Discussion and Conclusions

The first study showed no difference between a story method and a list-learning method for vocabulary learning on a delayed posttest. The second study found no difference in efficiency in vocabulary learning between story telling and story- telling supplemented with vocabulary learning activities. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies showing that hearing stories results in vocabulary development.

The results appear to be consistent with the Comprehension Hypothesis⁽³⁾, which claims that language development is the result of the comprehension of messages. The story-telling method used here, however, used some focus on form: subjects knew that vocabulary development was the goal of the story and they were directed to pay attention to the new words. The Story-Only groups, however, did no language production and did not have their errors corrected, which confirms an important aspect of the Comprehension Hypothesis: Production and feedback are not necessary for language development to occur.

The finding that story-telling is as effective as more traditional methods is encouraging. Stories are far more pleasant and engaging than traditional instruction, and students can gain other aspects of language from stories, as well as knowledge.

References

4