Teaching vocabulary in the primary classroom
Torill Hestetræet
Department of Cultural Studies and Languages, University of Stavanger,
Norway
Abstract: This article presents findings from a national questionnaire survey on teachers’ beliefs and practices about teaching and learning English vocabulary in the Norwegian primary school classroom. Teachers’ reported vocabulary activities in an open-ended
question have been broadly categorised into intentional and incidental ways of teaching vocabulary. Primary categories were based on Nation’s (2001, 2008) four strands for
teaching vocabulary: meaning-focused input by means of exposure, meaning-focused output
by using the language, language-focused learning by explicit study of vocabulary and fluency development by using familiar vocabulary. Secondary categories were the use of translation, pictures, vocabulary tests and pupils choosing vocabulary. The findings indicate a
predominance of language-focused learning and a consequent need to balance intentional
vocabulary learning with incidental learning, for example through extensive reading.
Introduction and aims
Vocabulary constitutes the building blocks of language and is therefore important in second language learning. In recent decades, vocabulary has received increasing attention from researchers (Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2008;
Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997). Because of language corpus research established in the 1980s, much more is now known about L1 and L2 vocabulary.
In terms of vocabulary size and high and low frequency words, for example,
one now knows how many, and what, word families are needed for a second language (L2) learner to get by or read in English (Schmitt, 2008). It is
also recognised that much L1 English vocabulary consists of formulaic language, such as collocations, idioms and fixed phrases (Barcroft, Sunderman
& Schmitt, 2011). A lot is also known about the ways in which vocabulary
is learnt, although more research is necessary (Schmitt, 2008).
In order to widen understanding of vocabulary learning it is important
to know about the beliefs and practices of teachers. The field of teacher
cognition aims to study “what language teachers think, know and believe
and the relationships of these mental constructs to what teachers do in
the language classroom in connection with different sub-disciplines within
ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012 • 1
language learning ” (Borg , 2003: 81).There have been studies on teacher
cognition and language learning disciplines such as grammar, reading and
literacy, as outlined by Borg (2006). However, there is a lack of research
about teacher cognition and the teaching and learning of L2 vocabulary. In
L1 contexts, Konopak and Williams (1994) have studied elementary teachers’ beliefs about L1 vocabulary learning, while Hendrick, Harmon and Linerode (2004) investigated middle and intermediate school teachers’ beliefs
and practices about vocabulary instruction in social studies.
This article presents some questionnaire findings about Norwegian 7th
grade in-service teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning the teaching and
learning of English vocabulary. The aims are to map these beliefs and practices and to categorise what vocabulary activities the teachers report using
and those they think work well.
The language acquisition of young language learners has received more
focus among researchers internationally (Drew & Hasselgreen, 2008), partly because the starting age of foreign or second language learning has been
lowered in both Europe and the rest of the world (Rixon, 2000). In Norway,
obligatory English is introduced to six-year-olds in the first grade.
Vocabulary learning and teaching
An important distinction in vocabulary studies is that between incidental
and intentional learning (Ellis, 1994; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2008). Incidental learning happens subconsciously when the learner is using the language
and focusing on content, and it is therefore dependent on meaning-focused
exposure, for example through extensive reading and listening. Intentional
learning, on the other hand, is conscious and involves the explicit study of
words, with attention to form. Both approaches are important for successful
vocabulary development. While effectiveness is the main argument in favour of intentional learning, incidental learning is believed to be important
for developing both a large vocabulary and useful vocabulary learning strategies, such as guessing meaning from context. A survey conducted among
Norwegian primary school teachers by Drew (2004), indicated frequent
use of intentional approaches, with translation and vocabulary tests on individual words, along with a strong reliance on the textbook. Incidental
approaches, along with supplementary attention to language form, are seen
as the currently favoured way of teaching language (Schmitt, 2008:340).
Nation (1996, 2008) argues for a balance between approaches. He proposes four strands for teaching vocabulary: meaning-focused input (MI) by
means of exposure though listening and reading, meaning-focused output
2 • ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012
(MO) by using the language productively, language-focused learning (LFL)
by explicit study of vocabulary and fluency development (FD) by using familiar vocabulary, collocations and multi-word units and recycling them
to encourage storage, retrieval and fluency. The four strands account for
both productive and receptive use of the language, and incidental and intentional learning alike, as well as familiar vocabulary and vocabulary at
the boundaries of the learners’ knowledge. There should be a balance in
the amount of time spent on each of the strands, but they can also be integrated. For example, meaning-focused output can be supplemented with
language-focused learning to promote the consolidation of new words (de
la Fuente, 2006).
Reading promotes language learning and encourages vocabulary building (Elley, 1991; Grabe, 1991; Krashen, 1984, 2004). Extensive reading is
understood as reading for real purposes or for pleasure, where the focus is
on the content and not the language (Day & Bamford, 1998). It allows for
incidental learning and guessing meaning from context, an important language learning strategy. Intensive reading, on the other hand, is interpreted
as reading where the focus is on the language. Nation (2004:20) explains
intensive reading as involving “the detailed reading of texts with the two
goals of understanding the text and learning language features through a
deliberate focus on these items”.
Exposure may be particularly important for young learners since they
are believed to be predisposed for acquiring languages (Lenneberg, 1967).
Another argument in favour of exposure and extensive reading is the need
to compensate for the gap in vocabulary size between L1 and L2 learners.
Whereas native speakers know 4,000–5,000 word families at the age of five
and as many as 20,000 as adult educated speakers (Nation & Waring, 1997),
foreign learners of English are reported to have vocabulary sizes ranging
from 1,200 to 4,000 word families (Laufer, 2000).
Both the incidental and the intentional approaches to teaching vocabulary are reflected in the competence objectives after year 7 of the Knowledge Promotion 2006 English curriculum, the national curriculum for Norwegian primary and secondary schools. Incidental learning is manifested
in communication objectives about mastering age-appropriate everyday
vocabulary and polite expressions, and in cultural objectives about reading
a variety of texts of various lengths. The intentional approach is mirrored
in the language learning objectives, where the focus is on knowledge about
the language and its usage.
ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012 • 3
Methods
The present study is based on a national questionnaire survey sent to 7th
grade English teachers in all 2487 Norwegian primary (or combined primary and lower secondary) schools. The response rate was 14%, with 341 responses. The questionnaire included one open-ended and 64 closed-ended
questions about the teachers’ beliefs and practices connected to vocabulary
learning and teaching (Hestetræet, 2012).
This article focuses on the open-ended question. The teachers were asked
to describe (in around 50 – 100 words) a vocabulary activity that they had
used with 7th grade learners and that seemed to work well. A random sample of 70 responses from the total of 341 has been used for the purposes of
this article. The responses have been categorised.
Categorisation is all about sorting into groups that have features in common. Prototype categorisation, one of the main types of categorisation, has
been chosen for this study (Rosch, 1978; Riemer, 2010; Taylor, 2003). Here,
membership is a matter of degree, and some members are seen as more
representative than others. For example, apple is seen as a more typical
member of the category fruit than pineapple. The members of a category
share varied features, but it is not necessary for all the members to share
all of these, as is the case in classical categorisation. The notion of similarity
to the prototypical member underlies the prototype categorisation process,
and is problematic both because it is a subjective notion and because it is
difficult to decide how dissimilar two items have to be in order to be allocated to different categories (Taylor, 2003:65).
Nation’s (1996, 2008) four strands for teaching vocabulary were used as
the basis for the primary categorisation of the responses. They were chosen because they provide a balanced way of teaching vocabulary. However,
because there were no examples of fluency activities, this category was unrepresented in the findings. Moreover, in order to make a more fine-tuned
continuum of categories, the strands were combined to make the following
additional sub-categories: LFL/MI, LFL/MI, LFL/MO/MI and MO/MI.
In addition to the above primary categories, some secondary categories
that seemed to be prevalent in the material were added to better reflect
the scope of the responses: translation from L1 to L2 or vice versa, having vocabulary tests, using pictures as support, the pupils choosing what vocabulary
to study in detail, and two or more activities provided in the responses.
4 • ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012
Findings
Table 1 presents an overview of the primary categorisation of the examples
of vocabulary activities, from the teachers’ responses to the open-ended
question.
Category
Score (N = 70)
Language-focused learning (LFL)
Language-focused learning and meaning-focused
output (LFL/MO)
Meaning-focused output (MO)
Language-focused learning and meaning-focused
input (LFL/MI)
Language-focused learning and meaning-focused
input and output (LFL/MO/MI)
Other
Meaning-focused input and output (MO/MI)
Meaning-focused input (MI)
25 (35.7%)
14 (20%)
10 (14.3%)
8 (11.4%)
7 (10%)
4 (5.7%)
2 (2.9%)
0
Table 1: The distribution of primary categorisation of vocabulary activities
The two highest scoring categories were LFL with 35.7% and LFL/MO
with 20%.
The lowest scoring categories were MI, with no instances as a single category, and MO/MI with 2,9%. Interestingly, LFL features in as many as 77%
of the examples, MO in 47 %, and MI in 24.3% of the examples. Examples
of LFL only activities included memorising words, learning the grammar of
words, having vocabulary tests, and translating words. Activities in which
LFL was combined with the other primary categories were, for example,
vocabulary games (LFL/MO) and reading textbook texts (LFL/MI). The
‘other’ category (5.7%) includes examples that were impossible to categorise, either because they were unclear or because there was too little information.
ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012 • 5
Table 2 indicates the distribution of secondary categorisation of the teachers’ reported vocabulary activities.
Category
Score (N = 70)
Translation
Pictures
Pupils choose vocabulary
Vocabulary test
Two or more activities
11 (15.7%)
10 (14.3%)
10 (14.3%)
8 (11.4%)
25 (35.7%)
Table 2: The distribution of secondary categorisation of vocabulary activities
Activities which included translation, pictures, pupils choosing vocabulary,
and having vocabulary tests ranged from 11.4% to 15.7%. Describing two or
more activities scored at 35.7%.
The following are examples of the teachers’ responses:
Example 1: LFL + translation + pupils choosing vocabulary
I use bingo lotto. They pick 9 words out of 15 words, and put them in a sheet.
If they get bingo, they have to translate the words correctly before they get their
name on the scoring list.
In this example, bingo lotto is used, a game in which the pupils identify
and translate words they have chosen themselves. This activity is languagefocused since it draws attention to learning spelling, pronunciation and
translation.
Example 2: LFL/MO + picture
I make a drawing on the blackboard, and let the learners work in pairs. One
of them sits with their back to the blackboard, the other is supposed to describe
the drawing so the partner is able to draw it. I also write words from their
homework and let them do the same.
This is an information gap activity in which one learner instructs another
to make a picture or drawing, communicating meaningfully while doing so.
The teacher also lets the pupils write words from their homework. Thus it
is an example of meaning-focused spoken output, combined with languagefocused learning.
6 • ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012
Example 3: MO
I have found project-based learning a valuable method to teach students new
vocabulary. For example, students must make a radio programme on a topic of
mutual interest. New topic-related vocabulary is introduced and students must
actively use these new words in context.
This is a meaning-focused output activity in which the pupils communicate for real purposes though speaking, making a radio programme, using new, topic-related vocabulary in a context. They are encouraged to use
these new words at the boundaries of their knowledge.
Discussion
This article has aimed to map teacher cognition about YLL vocabulary
teaching and learning, through categorising vocabulary activities that the
teachers reported they used and considered worked well. Language-focused
learning was by far the highest-scoring primary vocabulary category, both
on its own and in combination with the other primary activities. The focus on intentional vocabulary learning suggests an imbalance between the
different primary vocabulary categories, particularly at the expense of
meaning-focused input, which had no instances as an independent primary
category and only featured in combinations in a quarter of the examples.
Firstly, this indicates that meaning-focused input may not be an established
notion of what the teachers consider a vocabulary activity to be. Secondly,
it implies that the use of activities that support meaning-focused input, and
thus incidental learning, such as heavy exposure through extensive reading
and listening, should be encouraged in order to sustain successful vocabulary development, with a balance between intentional and incidental learning (Nation, 2008). Thirdly, plentiful meaning-focused input is believed to
be necessary for the development of learners’ output, meaning their spoken
and written language (Krashen, 1984).
In the categorisation process of the questionnaire responses, several
challenges were encountered. Firstly, the wording of the open-ended questionnaire item may have influenced the respondents’ answer, although the
concept “vocabulary activity” was intended to be as neutral as possible.
Traditionally, much attention is given to the intentional teaching approach
in Norwegian schools, by memorising words and having vocabulary tests,
using a textbook and the activities in it (Drew, 2004; Hestetræet, 2012). It
may therefore be the case that the wording “vocabulary activity” invited a
response with explicit vocabulary activities, not implicit ones, and may thus
have caused an overrepresentation of LFL responses.
ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012 • 7
A further challenge was categorising examples of reading in the material.
There was little teaching and learning context in the teachers’ responses,
and it was therefore difficult to distinguish between intensive and extensive reading. According to Nation (2008), intensive reading is an example of
LFL, but he also claims that reading for study purposes is MI. I have therefore interpreted intensive reading as both LFL and MI, having features from
both categories. Extensive reading is clearly an example of MI.
Yet another difficulty in categorising was the problem of prior identification (Rosch, 1978). In the case of ‘gloseprøve’, meaning vocabulary test, it
was unclear whether the teachers’ responses intended to include Norwegian-English/English-Norwegian translation, or words used in a context,
monolingually. The decision to categorise them as including translation is
thus an example of prior identification, based on the assumption that bilingual translation tests are used frequently in Norwegian schools, as indicated
in Drew (2004).
A final challenge in the categorisation process was the problem of examples being polysemous or having more than one meaning. For example,
what does the word text mean in the different responses? Is it a long text or
a short one? For what purpose is it read? Is it read extensively or intensively?
Here, textual and educational context was taken into consideration in order
to be able to decide on categories. This of course means that the concept of
text in the material varies with context, which is another problem usually
found in prototype categorisation (Rosch, 1978). It was difficult to remain
consistent throughout the categorisation process, particularly with items
that had features from several categories.
The results from the study have implications for teaching at two levels.
Firstly, it is important that future English teachers receive training in how
to teach vocabulary in a balanced and fruitful way, incorporating both incidental and intentional methods. Their prior perception of what vocabulary
teaching and learning is should be taken into consideration, so that they
can become aware of what their beliefs are and discuss and modify them as
they learn and understand more. Secondly, the results have implications for
the actual teaching of English vocabulary in the classroom. There appears
to be a need for more incidental learning, particularly through extensive
reading.
8 • ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012
Conclusion
Through the categorisation of 70 reported vocabulary activities used in 7th
grade English classrooms , this article adds to the currently limited research
on teacher cognition about how vocabulary is taught and learnt. A number
of challenges were encountered in the categorisation; the category boundaries were fuzzy and often difficult to decide on. However, the findings indicate a predominance of language-focused learning and few meaning-focused
input vocabulary activities. The data will be further analysed, categorising
all 341 responses and relating the responses to the closed-ended questions,
in order to provide a more complete picture of the teachers’ cognition in
relation to the teaching and learning of vocabulary.
EDITORS’ COMMENTS: Inspiration and ideas for teachers
• Think about different ways of presenting vocabulary and experiment with
these different ways in your classrooms.
• Reflect on how you learn new vocabulary in English or another language
and talk about your experience with your classes.
• Find out from the children which vocabulary games and activities they like
best and why; get the children involved in designing new games for one
another.
• Observe some colleagues and share ideas about vocabulary activities.
ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012 • 9
References
Barcroft, J., Sunderman, G. & Schmitt, N. (2011). Lexis. In J. Simpson
(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics. Milton Park:
Routledge.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of
research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do.
Language Teaching 36 (2), 81–109.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. Research and
practice. London: Continuum.
Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns. & J. Richards
(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education.
Cambridge: CUP.
Day, R.R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language
classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
de la Fuente, M.J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition.
Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction.
Langauge Teaching Research, 10(3), 263–295.
Drew, I. (2004). Survey of English teaching in Norwegian primary schools.
Læringssenteret, Stavanger University College.
Drew, I., & Hasselgreen, A. (2008). Young language learner (YLL)
research: An overview of some international and national approaches.
Acta Didactica, 2(1), 1–18.
Elley, W.B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: the effect of
book-based programs. Language Learning 41(3), 375–411.
Ellis, N.C. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London:
Academic Press.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current Developments in Second Language Reading
Research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375–406
Hasselgreen, A. (1993). Right words, wrong words and different words. Cand.
Philol. Thesis, University of Bergen.
Hedrick, W.B., Harmon, J. M., & Linerode, P.M. (2004). Teachers’ beliefs
and practices of vocabulary instruction with social studies textbooks in
grades 4–8. Reading Horizons, 45(2), 103–125.
Hestetræet , T. (2011). Categories and metaphors in qualitative research.
PhD paper, the University of Stavanger.
Hestetræet, T. (2012). Teacher cognition and the teaching and learning
of EFL vocabulary. In A. Hasselgreen, I. Drew & B. Sørheim (Eds.),
The young language learner. Research-based insights into teaching and
learning. (pp. 177–190). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
10 • ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012
Konopak, B. C., & Williams, N. L. (1994). Elementary teachers’ beliefs and
decisions about vocabulary learning and instruction. In C. K. Kinzer &
D. J. Leu (Eds.), 43rd Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.
485–495). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference, Inc.
Laufer, B. (2000). Task effect on instructed vocabulary learning: The
hypothesis of ‘involvement’. Selected Papers from AILA ’99 Tokyo 47–62.
Tokyo: Waseda University Press.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley
and Sons.
Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of
Swedish learners’ written English. Lund: Walhin and Dalholm.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
CUP.
Nation, I.S.P. (2004). Vocabulary learning and intensive Reading. EA
Journal, 21(2), 20–29.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and
listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63/1, 59–82.
Nation, I.S.P. (2008). Teaching vocabulary. Strategies and techniques. Boston:
Heinle.
Nation, I.S.P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage
and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy. (Eds.), Vocabulary.
Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: CUP.
Riemer, N. (2012). Introducing semantics. Cambridge: CUP.
Rixon, S. (2000). Collecting eagle’s eye date on the teaching of English to
young learners: The British Council overview. In J. Moon & M. Nikolov
(Eds.), Research into teaching English to young learners (pp. 153–170).
Pécs: University Press Pécs.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.),
Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning.
Language Teaching Research, 12/3: 329–363.
Taylor, J.R . (2003). Linguistic categorisation. Oxford: OUP.
ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012 • 11
Torill Hestetræet
University Lecturer, Doctoral research fellow,
Department of Cultural Studies and Languages, University of Stavanger, Norway
University lecturer in English language and didactics. My research interests include
vocabulary learning and teaching, teacher cognition, as well as language learning
in general. Currently I am writing a PhD dissertation on teachers’ beliefs practices
about the learning and teaching of English vocabulary among young language learners. I teach lexicology and vocabulary, grammar, phonetics and didactics.
12 • ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS – FORUM 2012