The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language

November 2017 – Volume 21, Number 3

EFL Vocabulary Acquisition through Word Cards: Student Perceptions

and Strategies

Darrell Wilkinson
Tokyo Woman’s Christian University, Tokyo, Japan
<[email protected]>

Abstract

Vocabulary knowledge plays an important role in second language proficiency, and learners
need to acquire thousands of words in order to become proficient in the target language. As
numerous studies have shown that incidental vocabulary acquisition is not sufficient on its own,
it is clear that learners must devote considerable time and effort to deliberate vocabulary study.
Vocabulary cards are a commonly used technique for deliberate vocabulary study; however,
there is currently a lack of qualitative research on learners’ perceptions of word cards, or the
extent to which individual learner preferences or study habits affect the efficacy of word cards.
Therefore, this study investigates students’ general perceptions of word cards, and examines
individual learner habits and practices when studying from their cards. Results suggest that
students view word cards positively and are aware of many of the benefits attributed to word
cards. However, data also highlights the fact that some learner strategies may negate some of
the benefits of word cards as set out in the literature.

Keywords: EFL, vocabulary, deliberate vocabulary learning, word cards, learner strategies

Introduction

There is little doubt that vocabulary knowledge plays an important role in second language
proficiency, and it is believed that learners need to acquire between 3,000 and 10,000 words to
become proficient in the target language (Hazenberg & Hulstijn, 1996; Hu & Nation, 2000;
Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010). Given the vast number of words that must be learned, it
is clear that learners must devote considerable amounts of time and effort to vocabulary study.
Although research suggests that some vocabulary can be learned incidentally (Elley &
Mangubhai, 1983; Horst et al., 1998; Waring & Takaki, 2003), it is clear that learners must
engage in deliberate vocabulary study if they are to make significant gains in relatively short
periods of time (Laufer & Rozovski-Roitblat, 2014; Mondria & Mondria-de Vries, 1994;
Nakata, 2008; Nation, 2013).

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 1

Vocabulary cards are a commonly used technique for deliberate vocabulary study, and the
efficacy of this method is supported by a growing body of research (Laufer, 2003; Nation, 2013;
Schmitt, 1997; and Wang, 2010). A variety of features have been given credit for the success
of learning from word cards including the affordances they offer for (a) expanded spaced
rehearsal, (b) active recall of the L2 word form and its meaning separately, and (c) eliminating
list effects or serial learning (Nakata, 2008; Nation & Webb, 2011). However, there are
currently very few, if any, qualitative studies concerning the extent to which individual learner
preferences impact the efficacy of word cards in terms of the three points mentioned above.
Currently, very little is known about what learners actually do with their word cards after
initially making them, or whether the way they are used is in line with the recommendations or
assumptions outlined in the word card literature. Therefore, this study aims to address this
important gap in the literature.

Literature Review

Importance of Vocabulary

There is little doubt that vocabulary knowledge plays a vital role in a learner’s ability to
proficiently use a foreign language (Laufer & Rozovski-Roitblat, 2014; Laufer & Shmueli,
1997; Nation, 2013; Nakata, 2008). There is a growing body of research showing positive
correlations between vocabulary size and L2 reading and listening ability (Anderson &
Freebody, 1981; Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Durgunoglu, 1997; Koda, 1989; Laufer, 1991,
1992, 2014; Nation, 2006; Qian, 1999, 2002). It also follows that it will be impossible to express
oneself clearly in spoken or written form without an adequate grasp of vocabulary (Astika,
1993; Engber, 1995; Olinghouse & Leaird, 2009; Laufer & Nation, 1995).

Number of Words Needed

Early research suggested that learners need to understand at least 95% of the words in a written
text if they are to gain reasonable comprehension (Laufer, 1989). However, Hu and Nation
(2000) concluded that 98% coverage was actually more suitable for successful comprehension
of written texts. In order to be able to understand 95-98% of written or spoken texts, learners
need a vocabulary size of anywhere between 3,000 and 10,000 words (Hazenberg & Hulstijn,
1996; Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010; Nation, 2006). Therefore, it
is clear that learners must devote considerable amounts of time and effort to learning foreign
language vocabulary if they wish to be able to communicate effectively in the target language.

Incidental and Intentional (Deliberate) Vocabulary Learning

From a pedagogical point of view, vocabulary acquisition is usually seen to take place either
incidentally or intentionally (Nation, 2013). Incidental vocabulary learning is defined as the
learning of vocabulary as a by-product of carrying out other activities, most commonly
extensive reading (Nation, 2013). On the other hand, intentional vocabulary learning involves
learners carrying out activities with the sole purpose of acquiring vocabulary. Typical activities
include using dictionaries before creating word lists, vocabulary notebooks, or word cards
(Nation, 2013; Nation & Webb, 2011; Schmitt, 1997). Intentional vocabulary learning is also

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 2

often referred to as deliberate vocabulary learning (Elgort, 2011; Nation, 2013), and this is the
term adopted in the rest of this paper.

Although research suggests that some vocabulary can be learned incidentally, the gains
attributed to this method are quite small (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983; Horst et al., 1998; Waring
& Takaki, 2003). However, numerous studies suggest that deliberate vocabulary learning can
be an effective way to make substantial vocabulary gains in relatively short periods of time
(Laufer & Rozovski-Roitblat, 2014; Nakata, 2008; Komachali & Khodareza, 2012; Schmitt &
Schmitt, 1995). Therefore, incidental study alone is not enough and learners must also carry
out regular and repeated deliberate vocabulary study if they are to master the thousands of
words needed for success in the target foreign language.

Deliberate Vocabulary Learning with Word Cards

Vocabulary cards are a time efficient and easy-to-use method of deliberate vocabulary study
(Nation, 2013). In their most basic form, word cards involve having the target language word
written on one side, with the native language version on the other (Nation & Webb, 2011).
However, depending on learner or teacher preferences, other information such as the part of
speech, collocations, or example sentences can also be included on the cards. Many language
teachers advocate the use of word cards as an efficient and effective method of deliberate
vocabulary study, a position which is backed up by a growing body of research-based evidence
(Komachali & Khodareza, 2012; Laufer, 2003; Nakata, 2008; Wang, 2010; Waring, 1997).
Generally, although learning from lists has proven to be a successful deliberate learning
technique (Hulstijn, 2001; Nation, 2013), studying from word cards has proven to be a more
effective method (Laufer, 2003; Nakata, 2008; Schmitt & Schmitt, 1995; Waring, 2004).

The success of word cards as a method of deliberate vocabulary study can be attributed to a
number of factors described by Nakata (2008) and nation (2013). Firstly, word cards allow for
active recall of the L2 word form and its meaning separately because each form is presented on
different sides. Secondly, expanded spaced rehearsal can be implemented more easily as
learners are able to divide cards into several decks, allowing them to review difficult or
unknown items more frequently than easy or better-known items. Thirdly, as words are
presented separately, no inappropriate help is given via the list effect, something that Nation
and Webb (2011) refer to as serial learning.

Gaps in the Literature

As can be seen from the literature review above, word cards have repeatedly proven to be an
efficient and successful technique for the deliberate study of foreign language vocabulary.
Much of this success has been credited to the characteristics of word cards and the affordances
they offer. However, very little qualitative research has been carried out investigating word
cards. To date, the research-based studies concerning word cards have almost all been
quantitative, cross-sectional, and carried out under experimental conditions instead of within
natural learning contexts (Nation & Webb, 2011). There are very few studies exploring
learners’ perceptions of vocabulary cards, and none examining the choices learners make when
using them. Therefore, it is not clear if learners’ perceptions or individual study choice support

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 3

or negate the theoretical benefits attributed to word cards. Currently, there are two main gaps
in the literature that warrant specific attention:

1. No qualitative studies were found that provided detailed data regarding learners’ general
perceptions of word cards as a deliberate study method. Only one study was found to
address the issue of learner perceptions in a somewhat qualitative way (Nakata, 2008),
and even this study did not use qualitative interviews, and presented data quantitatively.
This gap needs addressing because learner perceptions and feelings about a particular
study method can affect learner motivation, and thus impact learning outcomes. If
learners have a positive view of word cards, this could account for some of their success
reported in the various quantitative studies, and could further justify their use in
language learning programs. On the other hand, if learners display a lack of satisfaction
towards word cards, it could show that the benefits of the method need to be better
explained to students, or that learners should be given more autonomy in terms of which
deliberate study method they use.

2. No studies have been found that have investigated the extent to which learners actually
carry out expanded spaced retrieval by dividing their word cards into ‘known’ or
‘unknown’ packs. If qualitative data obtained from interviews, observations, and
surveys shows that learners are regularly and systematically separating their cards into
packs based on the extent to which words are perceived to be known, this would provide
practical, classroom-based support for this theoretical benefit. Conversely, if learners
prefer not to separate their packs, or do not focus more on new words, then no expanded
spaced retrieval would take place, and this theoretical benefit would be called into
question.

The Present Study

As seen above, there are currently very few if any studies showing how learners feel about word
cards in general, and although the affordances for expanded spaced rehearsal and lack of serial
learning are given a great deal of credit for the efficacy of word cards, there have been no
qualitative investigations to back this up. Only through in-depth qualitative investigation and
analysis can we begin to answer some important questions and better understand extent to
which learner differences may alter the efficacy of using word cards as a deliberate vocabulary
study method. The present study uses qualitative methods to answer the research questions
below:

Research Questions

1. How do learners perceive word cards as a deliberate vocabulary study method?

2. How do learners’ study choices relate to or affect the benefits of word cards described
in the literature above?
A. Expanded spaced retrieval
B. List effect/serial learning

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 4

Setting

The research was carried out in a private university in Western Tokyo. The university curricula,
regardless of faculty, has quite a strong emphasis on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) with
all students having the opportunity to take EFL classes for four years. In addition, there are
many study abroad opportunities, and the university has a variety of well-established self-
access language programs and facilities.

Participants

The participants were 17 Japanese university students aged between 18 and 19 who had all
studied English as a foreign language for at least six years before entering university. The
participants were volunteers from an original pool of 100 students. Ultimately, seven students
were selected to participate in the semi-structured interviews. This group of students had a good
command of the English language (i.e., the interviews were to be conducted in English), had a
balance of male and female participants, came from different departments, and had expressed
high motivation to learn English.

All of the participants were first year undergraduate students and had used word cards as part
of their course requirements for at least one semester. Within their course, the students’
vocabulary level was pre-tested. They were given a level-appropriate section of the Corpus of
Contemporary American English (COCA) and they self-selected words that they deemed to be
unknown and entered the relevant information about that word (L1 meaning, L2 form, example
sentence(s), and any other information they deemed as important) onto word cards. Overall, all
of the participants followed this method and had learned from at least 250 word cards prior to
the study.

Data Collection and Analysis

The primary method of data collection for the seven participants was one-to-one semi-
structured interviews. The interview data was then transcribed, analysed, and coded. In
addition, the interviewees’ word cards were also examined during the interview stage. After
analysis of the data, the remaining ten students, who were not interviewed, were emailed a short
questionnaire to help shed more light on some of the points raised during the interviews. This
questionnaire contained both Likert-scale and open-ended questions. Students were allowed to
answer the open-ended questions in Japanese or English, and all Japanese answers were
translated by a colleague.

Presentation and Analysis of Data

The following section presents interview and survey data, and provides interpretations of the
data analysis.

Research Question 1: How do learners perceive word cards as a deliberate vocabulary

study method?

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 5

General Perceptions of Word Cards. In terms of general perceptions of word cards as a
deliberate vocabulary learning technique, the interview and survey data intimates that learners
view word cards positively. The interview excerpts below represent some typical responses.

P1. Word cards are good, I think, good, good for me. I like this system very much … I
can learn many words quickly. … I can choose words I don’t know, it is good.

P2. It is good to learn new words and sentences, easy, quickly study many word. … I
can learn many words quickly, … it is also convenient.

P3. Cards are a good way to study quickly. I can learn word and sentence well … I can
know many new words and the way of using. … English words and sentences.

Similar opinions were given by three of the other four interviewees. Survey data gained from a
Likert-scale question asking participants to rate the efficiency of word cards supports the above
interview data. When answering the question ‘How efficient do you think word cards are to
study vocabulary (time efficiency, ease of use, etc.)?’ 70% of the participants rated word cards
as highly efficient (Mean = 4.1 out of 5). Responses to an open-ended follow up question asking
participants to provide reasons for their above ratings included similar answers to those
provided by the interviewees, for example, simple way to study, easy to make and carry, and
can learn many words quickly. One surprising point is that, despite the amount of time required
to make the cards, all participants believed that the vocabulary card method was a quick way
to learn new words. This finding is in line with the literature that views word cards as a
relatively quick and efficient method of deliberate vocabulary study (Nation, 2013; Nation &
Webb, 2011).

As learners appear to view the use of word cards positively, it was deemed important to find
out what features the participants particularly like or find most beneficial. The main findings
were that convenience and active recall were the two positive points most commonly stated by
the participants.

Convenience. All of the participants interviewed said that they find the word card system
convenient because they are easy to carry around and study from in various contexts. Typical
responses were as follows: they are convenient … easy to carry … I can study in bed, … in
library, … in class and on train. In addition, when asked to list the main advantages of word
cards on the survey emailed to the other participants, 70% of the respondents mentioned that
they felt they were convenient or easy to carry, and a number of participants specifically
mentioned that they liked the fact that they could study from the cards anywhere, for example,
on the train, or in the classroom before class.

Presentation of L2 form and L1 meaning separately. In addition to noting the convenience

factor, many of the interviewees mentioned that having the L1 and L2 words presented
separately (on different sides of the cards) was a positive feature of word cards.

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 6

 P1. I have to see one side and remember the other, it is difficult but good for me … I
can remember more easy next time. I see Japanese and have to remember word and
sentence, is good.

P2. When I see Japanese word, I have to remember the English one, is difficult but
helpful for me. … If I see together, like notebook, maybe I do not remember next time.

P5. I like this, must think hard … not easy … cannot see both sides at same time, is
good. Remembering sentence is good.

P7. I have to think about, remember the word on the other side of the card, it is good. I
remember words like this more. In textbook, words shown together, it is too easy …
don’t have to think.

The above results were also reflected in the survey data. When listing the advantages of word
cards on the survey, 60% of students stated that they thought that it was very good that they
could not see the Japanese and English forms of the words at the same time.

Research Question 2: How do learners’ study choices relate to or affect the benefits of
word cards described in the literature above?

The following data excerpts hopefully shed light on what it is that learners actually do when
studying from word cards. Specifically, the results aim to show how learners’ study choices
affect the two theoretical benefits of word cards referred to as expanded spaced retrieval, and
serial learning.

Expanded Spaced Retrieval. One of the main advantages or positive characteristics of word
cards discussed in the literature is the issue of expanded spaced retrieval (Nakata, 2008; Nation,
2013; Nation & Webb, 2011). This refers to the process whereby word cards can be sorted into
different packs, for example, known words, somewhat known, and unknown. Then, in
principle, learners can focus less attention on better known words by extending the time
between study periods of those words. The data excerpts below highlight some interesting
issues regarding expanded spaced retrieval.

While some of the participants seemed to practice the principle of expanded spaced retrieval, it
was not systematically expanded.

P3. Sometimes I only bring some cards, not all of them … If I know some words I can
leave them at home for that day’s study.

I. Ah, I see. What happens to the cards you leave at home, take out of the pack?

P3. I will study from them again at next, or next session, because, if I finish with them,
I think I forget them again. So, um, if I study them today and know them, or um get
good test score, maybe I not study for one week.

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 7

 I. How often do you take cards out of your pack like this? Why?

P3. Um, not often, maybe twice in a semester (long pause; no more information given)

I. Do you keep cards in separate packs?

P3. Ah, no, I put them back like this (shows me her cards: they are all numbered and in
order). I usually take out in group and then put back in same order. … Like this (shows
cards), I take out from here to here (1-50), and then put them back later

I. Why do you keep them together in order, and in one pack, why not in known and
unknown piles for example?

P3. I um, (laughs) I do not like shuffle so much. Like this way I have to, want to order
so I know, um, so I see which are old and new easy … I like to have them together
usually … because I can study all if have time … I like cards in time order.

It seems from the data above, that although Participant 3 does carry out spaced retrieval, it is
not done in an organised or planned manner, and is not really expanded spaced retrieval for a
number of reasons. The next data excerpt shown below provides more evidence to support these
interpretations.

I. How long after making the cards do you study them, and which cards do you study?

P3. Uhm, for example, maybe make on Wednesday, then study same day, then make
more on Friday or Saturday, then study new and old ones. Once a week, look at all. …
But, when I make new cards, I study those ones, plus go back to early ones. … Not
always have time to look at all, so I start with new ones and go backwards. But
sometimes I study from last (new) ones and all others. … I try to look at all at least once
a week. I spend more time on new cards, old ones I know so take less time, uhm, just
check.

First, although she does not study older or more known words as often as newer ones, the
maximum spaced retrieval seems to be around one week; it is not expanded to longer periods,
which is the basic premise or definition of expanded spaced retrieval as stated in the literature
(Nakata, 2008; Nation, 2013). Similar practices were also reported by four of the other
participants interviewed, all of whom said they generally try to look through all of the cards at
least once a week. In addition, the survey data gained from the question ‘How often do you
separate your cards into packs based on how well you know the words?’ showed that less than
20% of the students regularly separated their packs.

Serial Learning. In addition to showing a lack of expanded spaced retrieval, as the data
excerpts above also show that participant 1 always keeps the cards in order, and mostly in one
pack, this theoretically could lead to some list effect or serial learning. The literature (Nation,
2013; Nation & Webb 2011) mentions that one of the main advantages of word cards is that
they can be shuffled, or split into multiple decks, in order to prevent words from being presented

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 8

in the same order, thus avoiding serial learning. However, it can be seen above that this does
not seem to be the case for most learners in this study. Another example comes from participant
2 who stated “I do not like shuffling … I don’t separate into packs … I want to keep in same
order.” Further evidence of the risk of serial learning comes from another interviewee whose
cards, which were brought to the interview, were numbered and in order. This participant also
expressed an aversion to shuffling or separating into decks when he stated that he does not like
shuffling but likes “keeping in one pack, keeping together in number order.” Similar answers
were given by all of the interviewees, and survey data gained from the question ‘How often do
you shuffle your cards’ showed that only 2 students regularly shuffled their word card packs.
This is very surprising because as their teacher, I have often stressed the importance and benefit
of shuffling cards and not studying them in the same order each time.

This habit of keeping the cards in one pack, going through them in time or numerical order and
not shuffling goes against what is discussed in the literature regarding word cards protecting
against serial learning.

However, during interviews participants were tested for serial learning by asking if they could
recall the next word after looking at the previous one. No participant was able to recall the word
correctly, or even partially. Therefore, based on very rudimentary testing, it seems that even
though the participants were largely studying from their cards in the same order each time, word
cards are an effective way of avoiding serial learning.

Active Versus Passive Recall. Another of the advantages of word cards discussed in the
literature is that as information is presented on two sides, not next to each other, active recall
of the L2 form can be done after seeing the L1 meaning (Nakata, 2008; Nation, 2013). This is
believed to be more cognitively challenging and therefore likely to lead to better learning
outcomes than carrying out passive recall; looking at the L2 form and trying to recall the L1
meaning (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Laufer & Rozovski-Roitblat, 2014; Nation, 2013, Nation &
Webb, 2011).

Originally, this characteristic of word card design was not a focus of investigation in this study.
However, it was added because many of the participants discussed the issue without specific
prompting, and no previous studies were found that investigated whether learners carry out
active or passive recall form word cards.

The interview data below shows that the learner is aware that active recall is more difficult than
passive recall, and that she systematically chooses which type of recall to engage in.

I. OK, when you are studying the cards, if you are studying? Do you always need to
look at both sides?

P5. Yes, even if I know, uh think I know, I always check. It is best part for me. I see
English, I have to remember, um, then test, check other side to see if right, if I am
correct. Or see Japanese, must turnover to see if my remember English word is correct.

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 9

 I. Do you start with English word side or do you start with Japanese side)? Which side
do you look at first?

P5. Firstly, uh, I look at side English side, a few times do this, so, few time later I start
with side Japanese side.

I. When do you change from looking at the English side first to looking at the Japanese
side? Uh, why do you change?

P5. Yes, um, when I think I maybe know the words more, … then I change to Japanese
side.

I. Looking at the English and remembering the Japanese, or looking at Japanese and
remembering the English, which is most difficult?

P5. Um Japanese to English is more difficult. I have to look at Japanese, um which I

usually know, but then I have to think about English, um, mm, spelling, letters, uh
pronunciation. It is more difficult. Seeing English, all, then thinking Japanese much
easier.

From the above data, it can be seen that the student is consciously aware that active recall is
more cognitively challenging, and due to this knowledge, she seems to progress from the easier
method (passive recall) to the more difficult active recall method. She seems to do this in order
to systematically increase her knowledge and memory of that word. This learning student-
selected methodology was also reported by three other participants, for example:

P1. Yeah, first time is Japanese to English, then second time is same, but 3rd time is
Japanese to English (in each session).

P3. English to Japanese is easier for me, so I start like this a few times and then change
… start Japanese side to remember English word more.

P6. I don’t like trying to remember the English word, it is too hard. Looking at English
side is easy … but I do other way sometimes because I need it.

The above data intimates that not only are learners applying very good recall strategies, which
are in line with the advice or benefits described in the literature, but that they are also doing it
consciously with an understanding of the importance of doing so. Unfortunately, no survey data
was collected regarding this point as it was not a planned variable in this study.

Summary of Results

The research outlined in this paper addresses a number of gaps in the literature regarding word
card usage. Although much literature has cited expanded spaced retrieval, lack of serial
learning, and the affordance to actively recall the L1 form of a word from its L2 meaning
(Nakata, 2008; Nation, 2013; Nation & Webb, 2011), this is the first known study to provide

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 10

qualitative data regarding these issues. Therefore, although this study is very limited in terms
of the number of participants, the qualitative data highlights some interesting findings:

Firstly, in terms of learner perceptions, all of the learners viewed word cards in a positive light.
The majority of the participants interviewed and surveyed stated that they felt word cards were
a quick and effective method. In addition, all of the participants listed convenience as a major
benefit of word cards. Results also indicated that learners viewed being able to recall the L1
form and L2 meaning separately as an additional positive feature. Some participants
specifically stated that this was a major benefit of word cards over word lists or notebooks.

Secondly, the data presented in this paper indicate that although learners are engaged in
expanded spaced retrieval to an extent, they are not taking full advantage of this technique. For
example, learners in this study admitted to rarely separating cards into packs of known and
unknown words, and the period of spacing between the study of words perceived as known did
not go beyond one week. Therefore, it may be that learner’ study preferences could actually be
limiting the benefit of word cards in terms of their affordance for expanded spaced retrieval.

In addition, based on data obtained during the interviews, although learners rarely separate or
shuffle their pack when studying from them, this does not seem to result in any serial learning.
This intimates that even when learners do not follow some of the basic guidelines regarding
word card methodology, the design features of the card system are robust enough to prevent
serial learning.

Finally, without being specifically asked, learners specifically mentioned the issue of active
versus passive recall. Learners showed that (a) they are aware that active recall is more
cognitively challenging, and (b) due to this, they most often begin studying new words
passively before moving onto an active recall approach in subsequent study sessions.

Conclusions

From the qualitative data collected and analysed in this study, it appears that learners agree with
many of the benefits cited in the word card literature. First, word cards were viewed as a
convenient, time-efficient and effective method of deliberate vocabulary study. In addition,
learners also cited being able to recall the L1 form and L2 meaning separately as a positive
feature of word cards. However, some of the ways learners study from their cards goes against
the advice cited in the literature. One example of this is that learners are very reluctant to shuffle
or separate their word card packs. However, rudimentary testing indicated that there was no
evidence of serial learning, something which is believed to occur from other methods such as
lists or notebooks (Nation, 2013). Therefore, the design features of word cards seem robust
enough to protect against serial learning, even when learners do not follow the protocols
advocated in the literature. However, one of the most concerning results is that the practice of
engaging in expanded spaced retrieval seems to be somewhat limited at best. While some of
the participants seemed to practice the principle of spaced retrieval, it was not systematically
expanded over time. Overall, the results of this study lend support for the use of word cards,
but also indicate that significant and repeated learner training concerning how best to study
from the cards may be needed.

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 11

Limitations of the Study

There are clearly a number of limitations with this study, the biggest being the small sample
size, and the fact that all the participants were first-year Japanese students from one private
university. These issues seriously limit the generalizability of the results, therefore, further
research in different contexts is needed. In addition, the fact that learners had to complete
interviews in their second language may have limited the level of detail of their answers.

About the Author

Darrell Wilkinson is an Associate Professor in the Language Sciences Department at Tokyo

Woman’s Christian University. He has taught English in several countries including England,
Thailand, Vietnam and Japan. Darrell holds a number of practical teaching qualifications, an
MS.Ed.TESOL, and is currently working on his PhD in Applied Linguistics. His research
interests include vocabulary acquisition and testing, CLIL, learner autonomy, and teaching to
mixed-ability groups.

References

Anderson, J. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.),

Comprehension and teaching (pp.77-177). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Astika, G. G. (1993). Analytical assessment of foreign students’ writing. RELC Journal, 24,
61-72. doi:10.1177/003368829302400104

Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading:
Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 15–34.
Retrieved from: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/15.abstract

Durgunoglu, A. Y. (1997). Bilingual reading: Its components, development, and other issues.
In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism, (pp. 255-276). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language.

Language Learning, 61(2), 367-413. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00613.x

Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based

programs. Language Learning, 41, 375-411. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00611.x

Elley, W. B. (1989) Vocabulary Acquisition from Listening to Stories. Reading Research

Quarterly, 24(2), 174-187. doi:10.2307/747863

Elley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning.
Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67. doi:10.2307/747337

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 12

Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL
compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139-155. doi:10.1007/bf00197068

Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language

vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics,
17, 145–163. doi:10.1093/applin/17.2.145

Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second
language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207-223. Retrieved
from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/PastIssues/rfl112horst.pdf

Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403−430.
Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/PastIssues/rfl131hsuehchao.pdf

Hulstijn, J. (2001) Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: reappraisal
of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In: P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 258-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koda, K. (1989). The effects of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the development of L2

reading proficiency. Foreign Language Annals 22, 529-540. doi:10.1111/j.1944-
9720.1989.tb02780.x

Komachali, M. E., & Khodareza, M. (2012). The effect of using vocabulary flash card on
Iranian pre-university students’ vocabulary knowledge. International Education Studies, 5(3),
134-147. doi:10.5539/ies.v5n3p134

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for
the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4781.1989.tb05325.x

Kweon, S., & Kim, H. (2008). Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in
extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 191-215. Retrieved from
nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/October2008/kweon/kweon.pdf

Laufer, B. (2014). Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing: a

commentary on four studies for JALT vocabulary SIG. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction,
3(2), 38-46. doi:10.7820/vli.v03.2.laufer

Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most
vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review/
LaRevue canadienne des langues vivantes, 59, 567-587. doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.4.567

Laufer, B. (1992a). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In H. Bejoint &
P. L. J. Arnaud (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126-132). Basingstoke:
Macmillan.

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 13

Laufer, B. (1992b). Reading in a foreign language: How does L2 lexical knowledge interact
with the learner’s general academic ability? Journal of Research in Reading, 15, 126- 132.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.1992.tb00025.x

Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Laurén

& M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316-
323). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The
construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26. doi:10.1093/
applin/22.1.1

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written
production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.307

Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2014). Retention of new words: quantity of encounters,
quality of task, and degree of knowledge. Language Teaching Research, Special Issue:
Vocabulary Research and Pedagogy, 1-25. doi:10.1177/1362168814559797

Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G.C. (2010) . Lexical threshold revisited. Reading in a
foreign language 22(1), 15-30. Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2010/
articles/laufer.pdf

Laufer, B., & Shmuueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to
do with it? RELC Journal, 28(89), 89-108. doi:10.1177/003368829702800106

Liu, Y. (2013). Toward a comprehensive model of foreign language vocabulary learning: to

integrate instructed learning with incidental learning. Asian Social Science, 9:10, 142-151.
doi:10.5539/ass.v9n10p142

Mondria, J. A., & Mondria-de Vries, S. (1994). Efficiently memorizing words with the help of
word cards and “hand computer”: Theory and applications. System, 22(1), 47-57.
doi:10.1016/0346-251x(94)90039-6

Nakata, T. (2008). English vocabulary learning with word lists, word cards and computers:
implications from cognitive psychology research for optimal spaced learning. ReCALL, 20, 3-
20. doi:10.1017/s09583440080002

Nation, I.S.P, (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59-82. doi:10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59

Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Nation, I.S.P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA:
Heinle/Cengage.

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 14

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a
second language? Motivational orientations and self‐determination theory. Language Learning,
50(1), 57-85. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00111

Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary
and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 545 – 565. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z

Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic
novel: Do Things Fall Apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 1, 31-55. Retrieved from
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2010/articles/pellicersanchez.pdf

Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic
reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52, 513–536.
doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00193

Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in
reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282–308.
doi:10.3138/cmlr.56.2.282

Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language
Teaching Research, 12, 329-363. doi:10.1177/136216880808992

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In: N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (eds.),
Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199-227). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and
practical suggestions. ELT Journal, 49(2), 133-143. doi:10.1093/elt/49.2.133

Wang, Z. X. (2010). An Information Processing Model-based Research of Incidental

Vocabulary Learning. Foreign Language Research, 1, 108-112. Retrieved from
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/29412/17479

Waring, R. (2004). In defence of learning words in word pairs: but only when doing it the ‘right’
way! Retrieved from http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/vocab/principles/systematic_learning.htm

Waring, R. (1997). A study of receptive and productive learning from word cards. Studies in
Foreign Languages and Literature, 21, 94-114. Retrieved from
http://robwaring.org/papers/various/wordcard.html

Waring, R, & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from
reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15:2, 130-163. Retrieved from
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/October2003/waring/waring.html

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 15

Webb, W.B. (1962). The effects of prolonged learning on learning. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 1, 173-182. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(62)80026-7

Xun, M. (2006). Exploration of approaches to second vocabulary learning. Foreign Language

World, 1, 22-27. Retrieved from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/
download/29412/17479

Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of
frequency and contextual richness. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 740-752.
doi:10.3138/cmlr.57.4.541

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

TESL-EJ 21.3, November 2017 Wilkinson 16