The Effect of Mnemonic and Mapping Techniques on L2 Vocabulary Learning

1. Introduction
Vocabulary  learning  is  an  essential  ingredient  in  English  learning  because  vocabulary
constitutes  a  fundamental  basis  of  English  sentences.  Learning  English  encompasses
memorization,  practice,  repetition  and  recall  of  large-scale  word  lists;  learners  have  to  pay
closer  attention  to  vocabulary  because  without  vocabulary  knowledge,  meaning  cannot  be
understood (Chen & Chung, 2008). One of the major responsibilities of language instructors

is  to  improve  the  learning  conditions,  and  to  use  more  effective  activities  to  facilitate
students’ vocabulary learning. 
One  of  the  most  important  areas  in  ESL/EFL  research  pivots  round  the  issue  of  the
most  effective  techniques  of  vocabulary  teaching.  There  has  been  considerable  research  on
the ways to help students to retain vocabulary items (Khosravizadeh & Mollaei, 2011). Many
studies  offer  strategies  for  English  vocabulary  learning  to  improve  students’  learning.
Although many studies  have been conducted on the effects of the keyword method, the peg
word  method,  the  loci  method,  argument  mapping,  concept  mapping  and  mind  mapping
(Bakken  &  Simpson,  2011;  Pishghadam,  &  Ghanizadeh,  2006;  Richmond,  Cummings,  &
Klapp,  2008),  these  techniques  have  rarely  been  compared  together.  There  is  controversy
about  the  relative  effectiveness  of  each  of  these  techniques  in  comparison  with  the  others
(Hoffmann,  2010).  There  seems  to  be  a  paucity  of  research  on  this  issue,  and  this  study
attempts  to  bridge  part  of  this  gap  by  investigating  the  effect  of  mnemonic  and  mapping
techniques on L2 vocabulary comprehension and production. 
 
2. Review of literature
Over  the  past  few  decades,  a  massive  amount  of  research  has  been  conducted  on  numerous
aspects  of  vocabulary  learning  strategies  (Asgari  &  Ghazali  Bin,  2011;  Khosravizadeh,  &
Mollaei, 2011). Bakken and Simpson (2011) hold that different vocabulary learning strategies
have  superiority  over  traditional  instructions  in  terms  of  increasing  word  consciousness  and
word  analysis.  Some  of  the  common  vocabulary  learning  strategies  include  semantic
mapping,  Picture  Word  Inductive  Model  (PWIM),  synonyms  and  antonyms,  incidental
vocabulary  learning,  word  part  analysis,  memorization  strategies,  cognitive  strategies,
semantic  field  theory,  meta-linguistic  strategies,  using  monolingual  and  bilingual
dictionaries,  social  strategies,  using  English  language  media,  and  using  songs  and  music
(Asgari & Ghazali Bin, 2011; Sedita, 2005).
2.1. Mnemonic techniques
The mnemonic techniques investigated in the present study included the keyword method, the
peg  word  method,  and  the  loci  method.  Raugh  and  Atkinson  (1974)  define  the  keyword
method  as  associations  between  an  acoustic  similarity  of  an  English  keyword  to  a  foreign
word  and  the  visual  association  of  the  English  keyword  to  the  English  definition  of  the
foreign word. Vocabulary learning through the keyword method is divided into two stages. In
the first stage, the student creates an English word (keyword) that is somehow similar to the
foreign  word;  in  the  second  stage,  the  student  visualizes  the  keyword  (English  word) 
 
 
interacting  with  the  English  definition  of  the  foreign  word  (Atkinson  &  Raugh,  1974;
Griffith, 1980; Raugh & Atkinson, 1974; Raugh, Schupbach, & Atkinson, 1975).  According
to  Masteropieri  and  Scruggs  (1998),  the  keyword  method  is  a  mnemonic  strategy  to  help
students learn new words. 
The process of using the peg word method starts with learning a set of concrete words
(pegs) associated with the first 20 or so whole numbers. The same sound words or pegs are
such as “1 is a bun, 2 is a shoe, and 3 is a tree…..” (Bower & Reitman, 1972, p. 8). To learn
any new list of items, an individual must visualize the referent of the respective new words in
explicit interaction with the referent of the peg words in question.
Lindenberger,  Kliegl  and  Baltes  (1992)  define  the  loci  method  as  a  method  in  which
new words are connected to locations, using visual imagery. When it is necessary to recall the
respective  words,  the  locations  are  mentally  imagined.  According  to  Baltes  and  Kliegl
(1992), The key component of the method of loci is the forgoing of mental images or thought
linking  words  to  be  remembered  in  order  of  appearance  to  an  invariant  series  of  mental
landmarks.  At  recall,  one  mentally  revisits  the  mental  locations  in  order,  retrieves  the
associated mental image or thought,  and decodes from these mental  images the words to  be
remembered (p. 121). 
According  to  Cornoldi  and  De  Beni  (1991),  the  loci  mnemonic  method  facilitates  the
memorization  of  separated  items  and  remembering  passages.  According  to  Nemati  (2009),
“to use this technique, imagine a familiar location such as a room, then mentally place items
to  be  remembered  there,  to  recall  take  an  imaginary  walk  along  the  landmarks  in  the  room
and retrieve the items in it” (p. 124). Bakken and Simpson (2011) also note  that  the  loci
method or mental walk can be performed through imaginations and pictures to organize and
remember information.
2.2. Mapping techniques
Since  the  present  study  has  focused  on  three  mapping  techniques  including  argument
mapping, concept mapping and mind mapping, a brief introduction of each technique is given
below.
An argument consists of a set of claims with well-structured associations between them
to support or reject claims and opinions (Patterson, 2007). An argument is composed of a set
of statements that involve a claim and some reasons, and these reasons support each other for
the  claim.  Arguments  are  presented  to  support  each  of  the  reasons  and  the  reasons  of 
      
supporting arguments. An argumentation represents the structure of an argument map in such
a manner that includes a set of arguments (Hoffmann, 2010).
Novak  and  Canas  (2006)  define  concept  mapping  as  a  graphical  tool  for  knowledge
organization  and  presentation.  Pishghadam  and  Ghanizadeh  (2006)  hold  that  in  creating
concept maps, concepts, words or phrases are placed as nodes in boxes. Links are presented
to connect structures between nodes. Labels or arrows represent these links. A fixed link also
connects  two  concepts  or  propositions.  Novak  and  Canas  (2006)  believe  that  concept  maps
are  composed  of  linking  words  with  lines  that  indicate  important  and  useful  relationships,
statements, and propositions.
Mind  mapping  is  a  new  technique  developed  by  learning  researchers  in  1960s.  Tony
Buzan  is  the  initiator  of  mind  mapping  (Murley,  2007).  Jelger  and  Haefeli  (2007)  define
mind map as a diagram to indicate associated ideas, words, and tasks. According to Douma,
Ligierko and Romano (2009), mind mapping is a productive way for the visual presentation
of complex issues and graphical teaching of difficult topics.  
Although  several  studies  have  been  conducted  on  each  of  the  above-mentioned
techniques,  there  is  a  relative  dearth  of  research  on  the  comparative  effectiveness  of  these
techniques on L2 vocabulary comprehension and production. It is the aim of the present study
to  address  this  issue.  More  specifically,  the  present  study  addresses  the  following  research
questions:
(1).  Are  there  any  significant  differences  among  the  effects  of  the  mnemonic  and  mapping
techniques on L2 vocabulary comprehension?
(2).  Are  there  any  significant  differences  among  the  effects  of  the  mnemonic  and  mapping
techniques on L2 vocabulary production? 
 
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The  participants  of  the  present  study  were  151  Iranian  female  students  from  a  public  pre-university  school  in  Islamshahr.  They  were  in  the  pre-intermediate  level  of  language
proficiency. They were assigned to six groups and each group randomly received one of the
selected presentation techniques. Group A (n=20), group B (n=23), group C (n=22), group D
(n=28),  group  E  (n=30)  and  group  F  (n=28)  received  the  keyword  method,  the  peg  word
method,  the  loci  method,  argument  mapping,  concept  mapping  and  mind  mapping
techniques, respectively.  
 
 
3.2. Materials and Instruments
The materials and data collection instruments used in this study were as follows:
A  standard  language  proficiency  test  (KET  or  Key  English  Test)  including  30  items  in
multiple choice format was administered as a pre-test to homogenize the participants as well
as  to  determine  their  language  proficiency  level.  Although  KET  is  a  fairly  established  test
with established psychometric characteristics, to check the reliability of the test in the context
of the present study, the KR-21 formula for estimating reliability was used, and the reliability
index of the test turned out to be .84.
A  lexical  knowledge  pre-test  was  also  used;  it  included  180  vocabulary  items  chosen
from  the  Pocket  Persian-English  Dictionary  contextualized  in  130  sentences.  The  target
words were bolded and underlined in each sentence, and the students were asked to write the
meaning of the words in Persian. The aim of this test was to elicit unknown words for the two
post-tests.
At  the  end  of  the  experimental  period,  two  post-tests  were  used  in  two  formats.  The
multiple  choice  format  test,  including  30  items,  was  used  as  a  vocabulary  comprehension
post-test  to  assess  the  effects  of  the  selected  presentation  techniques  on  vocabulary
comprehension.  To  check  the  reliability  of  the  test  in  the  context  of  the  present  study,  the
KR-21 formula for estimating reliability was used, and the reliability index of the test turned
out  to  be  .81.  Another  30-itemtest  in  the  fill-in-the-blanks  format  was  used  as  a  vocabulary
production post-test to measure vocabulary production.
3.3. Procedure
Before  introducing  the  instructional  treatment,  a  standard  30-minutes  pre-test  (a  KET  test)
including  30  items  in  multiple-choice  format  was  administered  to  homogenize  the
participants and to determine their proficiency level. The mean and standard deviation of the
scores  were  computed  (Mean  =  14.31,  SD  =  3.17).    To  homogenize  the  participants,  those
participants  whose  score  was  more  than  one  standard  deviation  above  or  below  the  mean
were  excluded  from  all  subsequent  analyses.  The  results  of  the  pre-test  revealed  that  151
students were homogenous; they constituted the participants of the study. 
Then, the word knowledge pre-test was administered to ensure that the students had no
prior knowledge of the target words. It included 180 bolded and underlined vocabulary items
which  were  contextualized  in  130  sentences.  The  words  were  chosen  from  the  Pocket
Persian-English Dictionary. Most of the sentences were selected from Oxford dictionary and
some were  teacher-made.  The  time  allocated for  the  pre-test  was  40 minutes.  As  a  result  of 
 
         
this  test,  of  the  total  of  180  vocabulary  items,  60  words  were  eliminated  because  they  were
familiar for the participants. The remaining 120 unknown words were selected for inclusion
in the post-tests.
Subsequently,  the  students  were  assigned  to  six  groups  and  each  group  was  randomly
assigned  to  one  of  the  treatment  conditions.  In  the  first  session,  a  full  explanation  of  the
selected  techniques  (the  keyword  method,  the  peg  word  method,  the  loci  method,  argument
mapping, concept mapping and mind mapping) was presented to each group of participants.
The  instructional  treatment  lasted  for  9  sessions,  and  one  more  session  was  allocated  to
administering the  post-tests. Learning  sessions  were  held  twice a  week, each  session  lasting
45 minutes. The words were divided into nine successive lists of 20 words. Every session, 20
new words were taught according to the selected technique to each group and a brief review
regarding the respective technique was given to improve the quality of the learning treatment.
Each group of students was required to work on the new words at home and bring back their
works to the class. The teacher’s job was to correct students’ errors.
3.4. Data Analysis
Two  separate  one-way  ANOVA  procedures  were  used  to  analyze  the  obtained  data  and  to
answer  the  research  questions.  One  examined  the  effects  of  the  keyword  method,  the  peg
word  method,  the  loci  method,  argument  mapping,  concept  mapping  and  mind  mapping  on
vocabulary comprehension, and the other one investigated the effects of the same techniques
on vocabulary production. 
 
4. Results and Discussions 
4.1. Investigation of the first research question
The  first  research  question  aimed  to  investigate  the  effects  of  the  selected  presentation
techniques on L2 vocabulary comprehension. To this end, a one-way ANOVA procedure was
used. Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics.
As it is shown in Table 1, the peg word method group has the highest mean, followed closely
by  the  loci  method  group,  the  keyword  method  group,  the  mind  mapping  group  and  the
concept  mapping  group.  The  participants  of  argument  mapping  technique  have  the  lowest
mean.

In  order  to  see  whether  the  observed  mean  differences  among  the  groups  are
statistically significant, the one-way ANOVA procedure was used. Table 2 shows the results
of the ANOVA procedure

Based on Table 2, the observed F value and the significance level (F(5,145) = 11.192,
P < 0.05) show that there are statistically significant differences among the six groups. At the
same  time,  the  index  of  the  strength  of  association  shows  that  15%  of  the  total  variance
among  groups  can  be  attributed  to  the  effect  of  the  independent  variable;  namely,
presentation  techniques.  To  locate  the  differences  between  the  means,  the  post-Hoc  Scheffe
test was utilized. The results are given in Table 3.
As it can be seen in Table 3, the difference between the keyword method group and the
argument  mapping  group  is  statistically  significant,  indicating  that  the  keyword  method
group  performed  better  than  the  argument  mapping  group.  Similarly,  the  mean  differences
between  the  peg  word  group  and  the  concept  mapping  group,  the  peg  word  group  and  the
argument  mapping  group  and  finally  the  peg  word  group  and  the  mind  mapping  group  are
statistically  significant,  suggesting  that  the  participants  of  the  peg  word  group  have
outperformed their counterparts in the other three groups.

In  addition,  the  difference  between  the  peg  word  method  group  and  the  loci  method
group  is  statistically  insignificant.  Furthermore,  although  there  is  a  difference  between  the
means of the concept mapping group and the loci method group, the difference is statistically
insignificant.  Although  the  loci  group  performed  better  than  the  concept  mapping  group,
there is only a trend towards a meaningful difference. Based on the obtained results, there are
no  statistically  significant  differences  between  the  concept  mapping  and  the  mind  mapping
groups. The implication is that the participants’ performance was more or less similar.
The  results  further  indicate  that  the  difference  between  the  means  of  the  loci  method
group  and  the  argument  mapping  group  is  significant.  The  loci  method  group  members
outperformed their counterparts who received argument mapping.

As  it  can  be  observed  in  Table  3,  the  differences  among  the  effects  of  the  other
techniques  are  not  statistically  significant, indicating that  the participants’ performance  in
those groups was almost similar on the vocabulary comprehension test.
4.2. Investigation of the second research question
The  second  research  question  aimed  to  investigate  the  effects  of  the  selected  presentation
techniques  on  L2  vocabulary  production.  To  this  end,  another  one-way  ANOVA  procedure
was used. Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics on vocabulary production. 

Based on the above results, it can be observed that the peg word method group has the
highest  mean,  followed  closely  by  the  loci  method  group,  the  argument  mapping  group,  the
mind mapping group and the keyword method group. It can be seen that the concept mapping
group has the lowest mean in comparison with other groups.
In  order  to  see  whether  or  not  the  observed  mean  differences  among  the  groups  are
statistically  significant,  another  one-way  ANOVA  was  used.  Table  5  presents  the  results  of
the ANOVA procedure.

As it can be seen in Table 5, the observed F value and the significance level (F(5,145) =
19.25, P < .05) are indicative of statistically significant differences among the effects of the
six  techniques.  Meanwhile,  the  index  of  the  strength  of  association  shows  that  13%  of  the    
total variance among groups is due to the effect of the presentation techniques. Another Post-Hoc  Sheffee  test  was  used  to  locate  the  differences  among  the  groups.  Table  6  summarizes
the results.

Based  on  Table  6,  there  are  statistically  significant  differences  between  the  keyword
method  and  the  peg  word  method  groups.  It  can  be  concluded  that  the  peg  word  group
performed better than the keyword group. Similarly, the difference between the keyword and
the concept mapping groups is statistically significant with the keyword group outperforming
the concept mapping group. In addition, the results also revealed that the difference between
the  keyword  and  the  loci  method  groups  is  statistically  significant.  It  is  worth  noting  that
there  are  no  statistically  significant  differences  between  the  keyword  method  and  the  mind
mapping groups as well as between the keyword method and the argument mapping groups.  
 
 Moreover,  the  results  show  that  the  mean  differences  between  the  peg  word  and  the
concept  mapping  groups  as  well  as  the  peg  word  and  the  mind  mapping  groups  are
statistically significant. The participants of the peg word method performed better than their
counterparts  who  received  concept  mapping  and  mind  mapping  techniques.  A  close  look  at
Table 6 shows that although there is a difference between the means of the peg word group
and  the  loci  group,  the  difference  is  not  statistically  significant.  Meanwhile,  the  mean
differences  between  the  concept  mapping  group  and  the  loci,  argument  mapping  and  mind
mapping  groups  are  statistically  meaningful.  It  may  be  concluded  that  concept  mapping  is
less  effective  than  the  loci  method,  argument  mapping  and  mind  mapping  techniques  on  l2
vocabulary production.
Likewise,  the  difference  between  the  loci  method  and  the  mind  mapping  groups  is
statistically significant, indicating that the loci group performed better than the mind mapping
group. The observed mean differences among the effects of other techniques are statistically
insignificant. 
4.3. Discussion
Based on the findings of the present study, the peg word method group had the highest mean
of all groups on both vocabulary comprehension and production tests. The loci method group
had the second highest mean on both tests. This indicates that the peg word method and the
loci  method  groups  functioned  better  than  the  keyword  mnemonic  and  mapping  techniques
on L2 vocabulary comprehension and production. The obtained results also indicated that the
differences  between  the  means  of  the  peg  word  method  group  and  the  loci  method  group
were  not  statistically  significant  on  either  posttest.  The  findings  of  Bower  and  Reitman
(1972),  similar  to  the  findings  of  this  study,  indicated  that  the  loci  group  and  the  peg  word
group  had  similar  effects  on  learners’  recall.  Moreover,  this  finding  is  in  line  with  the
findings of Roediger (1980), who reported that the peg word and the loci method learners had
the  same  recall  levels.  They  recalled  more  words  than  the  other  mnemonic  subjects  such  as
the  link  and imagery conditions. In Roediger’s study, the peg word and the loci methods
provided  good  retrieval  cues  through  rhyme  process  and  a  set  of  locations,  respectively.  In
addition,  the  peg  word  method  and  the  loci  method  equally  enabled  the  learners  to  recall
words.  However,  the  peg  word  learners  were  more  successful  at  recalling  particular
numbered  items.  Unlike  the  finding  of  this  study,  in  which  the  peg  word  method  group
performed  slightly  better  than  the  loci  method  group  on  vocabulary  comprehension  and
production,  Roediger  (1980)  found  that  the  participants  of  the  peg  word  group  were  a  bit 
 
 
poorer than the participants of the loci method on both instant and delayed tests. This finding
is also similar to that of Wang and Thomas (2000), who found that the peg word method and
the loci method groups performed similarly.
The findings of the present study also showed that the keyword method group had the
third  highest  mean  after  the  peg  word  method  and  the  loci  method  groups  on  vocabulary
comprehension,  but  a  low  mean  on  vocabulary  production  test.  The  keyword  method  group
had  a  poor  performance  on  both  tests.  This  finding  indicates  that  the  peg  word  method  and
the  loci  method  groups  outperformed  the  participants  who  received  the  keyword  method.
This finding is in contrast with the results of the study by Richmond, Cummings and Klapp
(2008), who found that the keyword mnemonic  learners were more successful than the  loci,
the peg word and the free study learners. 
Like  this  study,  in  which  there  was  no  significant  difference  between  the  peg  word
method  and  the  loci  method  groups  on  vocabulary  comprehension  and  production,
Richmond, Cummings and Klapp (2008) showed that there were no differences between the
loci  method,  the  peg  word  method  and  the  free  study  conditions  in  recognizing  the  uses  of
specific and general transfer tasks.
The  findings  of  this  study  also  show  that  the  keyword  method  is  more  effective  than
concept mapping on vocabulary production. Moreover, the keyword method is more effective
than  argument  mapping  on  vocabulary  comprehension.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the
performance  of  the  keyword  mnemonic  group  was  slightly  better  than  the  mind  mapping
group  on  vocabulary  comprehension.  Conversely,  the  mind  mapping  group  performed  a  bit
better than the keyword mnemonic group on vocabulary production test.
Based  on  the  obtained  results  of  the  present  study,  the  concept  mapping  group  had  a
low  mean  on  vocabulary  comprehension,  and  the  lowest  mean  of  all  on  vocabulary
production,  suggesting  that  concept  mapping  is  one  of  the  least  effective  techniques  on  L2
vocabulary comprehension and production. Similarly, the mind mapping group had the fourth
lowest  mean  on  both  vocabulary  comprehension  and  production  tests.  Thus,  mind  mapping
technique is not very effective on L2 vocabulary comprehension and production. This finding
is  different  from  that  of  Douma,  Ligierko  and  Romano  (2009),  who  found  that  online  mind
maps  and  concept  maps  are  productive  instructional  tools  to  draw students’ attention and
interest,  and  to  teach  sophisticated  concepts  and  topics.  They  held  that  these  maps  help
students take notes, study before an exam, and organize sophisticated research.
There  are  various  factors  accounting  for  such  findings  as  well  as  the  differences
between  the  findings  of  this  study  and  those  of  other  similar  studies.  One  possible  reason 
 
which  may  account  for  such  meaningful  differences  may  be  partially  due  to  the  fact  that  in
the  present  study,  each  selected  technique  was  compared  with  other  techniques,  whereas
other studies have usually compared each of the techniques only with a control group. 
The results of this study confirm that the peg word method and the loci method are very
effective  and  successful  visual  instructional  tools  to  improve  L2  vocabulary  comprehension
and production. One possible reason for this may be due to satisfaction or positive beliefs of
the participants for using the peg word and the loci method procedures. It needs to be noted
that the effect of the above-mentioned techniques on vocabulary learning may also be largely
influenced by the cultural setting.
The findings of the study also indicate that the argument mapping group has the lowest
mean  among  all  groups  on  vocabulary  comprehension,  but  the  third  highest  mean  after  the
peg word method  and the loci method  groups on vocabulary production.  This indicates that
argument mapping is one of the least effective techniques on L2 vocabulary comprehension
and  not  very  effective  on  production  either.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  argument  mapping
technique  needs  higher  educational  knowledge  and  must  be  applied  for  complex  issues
(Sedita, 2005). Therefore, it may be concluded that argument mapping should be utilized for
higher levels to show the structure of complicated debates. This could explain why it did not
turn out to be effective on a lower level of lexical learning.
Another  reason  may  be  that  the  selected  mapping  techniques  including  argument
mapping, concept mapping and mind mapping require more training time, helpful examples,
and  instructions  on  how  to  utilize  the  respective  mapping  technique  in  educational  settings
properly. This accounts for the lower level of achievement of the participants of these groups.
Still another factor is that the participants of the present study were at pre-intermediate
proficiency  level,  whereas  the  demand  of  the  selected  mapping  techniques  may  have  been
higher  than  the  level  of  the  participants.  They  usually  require  participants  with  higher
educational knowledge or proficiency level.
One other factor contributing to the obtained results may have been the participants’
familiarity  with  the  implemented  techniques.  In  fact,  the  selected  mapping  techniques  were
not very familiar in our educational system in comparison with  other methods. This novelty
could have generated either enthusiasm or confusion. 
 
5. Conclusion
The results of  this study suggest  that the peg  word group achieved  the highest mean  among
all the groups on both vocabulary comprehension and production tests. The participants who
received the loci method had the second highest mean on both tests. The keyword group had
the  third  highest  mean  on  vocabulary  comprehension;  they  had  poor  performance  on
vocabulary  production.  With  respect  to  the  results,  the  argument  mapping  group  had  the
lowest mean on vocabulary comprehension. The concept mapping group had a low mean on
vocabulary comprehension, and the lowest mean on vocabulary production. The participants
who  received  mind  mapping  had  a  better  performance  in  comparison  with  the  concept
mapping  group  on  both  tests. From  an  educational  perspective,  mnemonic  instructional
methods  such  as  the  peg  word  method  and  the  loci  method  are  very  effective  and  valuable
visual  training  tools.  The  results  of  this  study  corroborate  the  viability  of  mnemonic
instructions  in  different  languages  and  various  fields. The  findings  of  the  present  study  also
showed that despite significant advantages of mapping techniques such as argument, concept
and  mind  mappings  as  successful  visual  educational  tools,  they  failed  to  help  students  to
achieve  good  results  in  comparison  with  the  other  three  techniques.  Such  failure  may  be
partly due to the fact that they are not very common and accepted in our educational system.
Based  on  the  findings  of  the  present  study,  it  may  be  concluded  that  different
techniques  of  vocabulary  presentation  have  differential  effects  on  second  language
vocabulary  learning.  This  implies  that  careful  and  informed  selection  of  the  teaching
techniques can facilitate learners’ vocabulary  learning.  This  may  also  have  theoretical  and
pedagogical  implications  for  teachers,  learners,  researchers  and  syllabus  designers.  The
findings of the present study may have theoretical implications for researchers in the findings
may  shed  light  on  some  of  the  less  explored  and  more  controversial  aspects  of  vocabulary
learning.
The  findings  may  also  have  pedagogical  implications  for  teachers;  a  clearer
understanding of the nature of the causal relationship between presentation techniques and L2
vocabulary  learning  may  help  teachers  make  more  informed  decisions  about  their  choice  of
teaching  activities.  These  findings  may  also  encourage  learners  to  make  use  of  the  more
effective and productive techniques and lexical associations in their self-study. 
Materials developers may also find the findings of this study useful and relevant to their
profession  because  the  knowledge  of  how  the  different  mnemonic  and  mapping  techniques
influence  vocabulary  learning  can  help  syllabus  designers  develop  materials  and  design
activities  that  require  the  use  of  the  more  productive  and  useful  techniques.  This  way, 
 
materials  developers  can  act  as  agents  of  change,  encouraging  the  use  of  more  effective
techniques and discouraging the use of less effective ones.