A Critical Review on Edsoulla Chung’s Revisiting Second Language Vocabulary Teaching: Insights from Hong Kong In-Service Teachers

By: Edward D. Bularon, MAEL

Ph.D. Candidate 

edward.bularon@deped.gov.ph

Summary

Dr. Edsoulla Chung is an Assistant Professor at the School of Education and Languages and a program head for the Master of Education in English Language Education at Hong Kong Metropolitan University (HKMU). She earned her doctorate degree in Second Language Education at the University of Cambridge as a full Trust Scholar. She received various awards and accolades in the fields of research and teaching, such as a silver prize in research from the Katie Shu Sui Pui Charitable Trust Outstanding Research Publication Award in 2023, the Emerald Literati Outstanding Reviewer Award in 2022, the President’s Awards for Teaching Excellence from HKMU in 2021, and the Exemplary Teaching Award from The Chinese University in Hong Kong for three consecutive years (2013; 2014; 2015), among others.

Dr. Chung is interested in English language education, teacher education, and educational research. Driven by her interest in those fields, she has published a variety of studies since 2013 on subjects like English language education, teacher development, second language acquisition, vocabulary enhancement, and e-learning, some of which were funded by the university and other councils. Currently, she is working on five funded research projects as either principal or co-principal investigator, with some set to conclude in 2024.

The research under review is just one of her case studies, which sought to identify teachers’ beliefs about vocabulary teaching, and the factors shaping those beliefs, which highly influence their way of teaching English words. This was conceptualized under three assumptions: (1) the Hong Kong educational system does not specify nor provide outlines on how to integrate vocabulary in the English lessons, which meant teachers had to depend on their personal beliefs and professional judgment and look for available resources to embed teaching of lexicon in their classes; (2) The English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide in the country no longer offers a list of specific vocabulary to be taught, leading teachers to use words found only in textbooks and lastly, (3) that one’s vocabulary beliefs play a vital role in guiding teaching practice during English classes.

The aforementioned assumptions and the challenging conditions in Hong Kong classrooms prompted the researcher to explore the epistemological and pedagogical beliefs of four English teachers, as well as the key factors influencing those beliefs in relation to their vocabulary teaching techniques and strategies. Beliefs, according to Borg as cited by Chun (2018), are personal understandings or propositions that individuals accept as true, even though they are aware that others may hold different beliefs. The concept is divided into two: (1) epistemological beliefs concerning the nature and acquisition of knowledge (Schommer , 1994 as cited by Chun, 2018) however, in this context, the author relates epistemological beliefs to perceptions about the role of vocabulary and their notion of vocabulary knowledge; and (2) pedagogical beliefs represent educational beliefs about teaching and learning (Ertmer, 2005 in Chun, 2018).

Moreover, the study was anchored on Borg’s (2006) framework, which describes the relationship among cognition, learning, and classroom practices in understanding teachers’ beliefs.  His theory suggests that teachers’ experiences in schooling and their professional education influence them throughout their profession and that teachers' thinking and practices influence each other, with contextual factors affecting the extent to which teachers implement practices that align with their beliefs, particularly in the area of vocabulary teaching and learning. Four female secondary Hong Kong English language teachers underwent in-depth semi-structured interviews to further understand whether teachers’ cognition and practices are reciprocally aligned with each other. Their responses were coded exactly to reveal common themes, shedding light on the questions. 

Numerous findings came out of the study. Firstly, while the participating teachers seemed to agree that vocabulary is crucial for second language comprehension and communication, their notion of what really constitutes vocabulary knowledge revealed uncertainty. Teachers were unsure of the multi-dimensionality of vocabulary and gave much focus on either or combination of spelling, pronunciation, and meaning, which they thought were the only aspects of word knowledge. It is also worth noting that less experienced teachers were able to address all aspects of word knowledge, which is relatively opposite to those who have been in the industry for quite some time. In fact, one teacher, despite her years of experience, still found it challenging to explain her views on word knowledge. This finding suggests that teachers’ epistemological knowledge has nothing to do with the length of teaching service. Moreover, their epistemological beliefs about the concept of a word and their pedagogical approaches to teaching vocabulary were not also congruent. Teachers contended that though these English vocabulary aspects are crucial in mastery of the language; they concentrate on only a few aspects during the teaching process. They further argued that students could learn some of the unselected factors either independently or incidentally and therefore need not be taught explicitly or implicitly in the classroom to avoid overwhelming them with too much information. This finding corroborates that of Johnson’s, as cited by Chun’s (2018) argument that an individual's theoretical orientation and teaching beliefs can sometimes be inconsistent. 

Secondly, in their approach to vocabulary instruction, teachers did not employ any social, cognitive, or metacognitive strategies for vocabulary development, instead focusing solely on memory and guessing activities. As one teacher-informant pointed out, learners were exposed to these strategies to enhance their self-reliance during examinations, where no external assistance was available.

Another finding is that discrepancies existed between the vocabulary beliefs and practices of English language teachers, influenced by contextual factors, the school syllabus, and student-related considerations. Whilst all teachers agreed that exposure to authentic materials and vocabulary enhancement activities elicit learners’ production of vocabulary in a more natural context, they all resorted to the use of explicit instruction because of the different classroom factors that hinder a positive classroom atmosphere.

Moreover, the data revealed three key factors that significantly shape teachers' beliefs about vocabulary instruction: their own language learning experiences in school, contextual influences, and their professional development experiences. The data showed that respondents' former teachers had a significant influence on their beliefs and practices in vocabulary instruction. Since there were no clear guidelines on how to deliver vocabulary instruction, many adopted the teaching approaches and strategies used by their previous teachers, which they perceived as “successful” based on their own experiences. Teachers tended to focus on specific aspects of word knowledge – those that they believed were the only ones important – and vocabulary teaching strategies, often replicating those from their own language learning experiences, while showing little openness to alternative methods. They will only employ an alternative if the strategy used did not deliver a positive outcome in vocabulary teaching. This scenario could lead to teachers changing their vocabulary beliefs at some point in their careers, as influenced by their classroom experiences. Additionally, school policies, textbooks, and the curriculum also shape teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to teaching words. Their vocabulary instruction is limited to these factors, and while they would prefer to go beyond them, they all agreed that doing so would be a waste of time. Whilst the aforementioned two factors positively influenced the informants' beliefs, the third factor—professional development experiences—had the opposite effect. It was determined to be negligible, having little effect on influencing teachers' beliefs about vocabulary instruction, primarily because the they lacked formal training and seminars dedicated to enhancing their lexical knowledge. Their stagnant growth on the different strategies in teaching vocabulary, along with limited exposure to the English lexicon, contributed to the decline in their confidence in English teaching skills thus, admitting that they also continue to learn English vocabulary alongside their students because of their own limited lexical expertise.

In summary, Dr. Chun concluded that the participating secondary English teachers focused on and taught only certain aspects of vocabulary that they perceived were essential to vocabulary development and second language acquisition. They also choose and use vocabulary-teaching strategies not because of their beliefs but rather out of practicality, opting for methods such as explicit instruction and traditional strategies like memorization and guessing activities. She also noted that due to limited opportunities, professional development had played a minimal role in shaping their beliefs about vocabulary instruction.

As recommendations, she reiterated Brookfield’s (1995) point that teachers have to engage in critical reflection on their beliefs and practices by considering different perspectives (Johns, as cited by Chun, 2018) in order to strengthen their personal assumptions about teaching and learning. This whole study offers valuable insights for English language educators in terms of teaching ideals and practices to improve the lexicon of English language learners, like reminding how important vocabulary development is in skills-based approaches to teaching, the need for teachers to act consistently with their expressed beliefs to avoid sending confusing messages to learners, and lastly, how professional development can help educators improve learning to teach and teaching to learn abilities.

Critique

To achieve communicative competence in English, a strong vocabulary foundation needs to be established first. The development of the four-macro skills largely depends on one’s knowledge and command of the lexicon, as vocabulary literacy does not end when one spells out correctly or knows the meaning of a word. It is beyond that notion that needs further attention to address current gaps and effectively incorporate this aspect in language teaching. The article highlighted authentic classroom scenarios and the challenges faced by English language teachers in Hong Kong that may be relevant in other countries where English is taught either as a second language (L2) or a foreign language (FL) in vocabulary instruction. This pictures out the unclear guidelines given to vocabulary teaching and how teachers are coping with the said challenge.

With over a decade of experience teaching English both abroad and in the Philippines, I agree with Chun's observation that there are no clear guidelines for teaching vocabulary. Teachers often have to rely on their own perspective to integrate vocabulary instruction into the lessons. While some teachers in the country begin their English classes with a brief spelling activity and then use the words in sentences to explicitly define them for the students, others prefer to explain the meaning of new or challenging words as they arise during the lesson. The differences in approaches and strategies stem from the fact that vocabulary instruction receives less emphasis in the L2 teaching and learning process, leaving teachers to figure out how to embed vocabulary in the lesson on their own. The widespread belief that learning English is mainly about grammar, pronunciation, and pattern drills (Susanto et al. 2020) is one of the culprits why vocabulary development is often overlooked. As a result, to save time and meet objectives within the given timeframe, we teachers often go straight to the core of the lesson and only unlock vocabulary difficulties when they arise during the course of the discussion.

This study is relevant especially for English teachers in Hong Kong or other environments with the same context to reassess their notion that only certain aspects of English vocabulary are important in achieving competence in the language or perhaps realign their beliefs congruent to what they do inside the classroom when teaching vocabulary. The uncovered challenges faced by the teachers provide valuable insights for language policymakers when developing language or school policies in the future. Also, the inconsistencies, as revealed in the study, between beliefs and practices among teachers and the excessive use of traditional methods in vocabulary development, which may be of little applicability in this modern time, offers opportunity for English teachers to reflect and consider pedagogical shifts perhaps to enhance and make vocabulary teaching more interesting. By doing so, it can support not only the vocabulary development of students but also improve teachers’ performance in vocabulary instruction. Lastly, this study showed the importance of professional development and how it can improve teachers’ performance in vocabulary instruction. Trainings and seminars, more or less, update educators on new vocabulary strategies and other methods, which may be applicable in the classroom setting to effectively integrate vocabulary in the lessons. This can also help teachers develop their confidence in teaching a language that is not their native tongue. One teacher, despite having taught English for quite some time, struggled to articulate their understanding of word knowledge. Others demonstrated low self-confidence in teaching vocabulary and admitted that they are learning alongside their students. These clearly underscore the need for personal development to address the issues at hand.

Meanwhile, the sample, which includes only four female in-service teachers from the same school, is not sufficient to represent the entire population of language teachers in Hong Kong. Expanding the number of respondents, incorporating a more balanced gender representation, and including teachers from various schools teaching students of different English proficiency levels would have improved the generalizability of the study's findings. In addition to age and length of service considered by the author, these factors would have provided a broader and more accurate reflection of the region's language teaching landscape in vocabulary. The fact that all the respondents come from the same school has minimal impact on the assertion that Hong Kong teachers' epistemological and pedagogical beliefs have gaps and their beliefs are not really reflected in their classroom practices. Bekele and Ago (2022) argued that to ensure validity of the claim and increase the likelihood of publication in reputable journals, a large and diverse sample should be considered.

In the gathering of data, the interview done by the researcher offers firsthand insights and experiences regarding respondents’ epistemological and pedagogical beliefs. This method provides authentic and in-depth data with regards to the issue. However, interviews based on self-reported practices may be subject to bias, as respondents might overestimate the success or failure of particular vocabulary strategies (Rosenman, 2011). While the author acknowledged this limitation, incorporating observational, empirical, or statistical data to reveal additional vocabulary teaching strategies that were not mentioned in the interviews but might have emerged during lessons or through other data collection methods could have strengthened subjectively the findings as well as the interpretation of data. Moreover, the researcher could have employed a mixed-method approach regarding variables like a specific vocabulary teaching belief vis-à-vis frequency of using it in the classroom, their own learning experiences in relation to vocabulary teaching approaches, or perhaps a relationship between a vocabulary teaching strategy they believe is effective versus its actual effectiveness when used in the classroom. Adding quantitative data into this research further strengthens not just the claim that one’s vocabulary beliefs play a crucial role is significantly related to teaching and learning practices but also provides a comprehensive explanation of the relationship of the two variables.

Another issue is that some questions in the interview were too open-ended or broad, leading to inconsistencies in the teachers' responses. For example, one question asked about effective strategies for vocabulary instruction, but this was too ambiguous. Teachers may have been unsure whether the question referred to word meanings, spelling, word formation, or usage in sentences. As a result, instead of generating insightful responses, this lack of clarity may have led the author to conclude that teachers focused mainly on memorization or guessing activities without mentioning social, cognitive, or metacognitive strategies. Had the question been more specific and targeted to a particular aspect of vocabulary, the responses might have been more consistent. In another point of view, teachers' confinement on traditional strategies like memorization and guessing activities may also be attributed to their perception of vocabulary knowledge, which they see as limited to pronunciation, spelling, and meaning only. Considering the minimal attention given to the said aspects, traditional methods of teaching them may indeed be the most appropriate approach.

In the analysis of data, some findings were not compared to those from other researchers done in an educational setting, which has likable attributes. There was no comparison made whether the findings corroborate or refute with other research done whether in Hong Kong or in other countries to deepen the analysis and understanding of the role of teachers’ beliefs in vocabulary in relation to their pedagogical practices. Comparing and contrasting the findings with other literature highlights the importance of one’s research, especially when the findings differ from existing ones. If the aim of L2 teachers is to make their students communicatively competent, then a comparison should be made between the vocabulary teaching perceptions and practices of English teachers in Hong Kong to those of native English teachers, or at least to teachers in a country that treats English in an educational setting similarly. By doing so, we can offer a wide perspective to English teachers in Hong Kong as to where their vocabulary instruction methods stand in comparison to others. While comparison and contrast, also known as meta-synthesis, have certain limitations, they enable researchers to gain a deeper understanding of respondents' experiences and create a nuanced and cohesive representation of the phenomena under investigation (Chrastina, 2018).

Comparison and Contrast

Two separate studies by Susanto et al. (2020) and Lu (2017) were used in this review to compare with Chun’s (2018) study. These studies were selected to offer a deeper understanding of where Hong Kong ESL teachers currently stand in vocabulary teaching in comparison to ESL teachers in native English contexts and EFL environments. Aimed at exploring and analyzing ESL teachers’ beliefs in vocabulary instruction in relation to their teaching strategies and practices, Susanto (2020) used in-depth interviews with college English teachers in Indonesia, while Lu (2017) used a mixed-method approach with ESL teachers of various nationalities in the United States. In their works, all of them agreed that part of second language acquisition is learning and mastery of vocabulary. However, they reiterated that this aspect is not explicitly mentioned or included, whether in the curriculum, syllabus, or course book. Therefore, teachers were left to rely on their perspectives on how to teach vocabulary.

A common finding across the three studies is that teachers have different perceptions of what really comprises vocabulary knowledge. Some emphasized and prioritized specific aspects of word knowledge, such as spelling, pronunciation, lexical meaning, or correct usage, while neglecting other elements like concepts and referents (Chun, 2018). According to a response from Chun’s study, certain aspects do not require much direct teaching as they can be acquired incidentally. Lu (2018) also found that most of her participants focused primarily on teaching individual words and their definitions, giving less attention to other aspects of vocabulary. They considered understanding vocabulary meaning to be the main objective in vocabulary development. Similarly, a teacher in Susanto’s research noted that Indonesian students struggle with spelling and pronouncing English words. As a result, instead of dedicating time to mastering these areas, she chose to focus more on word usage, whether in speaking or writing. 

Additionally, both Chun and Lu’s studies found that years of teaching experience are insignificant to one’s epistemological beliefs in vocabulary. This suggests that the length of teaching experience does not necessarily influence how teachers develop their vocabulary knowledge, as some long-serving teachers remain uncertain about the multi-dimensional nature of words.

Another common finding in the three studies is the gap between what teachers believe to be effective and what they can actually implement in their classrooms. Although they agree that an implicit approach with the use of authentic materials and enhancement activities encourages production and long-term retention of vocabularies, factors like school policies, students, and time constraints prevent them from putting these beliefs into practice. As a result, they often choose strategies based on practicality. For instance, teachers expressed a desire to use authentic materials like newspaper articles and songs, but locating and preparing these resources consumes a significant amount of their limited time. Additionally, there were instances when students misplaced the prepared materials, leading to the teacher's frustration and contributing to their belief that traditional explicit methods are the easiest and most suitable strategies for vocabulary teaching.

Additionally, Lu (2017) discovered through a survey that while her respondents expressed support for implicit vocabulary instruction, their actual classroom practices leaned toward explicit instruction. She concluded that there were inconsistencies between their stated beliefs about vocabulary teaching and their real-life practices. These inconsistencies can be manifested in actual classroom situations due to numerous problems, either personal or contextual. In a survey conducted by Lu, participants listed numerous vocabulary teaching strategies; however, during class observations, those were not observable. The majority of them taught vocabulary incidentally, depending on which part of the lesson the difficulty arises.

Similarly, Susanto et al. (2020) argued that vocabulary teaching and learning were difficult to execute as planned, and thus, teachers’ prepared methods were not always feasible for every lesson. Problems in technology, availability of materials, and classroom management opted for teachers to teach vocabulary explicitly. Both Chun and Susanto’s studies also revealed that, while a rich vocabulary is essential for mastering English, teachers tend to limit vocabulary exposure to what aligns with the lesson and commonly used words, as students often find vocabulary learning boring.

Furthermore, studies arrived at a consensus that memorization is the most commonly used strategy for vocabulary teaching, as they find this method time-efficient. Apart from this, teachers also encourage students to learn vocabulary using their preferred learning strategies (Susanto et al. , 2020) to develop self-trust during examinations, especially for English language learners in Hong Kong (Chun, 2018). This was also the case in one of Lu’s respondents during observation, where she chose to leave students to learn vocabulary by themselves. It is also worth noting that Chun’s findings did not mention any strategies involving technology, despite how advanced Hong Kong is when it comes to the Internet revolution. In contrast, Susanto et al.’s teacher respondents made use of strategies involving technology to incorporate in the vocabulary development. They then argued that the use of varied strategies by the teachers is because of their diverse experiences and class environment.

Lastly, various factors were identified that shaped teachers' beliefs about vocabulary instruction, with experience being the primary contributor. Chun and Susanto et al. both agreed that the actual experience of teachers in the classroom could strengthen, weaken, or eventually lead to the development of new beliefs regarding vocabulary instruction. While Chun discussed the potential impact of textbooks and curricula on teachers' beliefs, Susanto et al. argued that further research is necessary to better understand how these contextual elements affect vocabulary teaching and learning.

Lu and Chun highlighted the importance of professional development for teachers to enhance their pedagogical content knowledge and address discrepancies between their vocabulary beliefs and practices. Gaining knowledge through seminars, workshops, and conferences can help teachers tackle challenges that lead to mismatches between their perceptions and strategies—a primary issue identified by respondents in the three separate studies—as well as be knowledgeable in all aspects of vocabulary to boost their confidence in teaching lexicon. Further, though vocabulary teaching is laborious, Lu highlighted how English teachers in the same school can work together to reduce the stress brought about by vocabulary teaching.

Considering all these inputs, it can be concluded that English teachers, regardless of their teaching context, have varying views on vocabulary, significantly affecting their perceptions of which aspects of word knowledge are most important in instruction, leading to mismatches in vocabulary teaching practices. Despite the advancements in technology, many English teachers around the world still view explicit and traditional methods of vocabulary instruction as practical for teaching lexicon. Further, teachers are in dire need of professional development opportunities, such as training sessions, conferences, and similar activities, which could help address the discrepancies they are facing and strengthen their confidence in teaching a non-native language.

Conclusion

The article "Revisiting Second Language Vocabulary Teaching: Insights from Hong Kong In-Service Teachers" by Edsoulla Chung offers an in-depth discussion on the mismatch relationship between vocabulary teaching and learning beliefs among English teachers. It revealed that teachers have inconsistencies in their vocabulary pedagogical knowledge, which relatively affect their teaching performance. The present scenario is an eye-opener for school administrators and language policy makers to give attention to teachers’ professional growth. The research also identified various challenges faced by the teachers to effectively integrate or teach vocabulary in the classroom, which could serve as a springboard for language policy makers when developing future curriculum policies. Additionally, the study emphasized the importance of professional development, such as training sessions and seminars, to enhance teachers' pedagogical knowledge and boost their confidence in teaching a second language. Despite certain methodological limitations, the findings and recommendations of the study are valuable additions to the domains of education and second language teaching and learning.

Future research investigations could explore the vocabulary instruction of teachers in the primary levels, who are the frontrunners in the development of second language acquisition skills among learners, using these guide questions: (1) How do beliefs about vocabulary instruction vary between elementary teachers in city and municipality schools?; (2) What challenges do elementary teachers face in vocabulary teaching?; (3) What role do technology-assisted strategies play in vocabulary instruction among elementary teachers?

References

Bekele, W. B. & Ago, F. Y. (2022). Sample size for interview in qualitative research in Social   Sciences: A guide to novice researchers. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 4(1), 42–50. 

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chrastina, J. (2018). Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies: Background, methodology and applications. Education and Educational Research. https://www.nordsci.org/

Chun, E. (2018). Revisiting second language vocabulary teaching: Insights from Hong Kong in-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(6), 499–508.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology and integration? Educational Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

Hong Kong Metropolitan University (2024). Staff profile. https://hkmu.edu.hk.

Lu, D. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs and practices: ESL teachers’ perceptions of vocabulary instruction. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/93.

Muhamad, M. & Kiely, R. (2018). Understanding teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in ESL vocabulary teaching. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 7(1), 36–47.

Rosenman, R.  Tennekoon, V. & Hill, L. (2011). Measuring bias in self-reported data. International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research, 2(4), 320–332.

Schommer, M. (1994), Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319

Susanto, A., Oktavia, Y., Yuliani, S., Rahayu, P., Haryati., & Tegor (2020). English lecturers’ beliefs and practices in vocabulary learning. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 486–503.

Preferred Referencing: 

 

Bularon, Edward D. (2024, October 18). A critical review on Edsoulla Chung’s  revisiting second language vocabulary teaching: Insights from Hong Kong  in-service teachers. The Chronicle. https://ctegraduateschool.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-critical-review-on-edsoulla-chungs.html