This study examined the effectiveness of isolated versus integrated vocabulary instruction methods with 28 adult English language learners. Participants completed isolated and integrated reading tasks with vocabulary questions, as well as a delayed post-test. Results showed students scored similarly high on both initial tasks, averaging 86% on isolated and 85% on integrated. On the delayed post-test, students averaged 71% on multiple choice and 79% on short answer questions. While most students preferred integrated methods, performance did not significantly differ between approaches. The study concluded that both isolated and integrated instruction can effectively increase vocabulary learning for adult ELLs.

1. A N D R E A A V E R Y - R E N A UL T
S P Y RI D OUL A L A I Z I NO U
S A R A H S I DD I Q
Which Method, Isolated or Integrated, of Teaching
Vocabulary is More Effective for Adult ELLs?

2. Research Question
Which Method, Isolated or Integrated, of Teaching
Vocabulary is More Effective for Adult ELLs?
Does any Form Focused Instruction (FFI) affect
learning of vocabulary while reading?
Does integrated or isolated instructional task increase
retention of new vocabulary?

3. Participants and Context
Data was collected from two upper intermediate Level
5 ESL classes at an English language school located in
a college campus in Queens, New York.
Participants included 28 adult ESL students (N=28),
average age (25) , 13 males and 14 females with L1s
including Mandarin, Korean, Spanish, and Russian.

4. Data Collection Instruments
MIXED METHOD DESIGN
Isolated vocabulary reading and multiple choice task. Total
Time-30 minutes of one class period (quantitative).
Integrated vocabulary reading and short answer task. Total
Time-30 minutes of one class period (quantitative)
Student questionnaire. Total Time-5-8 minutes of one class
period (qualitative and quantitative).
Delayed post test with vocabulary words, multiple choice
and short answer, plus assessment of 4 incidental words.
Total Time-20 minutes of one class period (quantitative).

5. Data Analysis
1a Isolated Vocabulary Task
Participants responses of 10 multiple choice questions in the Isolated Vocabulary
task were quantitatively scored for correct and incorrect selections on a numeric
scale based on a 100-point system.
1b Integrated Vocabulary Task
Participant responses of 5 short answer questions in the Integrated Vocabulary task
were quantitatively scored for correct and incorrect response of vocabulary words
on a numeric scale based on a 100-point system.
1c Student Questionnaire
Data from the Student Questionnaire was both quantitatively and qualitatively
analyzed. Coding was preformed that looked at recurring responses and ideas or
concepts by participants in question 6 of the questionnaire that looked at
instructional preference style.
1d Delayed Post Test
Participant responses from the delayed post test were quantitatively scored for
correct and incorrect selections on a numeric scale based on a 100-point system.

6. Findings
It was found that in this study, adult ELLs scored an
average of 86% on the Isolated Vocabulary task.

7. Findings Cont'd
It was discovered that the adult ELLs in this study
scored an average of 85% on the Integrated
Vocabulary task.

8. Findings Cont'd
It was discovered that a majority of the adult
ELLs in this study had a distnict variation between
their isloated and integrated scores.

9. Findings Cont'd
It was found that participants in this study scored an average of
71% in the multiple choice section and 79% in the short answer
section of the delayed post test. Students not exposed to initial
instruction performed much lower than the rest of the participants
on delayed post-test. ( #s 29-32 )

10. Findings Cont'd
o It was found that the incidental words that were assessed
in the delayed post test scored at an average of 74%.

11. Limitations
Limited by small number of participants (N=28)
The research tasks were not part of a class lesson, students
may have been unfamiliar with the format and presentation
of the content, this may have played a role in their
motivation or interest levels
The time frame did not allow for oral instruction of word
definitions
Due to time constraints, no pilot group nor pre-existing
knowledge of vocabulary words were tested
Due to time and fatigue, students did not answer
comprehension question of the Isolated Test in one group

12. Limitations cont’d
Students from one group were exposed to the same short
answer questions twice, while the other group were
exposed to these words, but in multiple choice form, which
may have played a role in their results of their delayed post
test.
Participants showed motivation but the structure of the
study was long and, perhaps, daunting in the middle of a 3
hour class. This may have influenced the results, but we
can’t say for sure.

13. Discussion
Our findings are consistent with previous studies (Adam
and File 2010) that showed increased knowledge and
retention of vocabulary following Formed Focused
Instruction (FFI).
Isolated and integrated methods scored closely with each
other.
No method to show knowledge of the target or incidental
words.
Students showed a preference for integrated assessments
but this did not necessarily reflect their performance with
the integrated segment.

14. Conclusion
• Though this was not a regular classroom task, the students
performed at a high level in the initial part and showed a
very high retention rate during the delayed post test(71%
Multiple Choice and 79% Short Answer ).
Though slightly more students preferred Integrated
methods, they performed well with either technique.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Isolated Integrated Delayed MS Delayed SA
Series1

15. Conclusion cont’d
Both FFI contributed positively to L2 Vocabulary
learning. This is evident in the post-test and the high
percentage of retention in new vocabulary words.
Learners’ performance in Isolated and Integrated task
didn’t reveal a notable difference.

16. Pedagogical Implications
Students increase their vocabulary with deliberate
instruction.
Both Integrated and Isolated forms of instruction should
be included in the vocabulary lessons to meet the needs of
diverse learners.
Consequently, teachers should combine both FFI in
relation to their students’ needs, their instructional
preference and the aim of their teaching.
Continued instruction of vocabulary to adult ELLs is
necessary to decrease the “lexical gap” they have with
native English speakers (Folse, 2006)

17. References
File, K. A., & Adams, R. (2010). Should Vocabulary Instruction Be Integrated or Isolated?. TESOL
Quarterly, 44(2), 222–249.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The Effect of Type of Written Exercise on L2 Vocabulary Retention. TESOL Quarterly,
40(2), 273–293.
Folse, K. (2011). Applying L2 Lexical Research Findings in ESL Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 362–
369
Ford-Connors, E. (2015). Vocabulary Instruction in fifth Grade and Beyond: Sources of Word Learning
and Productive Contexts for Development. Review of Educational Research March 2015, 85, no. 1, 50-
91.
Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary
instruction.
Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From Receptive to Productive: Improving ESL Learners' Use of
Vocabulary in a Postreading Composition Task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295–320
Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 Vocabulary Learning from Context: Strategies, Knowledge Sources, and Their
Relationship with Success in L2 Lexical Inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645–670.
Spada, N. (2014). Isolated and Integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2
knowledge. Language Teaching Research 2014, 18(4), 453-473. DOI: 10.1177/1362168813519883
Spada, N. (June 2008). Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? Tesol Quarterly, 42, 2nd ser.
Unaldi, I. (2013). A comparison of contextualized, decontextualized and corpus- informed vocabulary
instruction: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Language and Literature Education, 8, 78-95.
Xiaoyan, X. (2013). Vocabulary explanation in English-major university classrooms in China. ELT
Journal: English Language Teaching Journal, 67(4), 435-445. doi:10.1093/elt/cct031

18. Thank You for Your Time
• Questions
• Comments