Rote learning versus deep processing: The effect on vocabulary learning and retention

This experimental study mainly aimed at finding an effective way to retain, recognize and recall foreign language vocabulary. In order to fulfil the aim, two vocabulary learning methods were compared: Deep Processing and Rote Learning. ?Deep Processing? in the study referred to ?a greater degree of semantic or cognitive involvement while learning new words? whereas ?Rote Learning? meant ?learning new vocabulary through memorization of decontextualised word lists?. Four techniques encouraging deep processing on vocabulary were practised in the study: `What is it??, `More than Meaning?, `Power Questioning? and `Sense or Nonsense??. Fifty upper-intermediate learners of English as a Foreign Language in Faculty of Sciences at Anadolu University took part in the study. A number of thirty-two words which were selected from the textbooks of the students were determined to be the target words of the study. Of the students assigned into two groups which were equal in number, those who were in the experiment group were exposed to the treatment of deep processing whereas those who were in the control group were provided with a vocabulary list involving either Turkish equivalent or English meaning of the target words. The same test which was administered as the pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test of the study measured the progress in retention, recognition and recall of the target words. The test included three sections (A. matching words with meanings, B. using appropriate words for the blanks in sentences, and C. using appropriate words for the blanks in the paragraphs of a context - cloze test) and covered 32 questions. By means of these three sections, recognition (Section A) and recall (Sections B and C); in a more general term, retention of words was aimed to be checked. A t-test was used to find out if there was a significant difference between the control and experiment groups. The pre-test, which did not reveal significant difference between the groups, was followed by the treatment stage which lasted for two weeks. The immediate post-test, which was given after the treatment, demonstrated significant difference between the groups ?favouring the experiment group and deep processing method. The delayed post-test, which was given after three weeks, showed a similar significance between the groups ?again favouring the experiment group and deep processing method. Another t-test was also used to find out if there was a significant progress within each subject group. The results of the analysis suggested that both deep processing (experiment group) and rote learning (control group) methods promote immediate and delayed retention, recognition, and recall. Therefore, it cannot be suggested that rote learning is not effective for immediate and delayed recognition, recall and retention of vocabulary. Although the results of the control group indicated that rote learning also facilitates immediate and delayed recognition, recall and retention of vocabulary, it is clear that students in the experiment group presented a more effective achievement in the recognition, recall and retention of words with the assistance of techniques which encouraged deep processing. Besides aiding students in short-term and long-term lexical retention, the deep processing techniques practised in the study also promoted the students to be highly motivated, enthusiastic, amused and active while learning the target vocabulary throughout the application of the techniques. It is concluded in this study that the superiority of deep processing over rote learning is a result of the greater degree of semantic or cognitive involvement with which it equips the learner while learning new words.