Channels, Fall 2017

Page 36 Nanda • The L1 Context Embedding Method Though many of the methods with deep level processing that are mentioned above are intriguing, explaining each in depth is outside of the scope of this study. I will focus on perhaps the most reputable and widely studied method, the Keyword Method (Atkinson, 1975), along with a much less studied method which I have called the L1 Context Embedding Method. I will submit the Keyword Method as a type of champion for the established methods of vocabulary instruction, against which to pit the L1 Context Embedding Method and see if it merits the attention of foreign language instructors. The Keyword Method As originally conceived by Richard Atkinson (Atkinson, 1975) the Keyword Method is a two-step process of learning L2 vocabulary which involves associating the novel L2 word with an L1 keyword that is acoustically or orthographically similar, and then connecting the L1 keyword with the translation of the novel L2 word (Pressley, Levin, & Delaney, 1982; Sagarra & Alba, 2006). For example, the L2 word bandera means “flag.” Bandera looks and sounds like the L1 word band , so we may employ the word band as the keyword and create this sentence which evokes an image: “The marching band carries flags of many different countries.” The vocabulary word, translation, and sentence can also be accompanied by a sample image that the sentence may elicit in one’s mind. The Keyword Method is one of many types of mnemonic methods. As Pressley, Levin, and Delaney (1982) note, “Atkinson did not really invent the keyword method, similar ideas date way back, but he named it and jump started a lot of the research” (p. 62). Therefore, it is similar to the method from my personal experience related above, except that it is usually considered a tool for learning vocabulary in an L2. I use the Keyword Method in this study as opposed to other mnemonic methods because of the high commendations it has received and the wealth of research available on it. Since Atkinson’s original work on the Keyword Method, researchers have compared its effectiveness with many other vocabulary learning techniques. It has been shown to be far superior to rote memorization (Rodriguez & Sadoski, 2000; Sadoski & Avila, 1996; Sagarra & Alba, 2006; Van Hell & Mahn, 1997). It has also proven more effective than other methods incorporating deeper level processing: it has excelled over visual imagery (Levin, McCormick, Miller, Berry, & Pressley, 1982), imagining the word’s meaning (Pressley, Levin, Kuiper, Bryant, & Michener, 1982). semantic mapping (Sagarra & Alba, 2006), and presenting vocabulary in an L2 context (Brown & Perry, 1991; Moore & Surber, 1992; Pressley, Levin, & Miller, 1982; Rodriguez & Sadoski, 2000). The Keyword Method does have some weaknesses. It is most efficient with high imageability words and concrete, rather than abstract, vocabulary (Sagarra & Alba, 2006; Wei, 2015). It also lacks the ability to provide context for the student. As such, the student may effectively learn the novel word but may not have enough knowledge of its collocations to use it proficiently (Sagarra & Alba, 2006). To account for this, I have attempted in this study to select target words which I have judged to be appropriate for both methods.