Author
University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Keywords
Main Subjects
Introduction
Although research on language attrition has
concentrated on the possible causes of
forgetting all or parts of second language
skills, it has a little to say about the
strategies and techniques that can be
employed to prevent it (Brown, 2014).
Forgetting all materials especially newly
learned vocabulary elements is what
teachers usually observe and students
usually complain about (Schmitt, 2000,
2010). Schmitt (2000) believes that
vocabulary knowledge is not an exception
and lexical knowledge is even more prone to
forgetting than other linguistic elements
such as phonology and grammar. It happens
because "vocabulary is made up of
individual units rather than a series of
rules"(Schmitt, 2010, p.23). In many
countries such as Iran, the use of English for
all students especially for ESP (English for
Specific Purposes) students is usually
limited to English classes. This condition
makes vocabulary learning even more
difficult and leads to more vocabulary
forgetting due to the infrequency of input
and lack of enough exposure to language
(Amiryousefi, Vahid Dastjerdi , & Tavakoli,
2012; Brown, 2014). Acquiring enough
English vocabulary to perform well in
academic reading and writing tasks expected
of ESP students is, therefore, a huge
challenge for many of them, and it is why
they consider vocabulary learning an
intractable challenge.
To help students to retain the learned
elements for a longer period of time,
mnemonic devices have been developed.
Mnemonic devices are those memory
enhancing instructional strategies through
which new information is linked or pegged
to the already existing information to make
stronger connections. Research
(Amiryousefi & Ketabi, 2011; Mastropieri
&Scruggs, 1989; Schumaker & Deshler,
1994) has shown that mnemonic devices can
also help language learners learn and retain
vocabulary elements more effectively and
hence minimize vocabulary attrition or
forgetting. By the use of mnemonic devices
or strategies, language learners can relate
new words to their existing web of
information using some form of imagery or
grouping.
However, there are individual differences
among language learners and students, and
they may tend to use and benefit from those
strategies which are based on their
psychosocial predispositions, needs and
interests (Amiryousefi et al., 2012).
Teachers, consequently, need to use various
methods and strategies if they want to make
their classes more effective and more
interesting (Fritz, Morris, Acton, Voelkel, &
Etkind, 2007; Sagarra & Alba, 2006;
Tomlinson, 2010).
The present study is, therefore, an attempt to
delve more into the above-mentioned issues
by exploring the effects of the multiple-mnemonic method on the Iranian ESP
students’ vocabulary development and
retention.
Individual differences in language
learning
Ever since its existence, experts (Armstrong,
2009; Dörnyei, 2005; Visser, Ashton, &
Vernon, 2006) in the field of
psycholinguistics have tried to follow two
contradictory objectives, namely
determining the general characteristics of
language learners and at the same time
dealing with the individual differences
existing among them. These experts believe
that language learners are different from
each other. They, for example, have
different and varied levels of intelligences,
motivation, anxiety, life experiences and
world knowledge which can interact with
the input and instructions presented to them
and affect the mental processes involved
(Grey, Williams, & Rebuschat, 2015). These
differences can be caused because of the
differences in:
1. biological endowment—including
hereditary or genetic factors and insults
or injuries to the brain before, during,
and after birth; 2.personal life history—
including experiences with parents,
teachers, peers, friends, and others …;
3.cultural and historical background—
including the time and place in which
you were born and raised and the nature
and state of cultural or historical
developments in different domains
(Armstrong, 2009, p.27).
In the same fashion, Graham (2009) believes
that students also have different learning
styles and tend to learn differently despite
their common grade, age, or academic level.
These differences can be seen in the use of
mnemonic devices too. Boers and
Lindstromberg (2008), for example, believe
that “high imagers” perform better than
those students who have a "verbalizing
style" in the use of mnemonic devices which
involve pictorials (p.194).The notions of
individuality and individual differences are
also supported by the tenets put forth by
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT),
Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 2004), and
Differentiated Instruction (Tomlinson,
2010). Based on the underlying theories and
principles of these approaches, students are
varied in terms of characteristics such as
motivation, interests and intelligences, and a
"one-size-fits-all" language learning
approach cannot be successful
(Kumaravadivelu, 2009, p.28). Therefore,
classroom instructions and procedures
should be based on students' needs and
aspirations, and should be applied in a way
that can involve more students rather than to
be suitable for "an intellectual
elite"(Macaro, 2001, p.268). Accordingly,
teachers and educational planners need to
resort to a wide range of teaching strategies,
materials, curricula and lesson plans in a
way that all students can have their
predispositions addressed at least some of
the time in the classroom (Armstrong,
2009).
Mnemonics
An important aim of research in the area of
vocabulary learning and teaching is to find
ways to minimize vocabulary forgetting and
to maximize the transference of lexical items
from the short-term memory to the more
permanent long-term memory which is
considered to be the most important
objective of vocabulary learning (Schmitt,
2000). This is for this reason that mnemonic
devices are for long proposed and studied in
the literature. Mnemonic devices have been
the most popular vocabulary learning
strategies which are believed to provide
substantial contribution to vocabulary
development and retention and to decrease
vocabulary forgetting. They belong to a
group of mental strategies devised to help
learners to remember learned vocabulary
items for longer periods of time
(Amiryousefi & Ketabi, 2011; Amiryousefi
et al., 2012; Levin, 1993; Solso, 1995).
Aitchison (2002) believes that our mind is
like the London Underground System. It
means that information stored in the brain is
linked in different ways like a spider's web.
The general picture of the mental lexicon,
according to him, is one in which there are a
variety of links between words, some strong,
some weak. The main way to transfer
vocabulary items from short-term memory
to long-term memory, the ultimate purpose
of vocabulary learning and teaching, and
create a strong connection is to find some
elements in the mental lexicon to attach the
new lexical items to (Amiryousefi & Ketabi,
2011; Schmitt, 2000;). Mnemonic devices
are techniques, either verbal or visual in
nature, that serve to improve the storage and
the recall of new information by
meaningfully relating it to what is already
known. By the use of mnemonic devices,
teachers can relate new lexical items to
information students already have in their
long-term memory and hence improve
vocabulary learning and recall, and decrease
vocabulary forgetting (Amiryousefi &
Ketabi, 2011; Thompson, 1987).
Different types and classifications of
mnemonic devices have been proposed
throughout the literature. Thompson (1987),
for example, classifies mnemonic strategies
into five classes, namely linguistics, spatial,
visual, physical response and verbal
methods. Oxford (1990), on the other hand,
identifies four major strategies, namely
creating a mental linkage, applying images
and sounds, reviewing well, and employing
action. While Baddeley (1999) believes that
mnemonic devices are classified into visual
imagery strategies and verbal strategies. The
major mnemonic devices proposed and
studied in the literature are the loci method,
the key word method, the visualization
method, the pegword method, the
storytelling method, the picture method and
the translation method (Amiryousefi &
Ketabi, 2011).
Multiple-mnemonic method
As mentioned earlier, due to the existence of
individual differences, all the students may
not be able to use all the mnemonic devices
well and benefit from them equally.
Different students may, consequently, prefer
different mnemonic devices (Amiryousefi et
al., 2012). To attend to this issue in the area
of vocabulary learning and teaching in the
context of ESP (English for Specific
Purposes), multiple-mnemonic method was
used in this study. The multiple-mnemonic
method does not support the use of a single
strategy, but several strategies which are
selected based on the nature of the classes
and needs and interests of the learners.
Through the multiple-mnemonic method,
teachers can present several strategies at
once and encourage students to use the
one/ones which they find more interesting
and useful.
In the present study a combination of the
following mnemonic devices was used
based on the nature of the Iranian ESP
classes and students: 1) the loci method in
which students imagine a very familiar place
like a room or a house and then associate
each new word to a part of it to be
remembered. In other words, the students
take an imaginary walk along their familiar
places and retrieve the items they have put
there.
As people's experiences are different,
students may come up with different
pictures; 2) the visualization method in
which students imagine a picture or a scene
which is associated with the target word. Its
difference with the method of loci is that in
visualization for each word a picture or a
scene is imagined while in the method of
loci several words are related to a familiar
place and seen as an imaginary walk through
that place; 3) the storytelling method in
which students link the words together in a
story. At first they should associate the
target words to a topic or some topics, and
then they should connect them by making up
a story containing the words and 4) pegword
method in which students relate the new
lexical elements to easily memorable items
which act as pegs or hooks. Pegword
method has two stages. At first, students are
asked to remember 10 number-rhyme pairs
like "one is bun or john, two is shoe, and
three is tree". In the second stage, the
students are asked to visualize the words and
try to link them to the rhyming words. The
words are, therefore, learned in a composite
picture of the given word and the peg
(Amiryousefi & Ketabi, 2011; Amiryousefi
et al., 2012; Eysenck, 1994; Groeger, 1997;
Holden, 1999; Mirhassani & Eghtesadei,
2007; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).
Vocabulary depth and size and the
related measurement tools
A distinction has been made by the
researchers in the field of vocabulary
learning and teaching (Akbarian, 2010;
Amiryousefi, 2015; Haastrup & Henriksen,
2000; Meara, 1996; Nassaji, 2004; Read,
2000) between two aspects of vocabulary
knowledge, namely size and depth. Size of
vocabulary knowledge is defined as the
number of words known by a language
learner at a specific level of proficiency.
Depth of vocabulary knowledge, on the
other hand, refers to the quality of
vocabulary knowledge possessed by a
language learner or how well he/she knows
different aspects of a word such as
pronunciation, spelling, register and stylistic
aspects and semantic relations with other
vocabulary elements, and how well he/she
can use it with semantics and pragmatics
appropriateness.
Various assessment tools such as
Vocabulary Size Test (Meara & Jones,
1990) , Level’s Test (Nation, 2001),
Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS)
(Paribakht & Wesche, 1993a, 1993b;
Wesche & Paribakht, 1996), Word
Associates Test (WAT) (Read, 1993, 1995,
2000), V-Links test (Wolter, 2005) and
Extended Vocabulary Knowledge Scale
(EVKS) (Amiryousefi et al., 2012;
Amiryousefi, 2015) have been developed
and used in the literature to measure these
two aspects of vocabulary knowledge. These
measurement tools have their own merits
and demerits. Vocabulary Size Test and
Level's Test are, for example, used as
measurement tools of the size of vocabulary
knowledge and cannot be used to measure
vocabulary depth (Amiryousefi, 2015). VKS
is the most quoted word knowledge test in
the literature which measures vocabulary
knowledge in different degrees or levels.
Some scholars such as Wolter (2005) have,
however, voiced their criticism against it.
They believe that it does not measure
multiple meanings of a word and word
relations such as synonymy and collocations
(Milton, 2009).Word Associate Test is also a
measure of the depth of vocabulary
knowledge which is based on the principle
of word association. Its problem is that it
can be used for the words that appear well-connected like "sudden"(figure1). It cannot,
however, be used appropriately with the
words like "circuit" in this study that are
much more restricted in their use and do not
collocate so widely, or may not appear to
associate in the same way as words like
"sudden" do (Milton, 2009).
EVKS (Amiryousefi et al., 2012) was
developed to study the effects of vocabulary
knowledge on EAP (English for academic
purposes) students' reading comprehension
and reading strategy use. Amiryousefi
(2015) also used it to assess the vocabulary
knowledge of the ESP students. EVKS is the
extended form of VKS (Paribakht &
Wesche, 1993a, 1993b; Wesche &
Paribakht, 1996) which is believed to
measure both aspects of vocabulary
knowledge in levels or degrees.
Research questions
The questions addressed in this study are:
Q1. Can multiple-mnemonic method
result in greater vocabulary
development and retention among
ESP students?
Q2. What are the Iranian ESP
students 'attitudes toward the
multiple-mnemonic method?
Method
Participants
To carry out the study, at first two intact
ESP classes at Isfahan University of
Technology were selected. These students
took an ESP class in fall 2014 and their field
of study was Electrical Engineering. Their
level of proficiency was assessed and
controlled based on the results of an Oxford
Placement Test (OPT henceforth) given to
them prior to the study. As it is impossible
to change the arrangements of the classes in
Iranian universities, those students who did
not match the others in terms of proficiency
could not be discarded from the class, but
their data (scores, responses to the
questionnaires, etc.) were not collected and
analyzed not to affect the results.
The students involved in the study were at
the intermediate level based on their scores
on OPT. Table1 represents the number of
the students present in each class and the
number of the students involved. In one of
the classes the multiple-mnemonic method
was used to teach the given vocabulary
items and the next class served as the control
group. The students in the control group and
the students in the multiple-mnemonic
method group did not meet each other
during the study, and were not aware that
their performance would be compared.
However, the students were informed about
the study and were asked to sign a written
consent if they were willing to participate.
Instruments
Extended Vocabulary Knowledge Scale
(EVKS)
Extended Vocabulary Knowledge Scale
(EVKS) (Amiryousefi et al., 2012;
Amiryousefi, 2015) was used in the study to
measure the subjects' vocabulary
knowledge. EVKS is an extended version of
VKS (Paribakht & Wesche, 1993a, 1993b;
Wesche & Paribakht, 1996). To compensate
for the problems attributed to VKS by
scholars such as Wolter (2005) and Milton
(20090 as not being able to measure word
relations and multiple meanings,
Amiryousefi et al. (2012) and Amiryousefi
(2015) added three self –report items (items
5, 6, and 7, Table 2) to it and classified the
items into two major categories, namely size
and depth. Its advantage over VKS is that it
can better assess different aspects of
vocabulary knowledge. Its advantage over
WAT is that it can be used with academic
words such as "aggregate, alloy, charge"
( words used in the present study) that do
not associate and collocate well with other
words and cannot be tested appropriately
using a fixed set of associations and
collocations used in WAT.
As shown in Table 2, EVKS has two major
parts: vocabulary size part and vocabulary
depth part. Vocabulary size part measures
the size of vocabulary knowledge in four
levels ranging from total unfamiliarity to the
ability of providing the correct meaning of
the intended word.
The size part determines the familiarity or
non-familiarity of the subjects with the
given word based on their responses to four
response categories available. If the first
response category is selected, it shows that
the given word is totally unfamiliar. The
second respond category, however, shows a
very loose remembrance of the word form
but not its meaning. By selecting this
category the subjects indeed report that the
form is rather familiar but the meaning is
not. As the purpose of vocabulary teaching
is to help students to get familiar with the
form and meaning of a word on one side
(vocabulary size) and its other meanings,
relations with other words and its usage on
the other side (vocabulary depth), the first
and the second response categories of the
size part do not have any specific values in
this regard. In the scoring procedure no
point is, therefore, assigned to them. The
third and the fourth categories of this part
ask the subjects to provide an English
definition and/or a L1 equivalent for the
given word. Response category number
three is selected if the subjects know the
meaning of the given word but they are not
sure of it. If the answer is correct in the
scoring procedure point one is given to it.
The selection of response category number
four shows that they know the meaning and
they are sure it is correct. As it shows a
rather higher level of learning in the scoring
procedure point two is given to it if the
provided answer is correct. The minimum
score for this part will be zero and the
maximum will be two.
The vocabulary depth part of EVKS is,
however, intended to examine the aspects of
word meanings and subjects' depth of lexical
knowledge. This part has four response
categories each of which measures a specific
aspect of depth of vocabulary knowledge
including multiple meanings of the word
(response category number 5), its relation
with other words by asking for its synonyms
and/or antonyms (response category number
6), its collocations (response category
number 7), and the ability to use the word in
a sentence with grammatical and semantic
correctness (response category number 8).
For each item of the depth part of EVKS one
point is assigned except for number four to
which two points are given, one for
grammatical and the other for semantic
correctness of the given word in the
sentence provided.
EVKS reliability and validity indexes
Amiryousefi et al. (2012) and Amiryousefi
(2015) checked the content validity of the
test through expert judgment and its
reliability through test re-tests method with
the correlation of 0.91. To further check the
content validity of EVKS, it was mailed to
10 experts in the field whose expertise is
vocabulary teaching and learning. They
were informed about the nature, the purpose
and the scoring procedure of the test and
were asked to send back their comments. 7
out of 8 experts replied believed that it is
well-designed and can appropriately be used
for the purpose defined. However, they
suggested some changes in the wording of
the test which were applied and the revised
version was used in the present study.
To further explore its reliability, it was given
to a group of 33 ESP students who were
comparable to the participants of the study
and the following results were obtained. As
shown in Table 3, α is bigger than 0.7 for
both the size part and depth part of EVKS
which shows the reliability of the instrument
used.
The words were listed and for each word
eight options were provided. The subjects
were also given an instruction in Farsi, their
mother tongue, to help them know how to
complete EVKS. It was used in the study
and scored twice after it was completed by
the subjects. Once each part (the size part
and the depth part) was scored separately to
assess the subjects' size and depth of
vocabulary knowledge, and then these two
scores were added together to arrive at a
general score for the subjects' vocabulary
development (overall vocabulary score).
The survey
Galloway, Conner and Pope (2013) and
Scruggs and Mastropieri (1992) believe that
students and teachers are the most important
agents in all educational contexts but their
attitudes are not usually attended to in the
studies done on them. Schmitt (2010) also
believes that vocabulary learning is cyclical
and it begins with "an Initial Appraisal of
Vocabulary Learning Experience" which is
described as learners' values, interests and
desires toward vocabulary learning tasks and
activities (p.94). In order to explore the
subjects' attitudes toward the multiple-mnemonic method used in this study, three
questions were given to the subjects at the
end of the study. The questions evaluating
the subjects' attitudes were taken from
Mnemonic Attitude Survey (MAS)
(Richmond, 2006). Students rated each
question on a five-point Likert scale with the
anchor points of 1: very unpleasant to 5:
very enjoyable for question number one
which asked if the subjects enjoyed the
multiple-mnemonic method; 1: very unlikely
to 5: very likely for question number two
which asked if the subjects intended to use
the multiple-mnemonic method again; and
1: very ineffective to 5: very effective for
question number three which asked if the
subjects thought the multiple-mnemonic
method was effective.
Procedures
At first, around 75 novel words were
selected from English for Electrical
Engineering (Amiryousefi & Rezaei, 2013),
the book taught to Electrical Engineering
students at Isfahan University of
Technology, and their novelty was tested
two weeks before the study. The subjects
were given a list of the words and were
asked to mark those which were familiar to
them and write down their meaning in Farsi.
Those words which were familiar to the
majority of the subjects were omitted and
finally 64 words remained as the target
words of the study.
In the experimental group, at first an
introductory session was held before the
study to instruct the subjects how to use the
selected mnemonic devices (the loci method,
the visualization method, the story telling
method and the pegword method). During
the study, the target words were taught in
three steps. In step 1, the students were
provided with a list of the new words along
with a brief and understandable definition,
one or more examples and when possible
synonyms, antonyms and some collocations
for each word. The words and the
accompanying information were read out
and described to the subjects. The subjects
were sometimes asked to give their own
synonyms, antonyms, collocations and/or
other meanings, and were encouraged to use
the target words in sentences. The purpose
of this part was to provide a context which is
deemed essential for vocabulary learning
and mnemonic instruction (Atay &
Ozbulgan, 2007). In step two, the available
mnemonic devices were reviewed and the
subjects were required to apply the one/ones
they favored to learn the new words better.
In step three, some of the students were
called to show what strategies they used and
how they used them. The students were
helped out if needed. In the control group,
instead of step two and three the given
words and the accompanying examples
were, however, reviewed and the students
were asked to read out the words from the
list or to make their own examples.
In each group the EVKS was given to the
subjects twice, once immediately after the
instruction to measure their vocabulary
development and once two weeks after it to
measure their vocabulary retention. At the
end of the study MAS was given to the
subjects in the experimental group. The
study lasted eight sessions.
Results
To answer the research questions, the
subjects' responses to different parts of
EVKS were scored using the procedures
described earlier. Then, the collected data
were analyzed by the use of the statistical
package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 16 and the following results were
obtained. Table 4 represents the descriptive
statistics of the subjects' scores. The scores
obtained from the size and the depth parts of
EVKS were converted to a scale of 200 to
achieve scoring consistency. Therefore, the
size and the depth scores are out of 200 and
the overall scores are out of 400. Number1
after the vocabulary scores represents the
vocabulary scores on EVKS given to the
subjects at time 1, immediately after the
instruction, to measure their vocabulary
development or gain, while number 2 is used
for the vocabulary sores on EVKS at time 2
given to the subjects two weeks after the
instruction to measure their vocabulary
retention. As it is shown, the mean scores of
the vocabulary size, vocabulary depth and
overall vocabulary are higher for the
multiple-mnemonic method group.
To ensure sample homogeneity,
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test was used. As
shown in Table 5, all significant values are
bigger than 0.05 which represent sample
homogeneity.
To answer question number one, a series of
independent T-tests was used to compare the
subjects' scores in the multiple-mnemonic
method group with the subjects' scores in the
control group on the EVKS (vocabulary size
scores, vocabulary depth scores and their
overall vocabulary scores) at time 1 and at
time 2.
As shown in table 6, Sig. (2-Tailed) values
are less than 0.05 for all the parts
representing a statistically significant
difference between the multiple-mnemonic
method group and the control group in all
the scores obtained from EVKS both at time
1 and time 2. By examining the mean scores
shown in Table 5 it can be understood that
the mean scores of the subjects in the
multiple-mnemonic method group are
higher. It can, therefore, be concluded that
the subjects in the multiple-mnemonic
method group outperformed the subjects in
the control group in all aspects of
vocabulary knowledge, namely vocabulary
size, vocabulary depth and the overall
vocabulary knowledge both at time 1 and
time 2.
To answer question number two, the
frequency of the subjects' responses in the
multiple-mnemonic method group to MAS
was calculated. The results showed that 72%
of the subjects selected very enjoyable and
enjoyable for question number one showing
that the multiple-mnemonic method can be
an enjoyable strategy for ESP students. For
question number 2, the results were
somehow different. 49% of the subjects
selected very likely and likely, 11% had no
idea and 42% selected unlikely representing
that around half of the subjects intended to
use it for their future vocabulary learning.
Their responses to question number three
also represented that 67% of the subjects
selected very effective and effective
showing that most of them believed that the
multiple-mnemonic method is an effective
strategy for vocabulary learning.
Conclusion and discussion
The results of the analysis of the data
obtained from the study showed that the
subjects in the multiple-mnemonic method
group significantly performed better than the
subjects in the control group in terms of
vocabulary development and retention. The
results also showed that the subjects found
the multiple-mnemonic method an enjoyable
and effective practice and around half of
them liked to use it for their future
vocabulary learning.
The results of the study are somehow in line
with both the discussions presented in the
area of vocabulary learning strategies
(VLSs) and the discussions presented in the
area of psycholinguistics. Scholars in the
area of VLSs (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Gu,
2005; Hatch & Brown, 1995; Kim, 2008;
Lin, 2008; Moir & Nation, 2002, 2008;
Nation, 2001, 2005; Schmitt, 2000; Schmitt,
2010; Takac, 2000) believe that VLSs have
a facilitative role in vocabulary learning and
can help learners both in discovering the
meaning of a word and consolidating it, and
are especially needed when language
learners are encouraged to act
independently. The results of this study also
showed that mnemonic devices, as a major
group of VLSs, can improve vocabulary
learning and retention.
Experts in the area of psycholinguistics
(Armstrong, 2009; Visser et al., 2006) also
believe that there are individual differences
among students in each class that need to be
taken into account. They, for example,
believe that students have different and
varied levels of intelligences, motivation,
anxiety, life experiences and world
knowledge. Teachers, therefore, need to
resort to varied instructions, strategies and
modified contents to meet students' diverse
needs and interests, and create a classroom
where everyone can be successful despite a
variance in levels, needs and styles
(Tomlinson, 2010).
The reason why the subjects in the multiple-mnemonic method group significantly
performed better than the subjects in the
control group in terms of vocabulary
development and retention can be attributed
to the fact that ESP students are also varied
in terms of factors such as interests,
capabilities and intelligences. By learning
vocabulary through the multiple-mnemonic
method, they have the chance to use those
mnemonic devices in which they are
interested. In this way, their individuality is
better addressed than in an instruction in
which all the students have to use the same
strategy.
The subjects also had positive attitudes
toward the multiple-mnemonic method
which represents their appraisal for it. As
Schmitt (2010) puts forth, the appraisal of
the vocabulary learning experience can lead
to an increase in the capacity for vocabulary
development. Dörnyei (2005) also believes
that students' preferences can affect their
functioning. He believes that students'
attributes such as motivation, aptitude and
cognitive styles determine the amount of
effort they choose to put into improving
their own learning, and individualized
strategies, techniques and activities help
them excel their active participation in the
learning process.
The reason why the subjects in the multiple-mnemonic method group performed better
and liked the experience they had can be
attributed to the fact that through the
multiple-mnemonic method they had the
chance to choose and use those strategies
which were based on their attributes and
styles.
The multiple-mnemonic method developed
in this study by the researcher is, therefore, a
way of addressing the notion of individuality
in the area of vocabulary learning and
teaching. It supports the fact that students
have varied needs, interests and attributes,
and these factors affect their strategy
preferences (Lewis & Hurd, 2008). The
multiple-mnemonic method does not,
however, consist of a set of fixed mnemonic
devices. It leaves room for creativity,
individuality and contextualization.
Limitations of the study
Although efforts were made to follow
rigorous procedures for data collection and
data analysis, the study suffered from some
limitations. The present study used intact
groups of ESP students due to the problems
stated earlier. It was also impossible to have
more subjects to be assigned to other groups
and to employ only one of the mnemonics
used in the multiple-mnemonic method in
each of them to compare the performance of
the subjects in the multiple-mnemonic
method group with the performance of the
subjects in these groups to see if the same
results can be obtained with each of the
mnemonics too.
)