Exploring the English as a Foreign Language Vocabulary Instruction in Macedonia: Assessing the Practical Implications of the Vocabulary Teaching Strategies Used in Macedonian Schools

Tatjana Jovcheska, Macedonia

Tatjana Jovcheska is an EFL teacher, educational consultant and recruiter who holds BA in English Language and Literature and MA in TESOL. She has also been the recipient of E-teacher scholarship, iTDi CPD scholarship and Teach Abroad Scholarship. She has taught to students of all ages, grades and levels. Her areas of interest include applied linguistics, vocabulary and grammar teaching, classroom dynamics and creative teaching. She has attended many seminars, webinars and conferences. E-mail: tajnajovanoska@yahoo.com

Menu

Introduction
Literature review
Research methods
Data collection and analysis
Research findings and conclusion
Limitations of the study
Suggestions for further research
References

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to carry out an analysis of a range of vocabulary teaching strategies and establish a connection between the underlying principles and the common usage of the teaching strategies in the public primary schools in Macedonia.

Over the past century, there has been an increasing focus on grammar and grammar teaching. A theoretical issue that dominated English language teaching was the preference for structures, functions and notions, and for the communicative approach (Dubin and Olshtain, in Campillo 36). Until now, little importance has been given to vocabulary. But, recent developments in language teaching and learning have shown that vocabulary is an important component of the language and, as such, it requires equal research treatment with grammar and the language skills. Another key issue that has grown in interest is the delivery of vocabulary in the classroom. Most studies of vocabulary teaching have been targeted at examining the varieties of vocabulary teaching methods and the contributing factors behind the application of a particular approach (Newton 238-253; Nation 7-15; 12-25; Schmitt 142-157). However, to date, there has been little agreement on the most suitable vocabulary teaching method. That is, the question of the best and right vocabulary teaching approach has raised a storm of controversy. Therefore, the major concern of the present studies has become the emphasis on the principles of vocabulary instruction and the necessity of vocabulary teaching methods in class. With regard to Macedonia, records collected thus far show no related research in this sub-skill in public primary schools, although a great number of teacher trainers and material developers exhaustively discuss the general approaches to teaching English vocabulary. However, few of them argue the crucial importance of connecting theory and practice. Equally important is the fact that Macedonian teachers need to gain a better insight into the teaching strategies in order to transform their practice in favour of students' acquisition. To this end, studies that research on this topic have been used as a starting point in our analysis of the chosen subject matter.

Literature review

What is “vocabulary”? - Theoreticians generally come to the agreement that the term „vocabulary is highly complex to define. Antonacci and O'Callaghan (83) present several categories of vocabulary. First, sight word vocabularies refer to students' recognition of the written word. Then, 'meaning vocabularies' stands for students' understanding of the words, while 'listening vocabularies' equals to knowing the meaning of the words students hear. Finally, academic vocabulary is associated with content words. All in all, the authors discuss vocabulary with reference to students' knowledge of oral and written words. In fact, students increase the knowledge of vocabulary by means of examples and nonexamples of a word/words, context clues as well as connections with other words. Rasinski, Padak, Newton and Newton (13) interpret the term „vocabularyʼ as knowing word meanings. Stahl and Nagy (3) address „vocabulary‟ as students' understanding of the meaning of the words. Furthermore, they isolate word recognition, sight vocabulary and decoding, and dedicate themselves to the vocabulary that helps students expand their knowledge of word meanings. Hiebert and Kamil (3) warn about the distinct types of vocabulary that an individual has to recognise. Although „vocabulary initially refers to the meaning of words, there are two types of words: oral and print. The words that a learner is familiar with in speaking and reading orally represent the 'oral vocabulary'. On the other hand, the known words in writing and silent reading stand for 'print vocabulary. „Vocabulary‟ is equivalent to dictionary, as indicated by Takač (4-9). The author supports other researchers when she further defines the term as a 'set of words'. These two descriptions belong to the lexicographical approach; yet, for L2 linguists these explanations are rather simple and incomplete. Campillo (35) makes a reference to the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary definition of the term „vocabulary‟. That is to say, “vocabulary of a language is the total number of words in it”, whereas “someone's vocabulary is the total number of words in a language that a person knows”.

The status of vocabulary- Educators broadly accord with the views on the inferior role vocabulary played in the past. They, too, state that the dominant trend of grammar is still prevailing in some language programmes today. Schmitt (10-21), and Almela and Sánchez (22) return to the past to indicate the neglect of word „knowledge‟. There are the earliest records of people studying second language when Roman people studied Greek in second century B.C. Although vocabulary then was presumably in a favourable position, later on its importance began to diminish. During the medieval period, grammar was given strong preference over vocabulary and this tendency persisted in the Renaissance and in the Age of Reason. However, in the nineteenth century the Grammar - Translation method allowed some incidental and direct learning of vocabulary. The following methods, such as the Direct Method and the Audio-lingual Method occasionally relied on vocabulary, either 'naturally' or in 'drills'. The Communicative Language Teaching also omitted the necessity for explicit word knowledge, as this method was preoccupied with communicative fluency. As far as Schmitt is concerned, the idea of learning vocabulary in isolation should be dismissed, which is also supported by Wang (61); thus, he argues for the inseparable link between grammar and vocabulary. He even names the bond as 'lexicogrammar'. Hence, second language should be acquired with both grammar and vocabulary included. According to Hatch and Brown (405), communication had a prominent role in language learning. Grammar was a required element in the syllabus; therefore, vocabulary was never given the priority. Carter (184) observes the notion of vocabulary mistreatment due to 'specialization in linguistic research' on syntax and phonology. In addition, he cites Gleason (qtd. in Carter 184): “In learning a second language, you will find that vocabulary is comparatively easy, in spite of the fact that it is vocabulary that students fear most. The harder part is mastering new structures in both content and expression.” Boers and Lindstromberg (3) admit that the past emphasis on grammar disregarded the need for vocabulary learning. They indicate the contrasting aspects of particular teaching methods, but anyway, each method ignored the importance of vocabulary. Allen (1-6) contends that many English programmes continue to give preference for communication or grammar over vocabulary. Contrary to the comments made earlier, she rejects the specific stress on vocabulary. Furthermore, she believes that students must become proficient in grammar; it is grammar that demands of students to use words. Besides, it is not sufficient for learners to continually acquire new meanings; they have to be taught how to put them in a sentence.

The importance of vocabulary - Linguists, material developers and syllabus designers have questioned the importance of vocabulary for quite a long time; nevertheless, each of them agrees on the general necessity for inclusion of vocabulary in a language course.

Campillo (36) and Nation (cited in Loucky 3-4) believe that vocabulary is a fundamental component in a language because 'the majority of meaning is carried lexically'. As such, it must be considered in Second and Foreign language teaching. McCarthy (qtd. in Campillo 36) is certain that meaningful communication cannot be established without words. Moreover, the majority of language programmes are dedicated to grammar, but it is undebatable that the importance of vocabulary must be promoted to students. Ellis and Long (qtd. in Nation 7) assert that vocabulary inclusion in a language course causes learners to produce better results. Stahl and Nagy (3-8) point out to the specific importance of vocabulary. Vocabulary is crucial for relating to background knowledge, grasping new concepts as well as for communicating ideas. First, vocabulary is associated with reading comprehension. Then, vocabulary is linked to intelligence and knowledge. Knowing a word implies thorough understanding of the world. Teachers need to stress the importance of vocabulary due to the learners' differences. That is, students come from various social classes, either with or without English language exposure, and the latter should be regarded cautiously because these learners have only a few hours of English language contact. The authors also recommend that teachers highlight the concept of vocabulary due to its incremental nature. Schmitt (4), too, praises the need for vocabulary in second language learning, a fact which has been supported by a few studies. According to one, vocabulary is closely related to reading comprehension. Furthermore, it is essential for the development of the rest of language skills. Yopp, Yopp and Bishop (13-17) claim that students' familiarity with words is vital for other subject areas, too. They point out to academic language as a basis for academic success. Again, vocabulary is required to fulfil learners' needs in communication. In his article, Folse (1-13) dismisses several myths about vocabulary, one of them being the question of vocabulary importance. Moreover, he believes that comprehensible input without knowing word meaning is “neither input nor comprehensible”. Vocabulary is closely related to all language skills. Haynes (qtd. in Folse 2) maintains that the lack of vocabulary knowledge prevents students from comprehending a text. Laufer (cited in Folse 2) notices that vocabulary could greatly affect writing skills. In this same source (2), Joe observes the influence of word understanding on listening and speaking skills. Folse indicates the disregard of vocabulary in the past and goes on to say that there is not successful communication without vocabulary. Similarly, Nation and Jenkins (15-19) agree on the improvement of learners' speaking skills and vocabulary when teachers prioritise particular words by way of "short simple activities". The need for vocabulary instruction - Vocabulary instruction is unquestionably necessary, especially at the very beginning of language learning (Carter 184-185). According to Meara (qtd. in Carter 186), vocabulary teaching is the "neglected aspect of language learning". Similarly, Nunan (133) advocates for the necessary incorporation of vocabulary teaching and learning in the language programme. Marzano and Marzano (11) then assert the prerequisite of a balanced approach, which combines specific approaches, wide reading and language development activities. According to Allen (3-4), vocabulary instruction ought to be meaningful and memorable. This instruction is a requirement due to the lack of effective vocabulary teaching strategies that are essential for students to understand certain content. According to Nagy (qtd. in Hiebert and Kamil 10), a thorough vocabulary instruction encompasses classroom attention to individual words and enough opportunities for students to use the vocabulary, which is previously taught in rich and stimulating context, as well as expanding word knowledge. Calderón, August, Slavin, Duran and Madden and Cheung (cited in Hiebert and Kamil 116-135 ) summarize the points of a study conducted with Spanish students studying English language and conclude that vocabulary instruction has to be integrated within a comprehensive language programme. Antonacci and O'Callaghan (84), too, claim that students could only benefit from a comprehensive instructional syllabus. They strongly support vocabulary programmes that consist of a mixture of strategies, direct teaching and incidental learning. Takač (18-24) demands the vocabulary presentation to be built upon a range of vocabulary teaching strategies and activities that would be suitable for students' learning styles. However, the realisation of a vocabulary lesson does not solely depend on 'contemporary pedagogical principles'. It comprises of teacher's attitude towards vocabulary teaching strategies, their understanding of the vocabulary acquisition and students' perception of their vocabulary learning. Stahl and Nagy (45) determine that vocabulary instruction is a complex task, which needs to be treated with great seriousness. In addition, they refer to several studies when they state that vocabulary instruction takes up only a small portion of classroom time. The reasons behind this are teachers' preferences for interpretation and critical thinking; a further one would be regarding vocabulary teaching in relation to the traditional teaching methods, such as memorization of a word. Correspondingly, Yopp, Yopp and Bishop (17-24) indicate the differential impact of vocabulary instruction. Moreover, they demand the instruction to be tackled with continuously.

An APPROACH to vocabulary teaching - Vocabulary teaching is seen as a passive / active continuum (Teichroew, qtd. in Meara 30) or as a receptive / productive one (a term preferred by the European authors). According to this idea, Meara (30-32) states that vocabulary teaching refers to "providing the motive power that moves words from the passive end of this continuum towards the active end, and preventing words at the active end of the continuum from sliding back into passivity". Boers and Lindstromberg (1-32) cite experts for the lack of agreement on vocabulary instruction, that is to say, there have been contrasting views among theoreticians on the issue of explicit and incidental instruction. Oxford and Crookall (9) call attention to the overlook of explicit vocabulary teaching. What is more, learning vocabulary is passed on students themselves without teachers' assistance. In consequence, the authors identify the absence of vocabulary course. Instead, they note that the majority of schools offer diverse courses in reading, writing, listening, speaking, grammar and culture. Takač (18-19) primarily comments on the different treatment of vocabulary teaching in relation to the various teaching methods. In addition, vocabulary acquisition cannot occur without the inclusion of explicit vocabulary teaching. Judd (qtd. in Takač 18) ascertains that explicit vocabulary teaching needs to be emphasized from the early stages of a language course. This type of teaching encompasses a systematic approach that contributes to lexical development. Yet, modern methods insist on both implicit and explicit vocabulary teaching. In contrast, Schmitt (142-148) dismisses the idea of a single and best approach to vocabulary teaching. Therefore, he emphasizes that there is neither 'right' nor 'best' way in vocabulary instruction, but a successful instruction takes into consideration the type of learners, selected words, school system and curriculum. The vocabulary programme should contain a combination of explicit teaching and activities, and incidental teaching and activities. He particularly stresses the importance of explicit teaching for beginners. Rasinski, Padak, Newton and Newton (12-13) accept Schmitt's belief that there are not one or several particular approaches to teaching vocabulary, and vocabulary instruction should not rely on one method, but one purpose of the instruction is to enlarge active and passive vocabulary. Next, instruction should result in developing learners' conceptual knowledge. Moreover, the authors maintain that teacher's understanding of vocabulary instruction can be transferred to both first and second language, the only difference being in the framework of the instruction, which is required for second language learners. In her article, Sedita (33-45) discusses the findings of several studies: there is not a specific and most effective vocabulary method. That is, the instruction should be a blend of direct and indirect teaching and, as such, it must be present at all levels and grades. Nation (qtd. in Ӧzgül & Abdülkadir 22) opposes the earlier said in maintaining that deliberate vocabulary teaching is among the least effective strategies for expanding vocabulary knowledge; yet, it must be included within the vocabulary programme.

Teacher's role in teaching vocabulary - Takač (18-19) questions the importance of the teacher, by saying that teachers are at liberty to employ numerous vocabulary teaching methods. The choice of a particular method depends on teacher's consideration about time, content and learners' usefulness (how much learners could benefit from the strategy). Teachers should, too, encourage students' interest in increasing the vocabulary knowledge. Only when teachers are in the habit of practising vocabulary teaching strategies, will the students become competent in the four language skills. Coady (qtd. in Duppenthaler 4) discusses four aspects that affect the way teachers present vocabulary: their personal experience, their metacognitive attitude towards learning vocabulary, their knowledge of the research in vocabulary and the influence of experiences through teaching. Although this may be true, teachers fail to constantly underline the significance of vocabulary presentation. To better clarify this, they need to take responsibility for their teaching methods. It is evident that teachers need to be trained for vocabulary teaching. In other words, they should become aware of the instructional techniques and 'train' the students to utilize them. Allen (5-9) observes that teachers' dedicated time to teaching vocabulary has been unsuccessful and this is because ESL teachers demand assistance in the presentation. She goes on to say that teacher-prepared programmes primarily focus on teaching techniques. Hatch and Brown (401) also consider the various approaches, techniques and activities that are employed when teaching vocabulary. They identify the problem of the teachers when it comes to deciding which technique would be most effective. Nation (60) instructs teachers to be responsive to the 'psychological conditions' when teaching vocabulary. Moreover, teachers should always question the aim of the activity, the 'psychological conditions' such as noticing, retrieval and creative use of the activity, the 'observable sighs' that learning has happened and 'design features of the activity' under which learning has happened. Snow and Kim (123-125) completely agree with Nation. Additionally to this, they contend that the vocabulary learning conditions need to be understood. Only then, vocabulary instruction will become the centre of attention to vocabulary teachers and curriculum developers.

Principles and Techniques for Vocabulary Teaching

a) Traditional approach to vocabulary teaching
Gairns and Redman (73-85) explore traditional techniques for vocabulary teaching. One is the application of visual techniques in the class, such as visuals, mime and gestures. Moreover, flashcards, photos, drawings, wallcharts and realia represent the visuals. According to the authors, these techniques are extensively employed by the teachers to teach specific words, for instance food, rooms or actions. Mime and gestures, too, are utilized as opposed to the visuals to 'reinforce' the meaning. Second techniques are the verbal techniques including illustrative situations, use of synonymy and definition, contrast and opposites, scales (used for gradable or contrasting items) and examples of the type. A third technique is the translation. Translation is regarded as a highly effective strategy. In addition, it saves time and helps teachers explain low frequency words in a fast manner. However, overreliance on this approach reduces the 'listening practice' in the classroom. Since teachers have difficulty selecting the adequate vocabulary in higher grades, particular activities such as asking others, dictionary use and context use contribute to eventual independent vocabulary learning. Still, these techniques require continual teacher monitoring, assistance and correction. Campillo (45-48) places visual techniques, verbal techniques and translation in traditional approaches. Visual techniques incorporate realia, pictures, photos, drawings, flashcards, as well as mime and gestures. She stresses the importance of connecting words and their meanings by using these traditional approaches, especially at elementary level. On the other hand, verbal techniques fall into a few kinds: vocabulary presented by means of examples; vocabulary shown through illustrative situation; then, meaning explained via definitions; next, words presented with synonyms and opposites; and finally, vocabulary explicated by way of scales for gradable items. The third technique that belongs to the traditional approaches is translation. Campillo (45-48) discusses the benefits of this strategy, such as timesaving and comprehension correction. In spite of its simplicity, the author warns of the dangers of overuse. It is safer to practise this strategy with elementary level students whereas other levels should become used to other approaches

b) Direct and indirect vocabulary teaching - Newton (238-251) describes the principle of direct and indirect vocabulary teaching. The former lays emphasis on the full consideration for vocabulary. It also incorporates vocabulary dedicated time and specific follow-up activities. The latter, by contrast, shifts the focus of attention onto vocabulary learning via communicative activities. Nevertheless, teachers are advised to pre-plan whenever they employ these approaches. According to Nation (qtd. in Nunan 135), teachers and course designers should follow principles for teaching and learning vocabulary. Thus, he suggests four basic principles for teaching vocabulary. First, teachers have to concentrate on the most useful vocabulary. To clarify this, it is the vocabulary essential for reading, listening, writing and speaking1. Moreover, it is the vocabulary deriving from learners' needs and goals. Second, vocabulary has to be approached in an adequate way. In other words, teaching vocabulary should contain strategies for teaching and learning vocabulary. Third, teachers should focus on the high frequency words within the four strands of a language course. Fourth, teachers should make students aware of their learning. Not only should teacher select items and strategies, but students also need to choose which words will be useful for them. In order to achieve that, teachers could help them by providing information about the different types of vocabulary and creating opportunities so that the students choose what they would learn. Marzano and Marzano’s (8-11) principles primarily support direct vocabulary instruction. First, direct instruction should be emphasized by teachers for those words that are of importance of a specific content or background knowledge. Second, direct instruction should involve 'many ways of knowing a word'. It, too, should develop the complexity of word knowledge. Moreover, it should encompass all the forms in which word knowledge is stored. Third, direct instruction should create strategies for students to learn those words that have not been taught directly. Apart from this, these authors believe that wide reading could contribute to vocabulary learning.

c) Planned and unplanned vocabulary teaching
Hatch and Brown (401-425) distinguish between unplanned and planned vocabulary teaching. Unplanned vocabulary teaching, as determined by Seal (cited in Hatch and Brown 403), occurs when the teacher provides explanation for an unfamiliar word in the course of a lesson or when they suddenly come across an unknown word. When it comes to it, Seal offers the C’s method. To be more precise, first the teacher ‘conveys’ the meaning of the word via mime, synonym or anecdote. Then, they ‘check’ whether students have understood. Finally, the teacher ‘consolidates’ the understanding by asking students to relate it to a context or experience. However, this method is applied only if the teacher decides that the word is important for the lesson. In contrast, planned vocabulary teaching involves several guiding principles. They first consider the principle of time-effectiveness, which is the time needed for teachers to prepare for a specific method. It is also the time learners spend on that particular method. The content as another principle implies the benefit a particular method brings to learners. In other words, the content should help students whether they need or want to learn the new word. This principle deals with sensitivity to words, register restrictions, meaning relations and word structures. It also takes into consideration the steps of acquiring additional vocabulary. The value of the methods, as a third principle, should lead students to further advantages such as enabling them to learn new words, transferring the strategies for another vocabulary and stimulating them to continue learning new words. Following these principles, Hatch and Brown (401-425) suggest two approaches for teaching vocabulary: word lists and semantic domains. The former belongs to the traditional techniques whereas the latter is recently developed. The word lists technique was part of the audiolingual and grammar translation methods. For Thornbury (75), presentation of vocabulary signifies planning the lesson in advance, when students are taught selected items. When the teacher decides to teach preferred vocabulary items, they have to consider the following factors: students’ level; students’ understanding of the words (students might have already met some of the words); difficulty of the words; teachability of the words; whether taught words are for production (speaking and writing) or recognition (listening or reading);the amount of new vocabulary should not ‘overstretch learners’ capacity to remember them’; vocabulary teaching should not be time-consuming in class; there should be enough time left for practice of the new words. What is more, the author puts forward two ways of presenting the vocabulary: teaching of the meaning first, then form; or first teaching the form, then the meaning. Nevertheless, he suggests several teaching techniques: translation (without overdependence), real things (realia, particularly adequate for beginners), pictures, actions / gestures, definitions and situations.

d) Nation
According to Nation (18-21), teaching vocabulary consists of teaching the form of the word, teaching the meaning of the word, and helping the learner connect form and meaning. When it comes to teaching the form of the word, Nation advises presenting the shape in three ways: visually (hand movements that show the letters in the air, plastic or wooden letters), tactilely (so as learners could touch the letters, either made of plastic or wood), and aurally (pronouncing the word). Then, the meaning of the word could be presented by means of demonstration (gestures, objects representing a meaning), pictures (photos, drawings, illustrations) and explanation (context clues, synonyms, translation and description). Finally, teachers should help students connect the form and meaning so that they would present them both together. Formal presentation of new words could come into several strategies: ‘Ranking tasks’ – learners classify words according to comprehension difficulty (this method allows learners to successfully manage the new words); ‘A to Z vocabulary’ – occasionally, students are given a letter from the alphabet to think of two or more words; ‘Student-to-student vocabulary teaching’ – students can help each other by assuming the role of the teacher and teach their peers a new word; students are supposed to follow a given model, and – ‘Teaching vocabulary through word domains’ – the teacher chooses a focus word and explains it through a domain of synonyms and antonyms.

e) Laufer and Meara
Laufer (3-6) advises teachers to implement ten ideas for teaching vocabulary. Teachers should not spend much time on ‘uninstructed acquisition’. Instead, they should frequently introduce form-focused instruction. Then, they could develop their own syllabus independent of the school. The syllabus would contain teacher-selected vocabulary. In addition, the strategy of guessing from context should not be overused. Next, teachers should enhance students’ vocabulary size by proposing individual vocabulary notebooks. A further idea would be reviewing previously taught vocabulary as a good way for retention, and additionally to this, teachers should give regular vocabulary tests. Another advice is introducing synforms, but teachers should not ignore interlingual semantic differences, either. Occasional use of L1 should be practiced as well, and, finally, teachers should employ collocations that are different from students’ L1. Meara (3-6), on the other hand, offers these techniques: use of a mnemonic system; for instance, the keyword method, setting vocabulary targets (number of words students should learn), teaching words in context, reading activities, writing activities (writing tasks strengthens word knowledge in context), reviewing (for example, reviewing word lists with computer programmes), association games (this technique turns passive vocabulary into active), watching video with subtitles (If students are exposed to the subtitles a few times, they will easily learn the texts by heart. As a result, students can watch the video without the subtitles and enjoy the activity.), listening to songs, learning a book by heart (a more effective approach would be if the students are already familiar with L1 translation of the book. Otherwise, teacher could give them only sections of the book.).

f) Schmitt and Schmitt
Schmitt and Schmitt (133-143) put forward eleven principles when planning a vocabulary programme, and they are laid down in several studies. To begin with, integrating new knowledge with the old helps learners to better remember the vocabulary. In the second place, vocabulary needs to be presented in an organized manner rather than in unconnected style (Baddeley, in Schmitt and Schmitt 133). Moreover, similar words should be taught separately to avoid students’ confusion. For example, the teacher could first present the most frequent element of the pair while the second one is introduced only after students have acquired the meaning of the first. The fourth principle cites Nation’s viewpoint that word pairs serve as aids in acquiring many words in a short period. Next, knowing a word is equivalent to knowing its form, grammar patterns, derivatives, frequency, semantic relationships and style (Richards and Nation, in Schmitt and Schmitt 134-135). The application of mental activities is the sixth principle. These mental activities include mental image of meaning, categorizing the word into groups and setting up the formality of the word. Furthermore, students have to exploit those vocabulary techniques that cause immediate production of the new words. The following principle requires that students fully focus on the new word. Only then the learning would prove efficient. Equally important is recycling. Students must have opportunities to repeat the word; otherwise, a single exposure results in forgetting the word. This claim is followed by the next principle of ‘expanding rehearsal’. It signifies reviewing the new vocabulary moments after introduction. Since every student differs in the learning style, the final principle suggests that teachers permit students to choose a vocabulary list. That is, learners would be at liberty to select words they want to learn. (Allen, in Schmitt and Schmitt 136)

g) Oxford and Crookall
Oxford and Crookall (9-27) divide vocabulary teaching strategies into decontextualizing, semi - contextualizing, fully contextualizing and adaptable. Strategies that isolate the word meaning from its context fall into decontextualizing techniques. For instance, the authors list word lists, flashcards and dictionary use. Semi-contextualizing strategies permit partial context clue, whereas fully contextualizing present the words in a 'normal communicative context'. Word grouping, word or concept association, visual imagery, aural imagery, keyword, physical response, physical sensation and semantic mapping belong to the former category. The latter includes techniques of practising the four language skills: listening, reading, speaking and writing.

Research methods

A substantial portion of literature review (Carter 3-282; Nunan 129-150; Marzano 1-41) recognises the necessity of methodical approach in vocabulary teaching. In view of the fact that in Macedonia little research has been done in that field, this study had to pass through three stages: questionnaires, observations and interviews. While the questionnaire outlines the theoretical background to the vocabulary teaching situation in Macedonia, observation phases were initiated to gauge the application within schools. Interviews were conducted as a final point to either confirm or refute the obtained results. The questionnaire was designed to examine vocabulary teaching strategies in primary schools in Macedonia. This tool was aimed at forty English as a foreign language teachers in primary schools across Macedonia. It comprises 44 carefully selected vocabulary teaching strategies collected from the literature review. The choice of the strategies implicates personal knowledge and experience as well as traditional and modern tendencies. The questionnaire contains the following sections: Teacher's background information; familiarity with the suggested techniques - teachers indicate whether they know, do not know or want to know them; rating the usage of the teaching strategies; rating the selected strategies; stating the efficiency of the strategies; rating the satisfaction with the techniques; rating the importance of using any vocabulary teaching strategy in class; indicating teachers' agreement with application of any vocabulary teaching strategies.

Classroom observations went through two phases: urban and rural phase. This grouping was inevitable due to the perceptible differences between teaching methodologies in these separate areas. The first phase involved observation of a spontaneous vocabulary teaching lesson in a 5th grade and a 6th grade class. The fifth-grade class comes from a rural, and the sixth from an urban region. Both observations lasted 45 minutes, a period during which detailed notes were taken. Monitoring vocabulary teaching lessons with intended vocabulary teaching strategies marked the second phase. It lasted two and a half months covering only the fifth-grade class from the rural region. The teacher was given a partial lesson plan with specified strategies aforethought. This observation looked at the patterns of grade, level and number of students in a class. In addition, coursebook and lesson aim were taken into account. The application of each strategy was commented along with notes for the flow of the lesson. The lesson plan was applied, provided the lesson aim was a vocabulary topic. Again, each lesson lasted 45 minutes in which notes were written down. The second part of this phase, the sixth-grade monitoring, encountered an obstacle and was not conducted due to teacher's unfamiliarity and inexperience in the proposed strategies.

Two rounds of interviews were carried out in order to obtain a supplementary perceptiveness in teachers' practice. The first round commenced with interviewing teacher 1 from the urban area and teacher 2 from the rural area before and after the lesson, without the suggested strategies. The interview with teacher 2 and her students pointed to the second round. What is more, this session solely covered only this teacher and her application of the specified strategies. Again, there were two parts, before and after each pre-planned lesson. The observation was titled day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, day 5, day 6, day 7, and day 8. Yet, each day consisted of two classes in succession.

Data collection and analysis

The questionnaires were returned by email and filed according to towns for easy access. Only one questionnaire was done on school premises and handed back without delay. The collection of the questionnaires took two months since it was a period of trimester and students' testing. Upon receiving, the questionnaires were divided into urban, rural, and placed into folders for future analysis. Later on, this research tool underwent documentary analysis. As soon as the observation notes were made, they were arranged and stored in a summary folder. Similarly, the answers from the interviews were organised and put in a summary folder. Both notes were used for comparison with the questionnaires.

Research findings and conclusion

This research has investigated the vocabulary teaching practice in Macedonian primary schools. Furthermore, it has set out to reveal method awareness of Macedonian teachers. Then, their understanding has been evaluated in practice in attempt to identify it with the relevant research. The results are significant in four aspects:

1. Generally, teachers indicate considerable knowledge of vocabulary teaching strategies, as expressed in the questionnaire findings. In addition, the questionnaire and the interviews reveal that teachers highlight the necessity of applying vocabulary teaching strategies. Also, they determine the favourable outcomes the diversity brings into class. Consequently, teachers already develop an array of traditional and modern methods in class.
2. In relation to the listed vocabulary teaching strategies, teachers have awareness of nearly all teaching techniques. Moreover, they outline the benefits of the specified strategies in accord with literature. Still, the fluctuating practice demonstrates that teachers do not apply these strategies due to several factors: teachers' ignorance of the strategies, inefficiency of the techniques, age and level unsuitability, class monotony, preparation time and scarce teaching resources.
3. Although the questionnaire results show comprehension in vocabulary teaching methods, they partially substantiate the actual application in class. The inconsistency between questionnaire findings and teaching practice affirms teachers' reluctance in the usage of vocabulary techniques.
4. The conflicting learning environments between teacher 1 and teacher 2 somewhat confirm questionnaire results that utilization of vocabulary teaching techniques depends on both internal (students' lack of background knowledge, students' age and level, use of L1 and complexity of strategies) and external factors (the education system, a lot of paperwork, lack of resources and lack of teacher training). In spite of teacher 2 employment of the methods in class, the immediate effects contradict literature review. Thus, the discrepancies found between research findings and literature review ascertain that teachers in Macedonia possess broad theoretical background but lack professional assistance in practice.

Limitations of the study

This study has attempted to explore vocabulary teaching in Macedonian primary schools as well as examine teachers' knowledge of vocabulary teaching methods. Nevertheless, a few imposed constraints could affect the validity and reliability of the study itself. One limitation concerns the general concept of the research. The question of inclusion of methods, traditional and/or modern has been delicate and challenging since the very beginning of the study. Similarly, the categorisation of teaching principles and resulting techniques has been rather questionable and difficult to define. In the same way, the exclusion of mutual approach to vocabulary learning strategies has raised doubts as to its validity. The number of teachers involved in the research recognises the second limitation. The fact that the number of participants is arbitrary indicates the impossibility to make generalisation of a larger teacher perception. The study has included forty teachers, three of which teach in a rural area. The aim to form a homogenous group of either urban or rural teachers has been unachievable due to teachers' unavailability during the research process. The choice of the grades has been purely random as the primary objective of this research has been the teacher's views. Still, the unfeasibility to explore other grades restricts the findings concluded from the fifth and sixth grades. Another problem has arisen with the selection of strategies for the questionnaire. The initial choice of techniques has created uncertainty as to whether the study would have been completed within the specified timeframe. Therefore, the list has been compiled of both literature review and personal experience because of time -efficiency and research practicality. The next limitation reveals objectivity and validity concerns for the observations. The very fact of interpreting the notes creates reservations towards the obtained results. The observations had to be completed within two months due to school policies; thus, the realisation of the specified lesson plans had to be categorised in only eight lessons, which is a brief period to achieve valid results. Moreover, that teacher 1 did not apply the indicated teaching methods provides no basis for justifiable comparison. Critically enough is the triangulation of the data because of the difficulty to encounter more participants and classes for the study. The final restriction points towards the students' interviews. Given the fact that they were group interviews followed by immediate translation of the questions and answers, casts doubts on the reliability of students' attitudes. However, in spite of the small scope of the study, it attempts to provide a broad idea of the vocabulary teaching situation in primary schools in Macedonia. It, too, marks the onset for further extensive and detailed research.

Suggestions for further research

Despite the aforementioned limitations, this study has revealed the current vocabulary teaching circumstances in primary schools in Macedonia. In theory, it has built up a broader picture of the teaching environment in Macedonia, including both teachers and students. More precisely, it could:

• yield detailed and crucial insights vocabulary instruction not only in primary but also in secondary schools in Macedonia;
• prove a starting point for establishing a teaching pattern or self-composed vocabulary syllabus, as stated in the review (Antonacci and O' Callaghan 83-87; Laufer and Meara 3-6);
• draw a comparison between two vocabulary teaching methods;
• take into account the effectiveness of a single method, just like Schmitt‟s recommendation (Schmitt 253-260).
• support the observations by means of pre- and post – tests;
• provide basis for exploring Nation's four strands (Nation 18-21)
• be dedicated to either the vocabulary practice in the schools of urban or rural areas;
• establish a link between vocabulary teaching and vocabulary learning strategies.

References

Allen, V. F. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Antonacci, P. A. & O' Callaghan C. M.(2012). Promoting Literacy Development. Sage Publications.

Bishop, A.et al. (2009). Vocabulary Instruction for Academic Success. U.S.A: Shell Education.

Boers, F.. & Lindstromberg S., eds.(2008). Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin.

Campillo, R. L.(1995) "Teaching and learning vocabulary: An Introduction for English Students. Magisterio de Albacete: UCLM.

Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary . 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Duppenthaler, P. (2008).Vocabulary Acquisition: The Research and Its Pedagogical Implications. Studies and Essays 40: 1-14.

Folse, K.S. (2004).Myths about Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary: What Recent Research Says. TESL Reporter 37.2:1-13.

Gairns, R. & Redman S. (1986). Working with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hatch, E. & Brown C. (1995).Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hiebert, E.H. & Kamil M.L., eds. (2005) Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Laufer, B. et. al. (2005).Ten Best Ideas for Teaching Vocabulary. The Language Teacher 7: 3-6.

Loucky, J. P. (1998). Suggestions for Improving ESL/EFL Vocabulary Instruction. ERIC.

Marzano, R. J. & Marzano J.S. (1988). A Cluster Approach to Elementary Vocabulary Instruction. USA: International Reading Associations.

Meara, P.(2009). Connected Words: Word Associations and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Moisés A. & Sánchez A. (2007).Words as "Lexical Units" in Learning/ Teaching Vocabulary". International Journal of English Studies 7.2.

Nation, P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines 5.1: 12-25.

Nation, P. & Hamilton-Jenkins A. (2000).Using communicative tasks to teach vocabulary.Guidelines 22.2: 15-19.

Nation, P. & Jenkins A.H.(2000).Using Communicative Tasks to Teach Vocabulary.Guidelines 22.2 : 15-19.

Nation, P. (1974).Techniques for teaching vocabulary. English Teaching Forum 12.3: 18-21.

Nation, P. (1995). Best practice in vocabulary teaching and learning. EA Journal 3. 2: 7-15.

Nation, P., ed. (1994). New Ways of Teaching Vocabulary. TESOL. Alexandria: Va.

Nation, Paul. (2005). Teaching Vocabulary. The Asian - EFL Journal Quarterly. 7. 3.

Newton, J. & Nation P. (1997).Vocabulary and Teaching. Eds. James Coady and Thomas Huckin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D., ed. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.

Oxford, R. & David C. (1990).Vocabulary Learning: A Critical Analysis of Techniques. TESL Canada Journal 7.2.

Rasinski, T. et. al. (2008) Greek and Latin Roots: Keys to Building Vocabulary. U.S.A: Shell Education.

Schmitt, N. & Schmitt D. (1995).Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions. English Language Teaching Journal, 49.2: 133-43.

Schmitt, N. (2007). Current Perspectives on Vocabulary Teaching and Learning. International Handbook in English Language Teaching. Springer US: Springer International Handbooks of Education 15.

Schmitt, N.(2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N.(2010). Researching Vocabulary. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sedita, J.(2005). Effective Vocabulary Instruction. Insights on Learning Disabilities 2 .I: 33-45.

Snow, C. E. & Kim Y.S.(2007).Large Problem Spaces, The Challenge of Vocabulary for English Language Learners.Vocabulary Acquisition: Implications for Reading Comprehension .Eds. Richard K. Wagner et.al. USA: The Guilford Press.

Stahl, S.A. & Nagy W. E. (2006). Teaching Word Meanings. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Takač, V.P. (2008) Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Second Language Acquisition. UK: Multilingual Matters.

Thornbury, S.(2002). How to Teach Vocabulary. England: Pearson Education.

Wang, L. (2007).Word Association: Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition and Instruction. TESL Reporter 40.1.

Ӧzgül, B. & Abdülkadir Ç. (2012).Teaching Vocabulary through Collocations in EFL Classes: The Case of Turkey. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 1.1.

Please check the Methodology & Language for Primary course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Methodology & Language for Secondary course at Pilgrims website.