The effects of concept checking questions on a2 students perfomance in english vocabulary acquisition

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HO CHI MINH CITY
UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE
---***---

THE EFFECTS OF CONCEPT CHECKING
QUESTIONS ON A2 STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN
ENGLISH VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

By
LÊ TRẦN MINH ANH

Instructed by
PHAN THANH HÙNG, Ph.D

Ho Chi Minh City, July 2023


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis had not been completed without the assistance of many people
who always stood by me through all of the ups and downs of this writing journey.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude towards my supervisor,
Doctor Phan Thanh Hung. I am sincerely thankful for his dedication in giving
feedback although he was living abroad. No matter how busy he was, he always
replied to all of my emails in a fast and careful way.
I also would like to thank all of my family members and friends for their
financial and mental support, especially on the day I just wanted to give up. But for
their encouragement, I would not have been confident and motivated to finish the
thesis.
I am also sincerely grateful for the support of the research site and all of the

participants who were my colleagues and students. They were all willing to allow
me to conduct the research and take part in it wholeheartedly.
Last but not least, I want to express my thankfulness to the faculty and all of
the lecturers teaching this MA program for sharing not only academic knowledge
but also experience in conducting a thesis.

II


STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
I certify that this thesis which is “THE EFFECTS OF CONCEPT CHECKING
QUESTIONS

ON

A2

STUDENTS’

PERFORMANCE

IN

ENGLISH

VOCABULARY ACQUISITION” is my own work. As far as I am concerned, it
does not violate any copyright of other papers nor research.
I also declare that this is a true copy that has not been submitted nor published to
any other university, institution, or publisher.
Ho Chi Minh City, July 2023

Le Tran Minh Anh

III


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................II
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY .......................................................................... III
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... IV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. VII
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. VIII
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... IX
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
1.1. Background to the study ................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statements of the problem ................................................................................ 2
1.3. Research aims ................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Research questions ............................................................................................ 3
1.5. Hypothesis ......................................................................................................... 3
1.6. Significance of the study................................................................................... 3
1.7. Scope of the study ............................................................................................. 4
1.8. Organization of the thesis chapters ................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 5
2.1. Concept Checking Questions (CCQs) .............................................................. 5
2.1.1. Definitions of CCQs ............................................................................. 5
2.1.2. Types of CCQs ..................................................................................... 5
2.1.2.1. Display questions ....................................................................... 5
2.1.2.2. Referential questions .................................................................. 6
2.1.3. Characteristics of CCQs ...................................................................... 7
2.1.4. Forms of CCQs .................................................................................... 7
2.1.5. Benefits of CCQs .................................................................................. 8

2.1.6. Drawbacks of CCQs ............................................................................ 8
2.2. Vocabulary acquisition ..................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Vocabulary and aspects of vocabulary ................................................ 9
2.2.2. How children are exposed to vocabulary .......................................... 10
2.2.3. How vocabulary is remembered ........................................................ 10
2.2.4. How to measure vocabulary .............................................................. 11
2.3. A2 students...................................................................................................... 14
2.3.1.Characteristics of A2 students ............................................................ 14
2.3.2.A2 students‟ vocabulary knowledge ................................................... 15
2.4. Conceptual framework .................................................................................... 17
IV


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 18
3.1. Research design .............................................................................................. 18
3.2. Research site ................................................................................................... 19
3.3. Participants ...................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1. Students .............................................................................................. 20
3.3.2. Teachers ............................................................................................. 21
3.4. Research instruments ...................................................................................... 23
3.5. Piloting ............................................................................................................ 27
3.6. Data collection procedure ............................................................................... 27
3.7. Data analysis scheme ...................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................... 30
4.1. Teachers‟ knowledge ...................................................................................... 30
4.1.1. Definitions .......................................................................................... 30
4.1.2. Types of CCQs ................................................................................... 31
4.1.3. Characteristic of CCQs ..................................................................... 32
4.1.4. Forms of CCQs .................................................................................. 33
4.1.5. The benefits of CCQs ......................................................................... 33

4.1.6. The drawbacks of CCQs .................................................................... 35
4.2. How to ask CCQs............................................................................................ 36
4.2.1. How teachers address the drawbacks ............................................... 36
4.2.2. Forms of CCQs .................................................................................. 38
4.2.3. Stages to ask CCQs ............................................................................ 41
4.2.4. How CCQs are directed to students .................................................. 43
4.2.5. What if students say wrong answers? ................................................ 44
4.2.6. Supplements ....................................................................................... 44
4.3. How CCQs are used in the experimental research ......................................... 45
4.4. Summary of the observations and interviews ................................................. 47
4.5. Results of the independent t-test and Pearson ................................................ 47
4.5.1. Receptive vocabulary knowledge - Passive recognition.................... 48
4.5.2. Receptive vocabulary knowledge - Passive recall ............................. 49
4.5.3. Productive vocabulary knowledge - Active recognition .................... 50
4.5.4. Productive vocabulary knowledge - Active recall ............................. 51
4.5.5. Vocabulary knowledge test ................................................................ 52
4.5.6. Correlation between asking CCQs and students‟ performance in
vocabulary acquisition................................................................................. 53
4.5.7. Discussion of the independent t-test and Pearson ............................. 53
4.6. Summary of the chapter .................................................................................. 54
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 55
V


5.1. Summary of findings....................................................................................... 55
5.2. Pedagogical implications ................................................................................ 56
5.3. Limitations of the study .................................................................................. 57
5.4. Recommendations for the study ..................................................................... 57
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ 63
APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................ 64
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................ 68
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................ 72
APPENDIX E ........................................................................................................ 76
APPENDIX F......................................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX G ........................................................................................................ 83
APPENDIX H ...................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX I ....................................................................................................... 108
APPENDIX J ....................................................................................................... 109
APPENDIX K ...................................................................................................... 110
APPENDIX L ...................................................................................................... 111
APPENDIX M ..................................................................................................... 112

VI


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CCQs:

Concept checking questions

CEFR:

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

PPP:

Presentation Practice Production

VII


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2. Types of vocabulary knowledge ................................................................. 13
Table 3.1. Participant recruitment criteria checklist ................................................. 22
Table 3.2. The description of pretest and pottest ...................................................... 26
Table 3.3. The schedule of observations and interviews .......................................... 28
Table 4.1. Forms of asking CCQs ............................................................................. 38
Table 4.2. Number of CCQs in each stage ................................................................ 41
Table 4.3. How CCQs are directed to students ......................................................... 43
Table 4.4. How CCQs are used and directed to students in the experimental research
................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 4.5. Scores of Passive Recognition Vocabulary in the posttests of the control
group and experimental group ................................................................................... 48
Table 4.6. Scores of Passive Recall Vocabulary in the posttests of the control group
and experimental group ............................................................................................. 49
Table 4.7. Scores of Active Recognition Vocabulary in the posttests of the control
group and experimental groups ................................................................................. 50
Table 4.8. Scores of Active Recall Vocabulary in the posttests of the control group
and experimental group ............................................................................................. 51
Table 4.9. Scores of vocabulary knowledge in the posttests of the control group and
experimental group .................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.10. The correlation of the students‟ learning with CCQs and their points in
the test........................................................................................................................ 53

VIII


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Developing knowledge of a word ........................................................... 12
Figure 2.2. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
...................................................................................................................................16
Figure 2.3. Conceptual framework of the study ........................................................ 17

IX


ABSTRACT
Although asking “do you understand?” is the most explicit way to check for
understanding in real life, this question can lead to dishonest answers from students
in class due to their fear of embarrassment. However, waiting to check students‟
exercises to evaluate their understanding may take a great amount of time.
Employing concept checking questions can provide an in-between solution that can
detect students‟ misunderstanding immediately; nevertheless, it remains an underresearch topic in terms of vocabulary for A2 students. Therefore, the thesis aims to
investigate (1) how teachers ask concept checking questions to check A2 students‟
vocabulary acquisition at VUS English Center, and (2) the effects of asking concept
checking questions on A2 students‟ performance in vocabulary acquisition. A
mixed-method research design was deployed to collect both qualitative data on how
teachers ask concept checking questions, and quantitative data on the effect of using
concept checking questions. Four teachers were observed and interviewed, then their
responses were coded into a thematic framework. 102 A2 students took part in
experimental research, and their test scores were compared by using Pearson and an
independent t-Test. The instruments include observation scheme, interview
questions, pretest and posttest. The findings shed new light on how concept
checking questions should be used and their effects on A2 students‟ vocabulary
acquisition; hence, assisting teachers to plan their lessons more effectively in order
to help students engage in class activities more actively.
Keywords: concept checking questions, how to ask concept checking questions,
effects, vocabulary acquisition, A2 students

X


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1.

Background to the study
A significant shift from the teacher-centered classroom into a student-centered

classroom has been witnessed for a decade; there is no longer a one-size-fits-all
approach in a classroom context. Although teachers may try their best to explain and
instruct students, the students can understand the lesson in various ways based on
their background knowledge, comprehension, and focus of attention. Besides,
students‟ acquisition is also affected by their learning styles. According to Gilakjani
(2012), there were three learning styles in total including visual, auditory, and
kinaesthetic. Therefore, each learner may have different styles of learning and
understanding the lessons, and as a matter of fact, teachers‟ instruction and
explanation could be understood and interpreted in a wide range of ways by their
students, which could lead to misunderstanding and misconception.
“If teachers wait and look at independent practice, homework, quizzes, or
final tests to find out whether learners have learned, it is too late to modify their
instruction since the lesson is already done.” (Nguyen, 2021, p.14). Furthermore, it
was believed that direct questions such as “Do you understand?” or “Are you
clear?” were taboos that should be proscribed in class because students were thought
not to give sincere answers due to their fear (Thornbury, 2022). Hence, those
questions failed to detect and address the misunderstanding. As a result, there is a
great need to deploy a technique that could help teachers check students‟ progress
and understanding to modify the instructions before students practice their errors
into permanence (Nguyen, 2021).

The aforementioned situation about misunderstanding in class could be worse
in the case of an A2 one. It was stated in a research of Bierman (2020) that A2
students who were from eleven to fifteen years old find it easy to be distracted.
Their attention span was relatively short, which was approximately 30 minutes.
1


Hence, it was challenging to have them pay attention to the lesson from the
beginning to the end of the class.
To address that difficulty, concept checking questions (CCQs) were believed
to be an effective way of formative assessment to estimate students‟ progress and
adjust the effectiveness of instructions (Nguyen, 2021). Additionally, concept
checking questions were mentioned in several previous research of Long & Sato
(1983), Mercer & Dawes (2008), Wright (2016), and Liashenko (2018) in terms of
their benefits, drawbacks, and techniques of asking as well. Therefore, it is clear that
concept checking questions played a certain role in teaching and learning a
language.
In language teaching, vocabulary was considered the most important element
in English linguistics since it was a sub-skill that provides the foundation to acquire
other skills such as reading, listening, writing, and speaking (Alqahtani, 2015).
Therefore, the author opts for these sub-skills to conduct the research.
1.2.

Statements of the problem
As mentioned in the background to the study, concept checking questions

were introduced in many research. It was shown that concept checking questions
were beneficial to some extent (Florkowska, 2018); yet little research is done in
terms of the effects of asking these questions on A2 students‟ vocabulary
acquisition.

For example, the research of Kieu (2012) investigated the use of concept
checking questions, but its focus was on the attitudes of university lecturers.
Although it suggested some of the techniques of CCQs, the target population and
the scope of the study were limited to advanced level and lecturers‟ perspectives,
leaving an inquiry about the techniques for beginner students.
In addition, the effects of CCQs were reported to be positive in a paper of
Dang & Nguyen (2013) and Nguyen (2021); however, the studies only
concentrated on grammatical points which left a research gap in students‟
2


vocabulary acquisition. For those mentioned reasons, this research aims to come up
with the effects of CCQs on A2 students‟ vocabulary acquisition and how to ask
CCQs effectively.
1.3.

Research aims
This study aims to investigate
1.

how teachers ask concept checking questions to check A2 students‟

vocabulary acquisition at VUS English Center
2.

the effects of asking concept checking questions on A2 students‟

performance in vocabulary acquisition at VUS English Center
1.4.

Research questions
1.

How do teachers ask concept checking questions to check A2

students‟ vocabulary acquisition at VUS English Center?
2.

What are the effects of asking concept checking questions on A2

students‟ performance in vocabulary acquisition at VUS English Center?
Firstly, the research investigates how teachers at VUS English Center ask
concept checking questions to check A2 students‟ vocabulary acquisition in class.
Secondly, these collected uses of CCQs are used to examine if there are any effects
of asking CCQs on A2 students‟ vocabulary acquisition.
1.5.

Hypothesis
The means for the students learning with CCQs (experimental groups) and

students learning without CCQs (control groups) are equal.
There is a positive correlation between asking concept checking questions
and A2 students‟ performance in vocabulary acquisition at VUS English Center.
1.6.

Significance of the study
This study aims to benefit both teachers and learners in teaching and

acquiring vocabulary. The result of the research can directly contribute to the

3


development of teaching techniques when it comes to vocabulary acquisition, and
by that saves time and effort devoted by teachers when planning and delivering a
vocabulary lesson. To illustrate, providing that CCQs are effective on A2 students‟
acquisition, it can be proved that it is a useful tool for verbal formative assessment;
therefore, teachers will no longer be insecure about students‟ learning process and
consider consolidating the previous knowledge or move on to delivering the next
target language. A considerable number of tests for process checking might be
reduced to save time for other learning activities. Students can also enjoy a more
effective and engaging learning environment if concept checking questions are
deployed in class. This is because CCQs as stated in other research are not only a
way of checking knowledge but also a way of boosting student talking time,
interaction, and engagement (Fisher & Frey, 2014, Florkowska, 2018).
1.7.

Scope of the study
The population of the study is represented by teachers and students at VUS

English Center, where the researcher is working and easily gets access to. The
population includes 102 students and four teachers who currently live in Ho Chi
Minh City. They are similar to each other in terms of their ages and A2 levels. Due
to the limitation of time and resources, the study cannot measure students‟
vocabulary acquisition in all of the textbooks and courses. The vocabulary
acquisition is measured by the Flyers vocabulary list provided by Cambridge
University Press.
1.8.

Organization of the thesis chapters

The present thesis is divided into five sections as following (1) Introduction,

(2) Literature Review, (3) Methodology, (4) Findings and Discussions, (5)
Conclusion & Recommendations

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Previous chapter gave an overview about the rational and aims of the study. This
chapter devoted to defining relevant knowledge about this research, with a focus on
two main terms, concept checking questions and vocabulary acquisition.
2.1.

Concept Checking Questions (CCQs)

2.1.1. Definitions of CCQs
The definitions of CCQs have remained stably unchanged throughout the
past decade. According to Workman (2008), CCQs were questions used to check
students‟ understanding of a piece of the target language in terms of meaning and
function or different concepts. In line with that definition, Liashenko (2018) and
Florkowska (2018) held a viewpoint that concept checking questions were used to
underline the bottom line of the target language taught in class. Furthermore,
Liashenko (2018) specified that concept checking questions were also used to
“verbally check students‟ understanding of new vocabulary, grammar points,
communicative functions or even instructions presented in class” (p.80). Ivanovna
(2020) also agreed that CCQs were designed to underline “the essence of the
meaning of the target language” (p.132) especially before the practice stage
happened. CCQs, therefore, were conducted with the aim of making sure students
understand the meaning of the target language (Lilia, 2022). In this study, CCQs

are narrowed down to the understanding of the meaning of new vocabulary.
2.1.2. Types of CCQs
There were two main types of CCQs which were display questions and
referential questions (Long & Sato, 1983).
2.1.2.1.

Display questions

Display questions were the questions asked when questioners had an answer
already (Seliger & Long, 1983). In other words, questioners had already known the
answers before asking. For example, after introducing students to fruits vocabulary,
5


a teacher showed a picture of an apple and asked students to say what fruit it was.
The students were supposed to volunteer and say apple. In this case, the answer
was predicted and known by the teachers already. It did not mean students‟
answers could not be wrong, yet the teachers were still much likely to predict and
expect a certain answer.
When answering display questions, responders answered shortly and
mechanically. The answers lacked meaningfulness in communication (Wright,
2016), and they were “counterproductive and non-communicative” (Thornbury,
2000, p.24). They also lacked turn-taking (Florkowska, 2018) and rarely happened
in daily life conversations. This was because when asking, the questioners aimed to
check and confirm the information acknowledged instead of exploring the
responders‟ ideas, opinions, or perspectives.
2.1.2.2.

Referential questions

Referential questions were asked for questioners and responders to negotiate
for the answers, and questioners did not know the answers yet (Long & Sato,
1983). The questions and answers were meaningful, and they appeared in a real-life
context (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). Also, turn-taking happened during the
conversation. For example, two students are planning for their summer vacation.
They ask some questions such as “What are we going to do?”, “Where are we
going to stay?”. There are no fixed answers and both questioners and responders
are negotiating to figure out the answer together.
In this paper, the first type of CCQs is more likely to dominate the second
one. This is because the target population is A2 students who lack the skills and
knowledge to negotiate for answers. Some of the referential questions can still be
used providing that students can answer display questions correctly.

6


2.1.3.

Characteristics of CCQs
CCQs were used to check students‟ understanding of a piece of language

rather than to test their language proficiency. Therefore, generally, CCQs were
expected to be “slower, clearer, simpler in terms of grammar, vocabulary, and
delivery” (Gass, 2015, p.182). To be specific, CCQs must not have complex
structures or many elements and be difficult to understand (Scrivener, 2011).
Besides, they should not contain new grammatical structures and unfamiliar
vocabulary of the target language (Liashenko, 2018).
This was because CCQs are normally asked after the introduction or
presentation stage of teaching and used to check students‟ acquisition rather than
conveying new knowledge to students. Containing unfamiliar vocabulary,

grammatical points, or any pieces of the target language might lead to students‟
confusion and shyness to respond (Ivanovna, 2020). It is also stated in this article
that CCQs were recommended to be directed to individual students, not always to
the whole class in order to reach as many students as possible.
2.1.4. Forms of CCQs
CCQs did not always have to be in the form of a question. In fact, it was
stated in the research of Workman (2008) and Liashenko (2018) that CCQs could
be questions, negative checking, gestures, sentences for completion, pictures as
long as the purpose was for checking students‟ understanding of the target
language. To illustrate, to check students‟ understanding of action vocabulary,
teachers could mine the action of running, jumping, dancing, etc, and students were
supposed to guess what word it was depending on the vocabulary they had
acquired since the beginning of the class.
These forms of CCQs were then combined with those collected in the
interviews with VUS teachers to synthesize into a compilation that was used to
check students‟ vocabulary acquisition.

7


2.1.5. Benefits of CCQs
In the research of Florkowska (2018), the roles of CCQs were strongly
highlighted. First of all, CCQs helped increase the interactions between teachers
and students. By asking and answering, students had more chances to raise their
voices and be corrected by teachers. This was also an effective way to push student
talking time, which was a feature of Communicative Language Teaching. Second,
when asking CCQs, teachers could attract learners‟ attention by evoking their
curiosity. Students might be mentally tired and bored after a presentation or study
stage of the lesson; therefore, a question right after teaching could spur students to
think and reflect on what they had acquired so far. Third, the procedure of asking

and answering CCQs helped focus students to the core of the target language in
terms of its meaning. This was because when learning, students might feel
overwhelmed with plenty of new terms and knowledge. A2 students were also
inadequate in terms of distinguishing key points, examples, and clarification.
Hence, asking and answering CCQs were likely to draw their attention to the
essence of the meaning of the target language. Last but not least, by asking CCQs,
teachers were able to verbally check their students‟ comprehension, measure their
knowledge, and come up with a proper intervention to consolidate the lesson in
time (Fisher & Frey, 2014). This was why CCQs are also listed as one technique in
formative assessment.
2.1.6. Drawbacks of CCQs
Although, the roles of CCQS were clearly described, it was also noted in
some research (e.g., Scrivener, 2011 ; Florkowska, 2018 ) that asking CCQs could
somehow reveal the answers to the follow-up exercises. Besides, asking too many
CCQs or asking CCQs with higher level vocabulary, grammatical structure, or
other elements of speech compared to students‟ level could cause confusion and
demotivation in students‟ learning procedure (Fisher & Frey, 2014) . This
drawback was seriously addressed by reviewing the CCQs before every lesson and
interviewing different teachers to ask for experience with the use of CCQs.
8


2.2.

Vocabulary acquisition

2.2.1. Vocabulary and aspects of vocabulary
Vocabulary is not an unfamiliar term to define; however, in different fields,
researchers may hold various views about this definition. In the linguistics field,
vocabulary seemed to be “all the words that exist in a particular language or subject”

as in Cambridge Dictionary (Walter, 2012). In line with this definition, vocabulary
was also referred to as all words in a language in the research of McCarthy (1990)
and Barcroft, Sunderman & Schmitt (2011). The number of vocabulary in a
language could be expanded because of the appearance of new words and narrowed
down due to the death of some old words, which led to the fact that even a native
speaker had to acquire new words and his vocabulary could not remain unchanged.
Vocabulary, in the view of pedagogy, was the total number of words that an
individual could comprehend and use in a certain language (Tran, 2012). In other
words, it was the “knowledge of words and word meanings” (Nguyen, 2019, p.9).
These were similar to the definition of vocabulary in the research of Stahl (2005)
that included both the definition and usage of a word in a real-life context.
Furthermore, vocabulary was not merely in the form of a single word. It could be
made up of multi-words such as father-in-law, one-size-fits-all as long as all items
convey a single meaning. Besides, vocabulary also consisted of lexical chunks,
phrases, and multi-word idioms (Tran, 2012; Nguyen, 2019). And, according to
Nunan (2012), words could be from written and spoken texts; therefore, vocabulary
was able to appear in other skills such as reading, listening, writing, and speaking.
It was stated that there were two types of vocabulary containing receptive and
productive vocabulary. Receptive vocabulary was also known as passive vocabulary
which could only be used for input skills such as reading or listening while
productive vocabulary which was recognized as output ones could be written or
spoken for output skills (Webb, 2008). This research aims to measure both receptive
and productive vocabulary with the methods clarified in the following sessions.

9


2.2.2. How children are exposed to vocabulary
Depending on the language learning contexts, students were exposed to two
main contexts: naturalistic contexts and instructed learning (Hummel, 2020). In

naturalistic contexts, vocabulary was acquired without or with little instruction
while with instructed learning, vocabulary was academically taught to students in a
classroom by teachers or at home by parents. Similarly, Albaladejo et al. (2012) also
shared the same view that vocabulary was acquired through direct instruction or
incidental one. To be specific, students when acquiring vocabulary with direct
instruction were instructed with intentional or strategic techniques; in contrast,
students gradually formed a definition of words when they appeared in meaningful
contexts such as a text in a book or in a conversation. And it had been proven that
students obtaining vocabulary in incidental learning performed better than those
who learn intentionally (Pignot-Shahov, 2012).
With this evidence, it was clear that the vocabulary taught intensively in class
was not likely to be remembered and used as effectively as that acquired from
contextual clues. Therefore, there was a great need for teachers to intervene in the
process of vocabulary acquisition and check students‟ understanding in time. As
mentioned in the introduction, CCQs were believed to be a good technique of
checking students‟ understanding, providing students‟ learning process information
for teachers to make immediate intervene if necessary. Besides, due to the fact that
vocabulary was acquired naturally was better than being taught in class, CCQs
should be reviewed to be as most natural as possible. They cannot be the questions
taken from the textbook but the questions for negotiation for meaning and can be
applied in a real-life context.
2.2.3. How vocabulary is remembered
According to Nguyen (2006), memory went through three main processes
including encoding, storage, and retrieval. The first process was about forming
memories, then, in the second process, the human brain experienced three stages
which were sensory story, short-term memory, and long-term memory. In sensory
10


story, the knowledge was solely adequate to generate a connection between a word

and its definition, visual or auditory knowledge. While short-term memory was
temporary, long-term memory was considered to be permanent, which caused the
fact that, if a piece of vocabulary was misunderstood and remembered for a long
period of time, it was likely to become fossilized and challenging to intervene to
modify correctly later on. In the last process, memory was recalled.
CCQs were effective in the second process of memory, contributing to the
forming of short-term memory and strengthening the connection of a word to its
visualization or audio, and avoiding mistake fossilization in long-term memory
(Ivanovna, 2020). It indicated that CCQs should be asked after students had encoded
or learnt the words and before the word was recalled, which meant CCQs were
likely to be asked after teachers taught new words. The diversity of ways to ask
CCQs makes sure it can consolidate every aspect of a word from its meaning, use,
visualization, to its pronunciation (Hadi, Al-Khateeb & Akbar, 2021).
2.2.4. How to measure vocabulary
When it comes to measuring vocabulary, two aspects frequently being
distinguished and focused on were size and depth of vocabulary knowledge. The
size of vocabulary knowledge was the “number of known words” (Schmitt, 2014,
p.1) and the latter was the depth or “how well those words are known” (Schmitt,
2014, p.1). While the size of vocabulary seemed simple to measure, the strength of
them, in order to do so, had to be divided into numerous elements to cover such as
form, meaning, use, etc. A lot of researchers, for example, Nation (2005) and
Tanaka (2016), employed different elements to investigate the depth of an
individual‟s vocabulary knowledge which were collocation, associations, register,
frequency, grammar, meaning, written form, and spoken form. It was shown in most
conclusions that, even in the depth of vocabulary knowledge, these different
elements were likely to reflect different levels of proficiency. To illustrate,
according to the research of Schmitt (2010), the degree of vocabulary development
was the highest in terms of its written and spoken form while its collocation,
11

register, frequency, and associations degree were relatively low.
Full
mastery

No
knowledge
Figure 2.1. Developing knowledge of a word
The relationship between these two aspects has been investigated and it is
commonly believed that there is a gap between vocabulary breadth and depth. Yet,
the distinction might vary ranging from lower to higher frequency words. The
differences in correlation were also affected by the forms of vocabulary. For
example, it was concluded that the smaller and lower-proficiency vocabulary size
was, the less distinction was recognized between the two aspects. There was
evidence of an insignificant distinction between size and strength of vocabulary
knowledge when the concentration was on the centrality of form-meaning link
(Laufer et al, 2004; Schmitt, 2014). In other words, if the level of proficiency was
relatively low such as A1 or A2 level, the gap between size and depth of vocabulary
knowledge was minor. As a result, it was expected that for A2 students, it was not
necessary to construct and deploy two separate tests to measure students‟
vocabulary acquisition as long as this test could measure the vocabulary size and
strength in terms of a form-meaning relationship.
Regarding the content of the form-meaning link test, Laufer et al. (2004)
designed a criterion to measure vocabulary knowledge covering receptive and
12


productive vocabulary as follows
Table 2. Types of vocabulary knowledge

Vocabulary knowledge

Recognition

Recall

Receptive

passive recognition

passive recall

Productive

active recognition

active recall

In the research of Laufer et al. (2004), receptive knowledge was defined as
passive knowledge, and productive knowledge was equivalent to active knowledge.
By receptive or passive vocabulary, it indicated that students were able to
understand the meaning of vocabulary. By productive or active recognition, it
implied that students could get the form of words. The second distinction was on
recognition and recall. If students could recognize a word, it was recognition
knowledge; meanwhile if students could fully remember a word in terms of both
meaning and form, it was recall vocabulary.
The task of passive recognition was giving students a word and asking them
to select its meaning among the options provided. In contrast, that of active
recognition was asking students to opt for a word from many options after reading a
definition. It goes without saying that the amount of receptive vocabulary

outweighed that of productive ones, so the task to measure productive knowledge
was considered to be more challenging. The requirement was basically similar to
that of the receptive one, but there were no options for students to choose, they had
to come up with their own answers. This study employed a test that contained four
types of questions mentioned above to check four types of vocabulary knowledge
equivalents. The examples for each type of question are described as follows:

13


Passive recognition: Circle the meaning of the word
A diary
A.

These are dark cold places inside mountains, and sometimes bats live in

them.
B.

A driver takes people who are very ill to see doctors in hospital in this.

C.

If you can‟t spell a word, you can look for the meanings and spellings of

different words in this.
D.

Some people write in this at the end of every day.

Passive recall: Write one suitable word in the blank
A driver takes people who are very ill to see doctors in hospital in a(n)________.
Active recognition: Circle the word that has the following meaning
If you can‟t spell a word, you can look for the meanings and spellings of different
words in this.
A.

A dictionary

B.

Woods

C.

An ambulance

D.

A postcard

Active recall: Write one suitable word in the blank
If you can‟t spell a word, you can look for the meanings and spellings of different
words in a d_________.
2.3. A2 students
2.3.1. Characteristics of A2 students
The skills of A2 students were described to be able to perform in daily life
conversation. To be specific, they could use simple and formal forms to greet
people, talk about themselves, and exchange information at public places such as
parks, schools, shops, etc. (British Council, 2020). Every learner whose level was

basic was classified into A2 students; however, in this study, the focus was on
school-age learners from eleven to fifteen who were about to take the A2 Flyer test.
14


At school-age, they were thought to be energetic and in the process of increasing
their attention span. This physical characteristic led to a demand of drawing their
attention and preventing them from being distracted. Another noticeable
characteristic was they are curious. The desire to widen their horizon could spur
them to be excited and curious when being asked questions which helped them get
rid of being distracted. Lastly, A2 students were recorded to be sentimental and
competitive, so a failure in attempting to finish a task may cause frustration and a
lack of studying interest, placing a burden on studying later on (Ferguson,
Hanreddy & Draxton, 2011). This indicates that if students give a wrong answer,
teachers should not correct them directly, which can demotivate their passion for
studying.
2.3.2. A2 students’ vocabulary knowledge
The focus of this study is A2 students whose proficiency is supposed to be at
A2 or basic level. This framework is stated both in Vietnamese Proficiency
Framework for English and International Language Standard. They are able to take
A2 Flyers or A2 Key for School tests since they are expected to achieve the
proficiency of the basic users. To be specific, they are able to use English in daily
conversations with the amount of vocabulary equivalent to elementary level.

15