.
This research emphasized on picture description
which implies that students looked at a picture, photo, or image and described
what they saw. Notably, picture description can be
performed both orally and written. Although everyday activities involved the
two productive skills, this study measured the use of vocabulary in writing for
obtaining and analyzing results. In this study, the vocabulary-in-context test
required students to create sentences from the class glossary.
Instruments
One step of the study was collecting the pre innovation data. On
the first day, the researcher took a pre-vocabulary knowledge test and a
pre-vocabulary in context test. There is a wider description of these documents
in the Instruments section. In addition, students took an online placement test
(Education
First, 2019) to plan the classes using the respective
standards based on their level. The pre-vocabulary knowledge test was an
adapted from VKS (Duan, 2018). The vocabulary in
context test asked students to create sentences that could portray the meaning
of the word; these sentences were added to the class glossary. On the first day
of classes, students wrote down their personal information on a demographic survey.
The first question: To what extent does picture description help students’ acquisition
of new vocabulary? required measuring students’ knowledge of vocabulary. In this
study, the measurement of word acquisition came from an adaptation of the
Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) proposed by Duan (2018), which demonstrated
the increase of vocabulary acquisition in writing. This current research used 71
adjectives of the Vocabulary List of the Key Exam Test, which belongs to Level
A2 of the CEFR (University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, 2012).
Students received the VKS test, that is, a document with 71
adjectives. They had to select one of the options that matched their knowledge
of the word. The VKS had three levels of word knowledge; the first level was
when students have not seen or learned the word; the second, when students had
seen the word before but did not remember the meaning; and the third, when
students knew the meaning of the word. The scores were from 0 to 3 for each
word.
The VKS included a fourth measurement that involved using each
word in a sentence, but when it was piloted on eight teenage students, in a
private school in Guayaquil, the researcher noticed that creating a sentence
was not an easy task for students. For instance, for the word afraid,
students wrote: She is afraid.
Consequently, in the second week students created a glossary with
sentences that showed the correct meaning of each word in context. Students
received a rubric that evaluated three criteria, adapted from the VKS fourth
measurement. The score was: 1 if the adjective was not used; 2 if the adjective
was used but the context was not accurate; and 3 if the adjective was used with
semantic appropriateness and grammatical accuracy in the sentence. The rubric
helped scoring five sentences using adjectives from the word list, chosen
randomly out of the 71 and the maximum score was 15.
For the second question: What are students’ perspective towards vocabulary acquisition? Participants filled in a perspective survey on vocabulary
acquisition and picture description after the implementation. It had seven
Likert-scale statements and students chose one option out of five in each
statement based on their opinion: 1) Totally Disagree, 2) Disagree, 3)
Indifferent, 4) Agree, or 5) Totally Agree.
The survey was piloted in a school prior to the implementation. Teenage
students (N = 37) of a private school completed the survey. A Cronbach Alpha of
0.73 was obtained, which means the reliability of the instrument is acceptable.
In the survey, there were six open questions, which would provide
a deeper understanding of students’ opinions. Due to their age, students did
not express their thoughts in writing. They did not know what to write or how
to explain their answers. For this reason, the researcher-teacher interviewed
each student to understand and obtain a more elaborated answer. The survey
was in Spanish, due to students’ English level.
Data Analysis
The instruments served to collect data from students in terms of
demographics, perspectives, vocabulary knowledge, and vocabulary in context
skills. The researcher used the instruments before and after the implementation
to compare and analyze the results. The process started by gathering the
information from the demographic survey, and collecting the results from the
VKS and the vocabulary-in-context test. Subsequently, the researcher coded the
information by assigning numbers to text and options. For example, in the
demographic survey, man has the code number one and woman
is code number two.
Finally, the process of coding helped entering and tabulating the
data on the Statistics Package for the Social Studies (SPSS). The mentioned
program was run to get descriptive statistics, the reliability of the
instruments, and the significance of the innovation (p-values). Using a
regular online calculator and entering both the media and standard deviation
for the pre-test and post-test, the author obtained the Cohen’s d to
determine the magnitude of the intervention.
Results and
Discussion
For research question 1, to what extent
does picture description improve students’ acquisition of new vocabulary? There
were two instruments: the vocabulary-in-context test and the VKS. Students had,
on average, a growth of 14.88% on vocabulary knowledge based on the scores. The
post-VKS showed a higher media. This change reflects a growth of the grades. N
is the number of participants, which is 10.
Table 1
Pre and post VKS
results
|
|
N
|
Media
|
Standard Dev
|
|
Pre-VKS
|
10
|
86.00
|
26.84
|
|
Post-VKS
|
10
|
98.80
|
29.71
|
Fuente: Guevara Torres, P. V. (2019) for Master’s thesis,
Universidad Casa Grande. Departamento de Posgrado.
Furthermore, there was an increase in
the vocabulary-in-context test. The media was 9.90 for the test at the
beginning of the study, whereas the media for the post-test was 12.10. The
media had an increase of 22.22%. This change reflects a growth of the grades
and in the use of vocabulary in context.
Table 2
Pre and post
Vocabulary-in-context results
|
|
N
|
Media
|
Standard
Dev.
|
|
Pre-test
|
10
|
9.90
|
3.45
|
|
Post-test
|
10
|
12.10
|
2.60
|
Fuente: Guevara Torres, P. V. (2019) for Master’s thesis,
Universidad Casa Grande. Departamento de Posgrado.
In this study, there are two main
quantitative results, which are the vocabulary knowledge test and vocabulary in
context test. However, the effect size derived from the vocabulary-in-context
test, as it gave the use of the word in all the aspects of word knowledge. The
result for Cohen’s d is 0.45. Therefore,
the study is “considered educationally meaningful,” as it had an effect size of
more than 0.30 (Christensen et al., 2015).
Additionally, the p value was less than 0.005 for both tests, VKS and
vocabulary in context. This means that the study is statistically significant.
The four-week innovation had a positive
result that may indicate that picture description increases students’ odds to
achieve a considerable size of vocabulary. This challenges the theory of
Schmitt (2000), who considered it ambitious for English language learners to
reach the vocabulary size of native speakers.
The
results of the present study showed an increase in scores, both in vocabulary
knowledge and vocabulary in context knowledge,
confirming the findings of De Temple et al. (1991) when they reported a better
performance of students. Students developed a better understanding of how
sentences work and how to connect the ideas by using context.
To answer research question 2, what are
students’ perspective towards vocabulary acquisition? This study included a
survey for students’ opinion towards picture description to acquire vocabulary.
There were seven statements, and the results were obtained in percentages. In
the subsequent paragraphs, there is the written description of the results.
Table 3
Frequencies for
each Likert type question
|
Statements
|
Answers in percentages
|
|
Totally Disagree
|
Disagree
|
Indifferent
|
Agree
|
Totally Agree
|
|
1. Describing pictures is
very interesting for me.
|
0%
|
0%
|
40%
|
40%
|
20%
|
|
2. Describing pictures
motivates me to write in English.
|
0%
|
0%
|
20%
|
30%
|
50%
|
|
3. Describing pictures
helps me develop the use of the target vocabulary.
|
0%
|
0%
|
10%
|
60%
|
30%
|
|
4. Describing pictures
helps me improve the spelling of the vocabulary.
|
0%
|
0%
|
30%
|
30%
|
40%
|
|
5. I have more confidence
to use adjectives after I practice with pictures in class.
|
0%
|
0%
|
20%
|
40%
|
40%
|
|
6. Describing pictures in
class motivates me to learn more vocabulary.
|
0%
|
0%
|
10%
|
60%
|
30%
|
|
7. It will be very helpful
to describe pictures in classes in the future.
|
0%
|
10%
|
10%
|
50%
|
30%
|
Fuente: Guevara Torres, P. V. (2019) for Master’s thesis,
Universidad Casa Grande. Departamento de Posgrado.
Most students agreed or totally agreed with the benefits of the
innovation. According to the data, one student disagreed with the statement in
the last question. The best opinions were for questions 3 and 6 (90% including agree and totally agree), which might be interpreted as students
being motivated to learn more vocabulary and find it helpful to describe
pictures in classes in the future. For question 2, there was a 50% of students
that totally agreed on being motivated to write in English.
Regarding
picture description related to vocabulary, the answers from students were also
counted. Most students agreed that describing pictures helped them develop the use of vocabulary
and improve spelling and said that they were confident to use vocabulary after
describing pictures in class. Similarly,
the students answered the
open-ended questions. In general, students were excited about the classes; they
noticed that they did not hesitate as much when they had to say something in
English.
All
the students answered in Question 1 that they would rather use English with the
help of pictures, because they would know where to start. For Question 2, the
overall thinking was that picture description helped in using the language but
also the way of teaching. For questions 3 and 4, students were confident that
the activities helped them learn words and improve their participation in their
schools. In numbers 5 and 6, students answered that they were indifferent about
using picture description and about how significant the strategy would be to
improve their English skills.
The results were positive in both aspects, on scores and student’s
perspectives. The researcher observed that on the pilot-VKS, students did not
know what to write on the fourth level. This meant that students not only did
not know the vocabulary but also could not write a whole sentence. Conversely,
by the end of the study, they expressed that they
felt more confident to answer the meaning and use the words in a complete
coherent sentence. This confidence was reflected in their behavior when they
were taking the posttest.
These results confirm that by giving students the opportunity to
use the language in productive skills, students can learn more, following the
statement of Nation (2015), who promoted production of the language in English
learning. Consequently, this may help overcoming the findings of Hunt and
Beglar (2005) when they stated that there are limited vocabulary input opportunities.
According to the results, there was an increase in participation
based on the open-ended questions, confirming Lavalle and Briesmaster’s (2017)
report that students were motivated to use the language. These authors also
found that picture description helped students with communicative competence.
On this note, according to students’ opinions, picture description gave them
opportunities to write in English and gave students a greater experience of the
language (Celce-Murcia, et al., 1998).
Students expressed positive comments towards the implementation of
the study. They said that picture description was a starting point for production,
and they preferred having a picture to initiate communication in English rather
than with a question. The students found the activities helpful and
interesting. Other elements of learning were benefitted from this study, one
student said that his participation in school increased, which means that the
experience may benefit other contexts of students’ life. Although these
variables have not been included, it is important to mention the comment as it
may be further studied in future studies. Therefore, it is possible to confirm
the results of Lavalle and Briesmaster (2017) who reported that picture
description had great acceptance in students.
In summary, the results show that students were motivated and
confident to use vocabulary. Furthermore, the students improved their scores,
which is shown in the increase of the grades. Students could not fully describe how and to what
extent they improved vocabulary knowledge, but with a little support from the
teacher, who explained the questions and asked specific details, they were able
to explain their thoughts in the perspective survey. These results translate to
positive outcomes for the two research questions.
Conclusions
Given that there is a low English level in Ecuador which was
evidenced in participants of this study, they were expected to have an A2 level
based on their ages and grades, but their current levels were mostly A1 and
pre-A1. This disparity in the English level and other concerns like time
limitation, low vocabulary input possibilities, and motivation, set the path to
implement the current study. The strategy of picture description was an attempt
to narrow down the gap of the expected English level and existent English
levels.
Students improved in learning vocabulary, and they had positive
opinions that might motivate them to continue learning. They asked more
questions, they inferred better, and they doubted less when working on a task.
Another observation was that students were more efficient in the given amount
of time to finish their tasks. For example, they produced shorter sentences
with no context on the first vocabulary in context test but later they wrote
longer sentences with context in the same amount of time.
One of the insights of the research is that the grade for the VKS
does not show a specific growth in terms of number of words or knowledge growth
on specific words. However, with a close examination of some tests, there were
changes in both aspects. For example, for the word brave, most students
answered a wrong meaning due to direct translation. They thought that the word
meant bravo (in Spanish) which means angry in English. However, in the
post-test, they answered the correct meaning. In the same way, students
answered that they had never seen the word strange. On the contrary, in the
post-test most of the students answered that they knew the meaning and wrote
the correct meaning.
Despite the positive results, more things could have been better.
It is important to consider that not all students attended classes
continuously. Some students skipped classes, and this may have affected their
personal participation and learning opportunity. Furthermore, it may have not
benefitted the overall aspect. As there were fewer students, sometimes the
class was not as interactive as it was meant to be.
There were other limitations like size and time. The study had a
size limitation because the sample was 10 students, which may not provide the
opportunity of using the research in a bigger sample and obtaining the same
positive results. In addition, the time of implementation was short. The study
took one month (four weeks) for a total of 24 hours.
Further studies could either use oral or written tests. The
present study used written tests for meaning negotiation and giving enough time
to students to prepare their answers. To have a greater response from students,
the activities should include real-life pictures; that is, pictures of the
students, pictures of current actors and just a few random pictures from real
books and magazines.
Another recommendation is to counteract some complications. First,
absentees should be considered, perhaps by sending them homework. Second,
having a greater sample may provide a better effect size and reliability on the
instruments, even if the results are different from the present study. Third,
the innovation should be conducted over a longer period of time, which may help
on the same variants as the latter element but also will produce a greater and
long-time benefit to students.
References
Amin, M., Rashid, R., & Teh, K. (2019). Investigating issues
and challenges in employing action research for teacher training in Malaysian
context. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(1), 30-40. doi:
10.18488/journal.61.2019.71.30.40
Baralaei, S. & Najmabadi, A. (2015). The effect of using
images on vocabulary learning on EFL learners. International Journal of
Research on English Language Teaching Studies, 3(2), 17-19. https://www.academia.edu/31581605/The_Effect_of_Using_Images_on_Vocabulary_Learning_On_EFL_Learners
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei Z. & Thurrell S. (1998). Direct
approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language
teaching? TESOL Quarterly 31(1), 141–152. doi: 10.2307/3587979
Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Cheung, A. &
Gifford, R. (2005). Enhancing success for all for Hispanic students: Effects on
beginning reading achievement. Success for all Foundation. Baltimore, MD. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED485350
Childre, A., Sands, J. R., & Pope, S. T. (2009). Backward
design. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(5), 6–14.
doi:10.1177/004005990904100501
Christensen, R., Knezek, G., Alexander, C., Owens, D., Overall,
T., & Mayes, G. (2015). Measuring 21st century skills in technology
educators. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference (pp. 1130-1136). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Council of Europe. (2011). The CEFR language teaching assessment. https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1bf
Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2011). eVoc strategies: 10 ways
to use technology to build vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 306-317. https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1598/RT.64.5.1
De Temple, J., Wu, H. & Snow, J. (1991). Papa pig just left
for pigtown: Children's oral and written picture descriptions under varying
instructions. Discourse Processes, 14(4), 469-495. doi:
10.1080/01638539109544797
Duan, S. (2018). Effects of enhancement techniques on L2
incidental vocabulary learning. English Language Teaching, 11(3),
88-101. doi: 10.5539/elt.v11n3p88
Ellis, N. C. & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic
determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43,
559-617. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00627.x
Education First. (2019). EF Standard English Test. https://www.ef.com.ec/
Education First. (2022). EF English Proficiency Index. https://www.ef.com.ec/epi/
Gass, S. (1999). Discussion: Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(2),
319-333.
Ghout-Khenoune, L. (2012). The effects of task type on
learners’ use of communication strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 69(1), 770–779. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.472
Hunt, A. & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL
reading vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 23-59. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ689121.pdf
Karakoç, D. & Köse, G. D. (2017). The impact of vocabulary
knowledge on reading, writing and proficiency scores of EFL learners. Journal
of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 352-378. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1140609.pdf
Kartal, G. (2017). A corpus-based analysis of the most frequent
adjectives in academic texts. Teaching English with Technology, 17(3), 3-18. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1149420.pdf
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading:
additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal,
73(4), 440-464. http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/1989_we_acquire_vocabulary_and_spelling_by_reading.pdf
Lavalle, P. & Briesmaster, M. (2017). The study of the use of
picture descriptions in enhancing communication skills among the 8th-grade
students. Learners of English as a Foreign Language, 9(1), 1-16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1171736.pdf
Little, D. (2005). The common European framework and the European
language portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the assessment
process. Language Testing, 22(3), 321–336. doi: 10.1191/0265532205lt311oa
Ludvigsen, M. B. (2015). Vocabulary learning strategies in the L2
classroom (Master Thesis, Ostfold University, Halden, Norway).
Marulanda, A., Nora, L., & Martínez, J. M. (2017). Improving
English language learners' academic writing: a multi-strategy approach to a
multi-dimensional challenge. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal,
(14), 49-67. doi: 10.26817/16925777.367
Ministerio de Educación. (2012). English Teacher Standards and
English Language Learning Standards. http://educacion.gob.ec/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2013/03/estandares_2012_ingles.pdf
Ministerio de Educación. (2014). National curriculum guidelines. https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/09/01-National-Curriculum-Guidelines-EFL-Agosto-2014.pdf
Ministerio de Educación. (2016). English language curriculum. https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/08/EFL-for-Subnivel-Superior-of-EGB-ok.pdf
Moudraia, O. (2001). Lexical approach to second language teaching.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455698.pdf
Nation, P. (2015). Principles guiding vocabulary learning through
extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(1), 136-145. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1059712.pdf
Oxford, R. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell:
Update and ESL suggestions. In J.C Richards & W. A. Renandya, Methodology
in language teaching: an anthology of current practice (pp. 19-25). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from
extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 1-28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ759833.pdf
Ranjbar, T. (2016). The impact of using pictures and other graphic
devices to improve EFL learners' L2 writing skill. Journal of Applied
Linguistics and Language Research, 3(3), 321-336. http://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/download/325/pdf325.
Richards, J.C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 10(1), 77-89. doi:10.2307/3585941
Richards, J.C. (2003). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: A personal
reflection. RELC Journal, 33(2), 1-35. doi: 10.1177/003368820203300201.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language
teaching: forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33.
doi:10.1177/0033688212473293
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Teaching
vocabulary. In J.C. Richards & W.A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in
language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 255-257). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1177/1362168808089921
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language
vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363. doi:
10.1177/1362168808089921.
Samuels, S. J. (1970). Effects of pictures on learning to
read, comprehension and attitudes. Review of Educational Research, 40(3),
397–407. doi:10.3102/00346543040003397
Swenson, E. (2017). Using social Interaction to elevate end enrich
student expressive vocabulary in writing. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5279&context=hse_all
Tang, Z. (2020). A review on studies into incidental vocabulary
acquisition through different input. English Language Teaching, 13(6), 89-95.
doi: 10.5539/elt.v13n6p89
Tomlinson, B. (2013). Second language acquisition and materials
development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials
development (pp. 61-74). New York: Bloomsbury.
University of Cambridge (2011). Using the CEFR: principles of good
practice. ESOL Examinations. Retrieved from: https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/126011-using-cefr-principles-of-good-practice.pdf
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (2012).
Vocabulary list, Key English Test (KET), Key English Test for Schools (KETfS).
https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/22105-ket-vocabulary-list.pdf
Willingham D. & Price D. (2009). Theory to practice vocabulary
instruction in community college developmental education reading classes: What
the research tells us. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(1), 91-105.
doi 10.1080/10790195.2009.10850326.
Zarfsaz, E., & Parisa, Y. (2021). The impact of different
context levels on vocabulary learning and retention. Shanlax International
Journal of Education, 9(4), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i4.4049
Zerkina, N., Kostina N., Urazayeva N., Lomakina Y., Emets T.,
Gallyamova M., Melnikova E., Trutnev A., Lukina O. (2016). Axiological role of
English adjectives in English Language Teaching. International Journal of
Environmental & Science Education, 11(2), 5146–5154. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1115601.pdf
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7863-8678 
