English teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary: The case of teaching experience

Abstract

Evidently, vocabulary learning has a vital role in learning a foreign language. Accordingly, the way teachers approach teaching vocabulary is also of tremendous importance. Moreover, the role of experience in teaching vocabulary is of significance when it comes to novice and experienced teachers. Thus, the present study set out to investigate the differences between second language (L2) vocabulary teaching beliefs and practices of novice and experienced English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers. Initially, 100 male and female teachers of Modiran Institute in Tehran were selected via convenience sampling. Then, they were briefed about the purposes of the study and data collection. Next, they were asked to fill out the novice and experienced teacher questionnaire and the questionnaire of teachers’ belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching. Then three classroom sessions of 20 of the participants were observed using 15 items of the questionnaire of teachers’ belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching as an observation checklist. The results of statistical analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between the beliefs and practices of teachers in terms of L2 vocabulary teaching. However, there were significant differences among the externally observed practice (EOP), self-perceived practices (SPP) and self-perceived beliefs (SPB) total scores. Moreover, on the whole, teachers’ EOP was significantly different from and lower than their SPP and SPB. The results also revealed that novice and experienced teachers differed significantly in terms of their SPB total scores and experienced teachers had a significantly higher SPB than novice teachers.

Full text

TEACHER EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE
English teachers’beliefs and practices in
teaching vocabulary: The case of teaching
experience
Jahangir Mardali
1
*and Masood Siyyari
1
Abstract: Evidently, vocabulary learning has a vital role in learning a foreign
language. Accordingly, the way teachers approach teaching vocabulary is also of
tremendous importance. Moreover, the role of experience in teaching vocabulary is
of significance when it comes to novice and experienced teachers. Thus, the present
study set out to investigate the differences between second language (L2) voca-
bulary teaching beliefs and practices of novice and experienced English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) teachers. Initially, 100 male and female teachers of Modiran
Institute in Tehran were selected via convenience sampling. Then, they were briefed
about the purposes of the study and data collection. Next, they were asked to fill
out the novice and experienced teacher questionnaire and the questionnaire of
teachers’belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching. Then three classroom
sessions of 20 of the participants were observed using 15 items of the questionnaire
of teachers’belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching as an observation
checklist. The results of statistical analysis indicated that there was no significant
difference between the beliefs and practices of teachers in terms of L2 vocabulary
teaching. However, there were significant differences among the externally
observed practice (EOP), self-perceived practices (SPP) and self-perceived beliefs
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jahangir Mardali obtained his M.A in TEFL from
Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad
University (SRBIAU) in Tehran, Iran. He has been
teaching various general English language
courses at different language institutes in
Tehran. His is interested in doing research in
teaching methodology, teacher cognition and
vocabulary.
Masood Siyyari is an assistant professor of
TEFL and applied linguistics at Science and
Research Branch of Islamic Azad University
(SRBIAU) in Tehran, Iran. He received his Ph.D. in
applied linguistics from Allameh Tabataba’i
University in Tehran, Iran. Currently, he super-
vises MA theses and Ph.D. dissertations and
teaches MA and Ph.D. courses in applied lin-
guistics and translation studies at SRBIAU. His
main areas of research include language
assessment and second language acquisition.
PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Words are highly important in general and even
more important when learning another language.
Obviously, teachers have different opinions about
how to teach words. Thus, having knowledge
about the way teachers teach the words and the
way they think about vocabulary teaching and
learning is important. Moreover, experienced and
novice teachers have also been found to practice
teaching differently. Therefore, if teacher educa-
tors know about the way teachers teach vocabu-
lary and how they think about vocabulary
teaching and learning, they can help teachers
select the best approaches towards vocabulary
teaching which can be to the benefit of language
learners. Thus, this study investigated the differ-
ences between L2 vocabulary teaching beliefs
and practices of novice and experienced EFL tea-
chers. The results revealed that novice and
experienced teachers were different in terms of
the way they thought about vocabulary teaching
and also the way they taught vocabulary.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
© 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Received: 16 December 2018
Accepted: 20 September 2019
First Published: 07 November 2019
*Corresponding author: Jahangir
Mardali, English Language
Department, Science and Research
Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran, Iran
E-mail: jahangir.mardali2018@gmail.
com
Reviewing editor:
Xiaofei Lu, Applied Linguistics,
Pennsylvania State University, State
College, USA
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Page 1 of 33

(SPB) total scores. Moreover, on the whole, teachers’EOP was significantly different
from and lower than their SPP and SPB. The results also revealed that novice and
experienced teachers differed significantly in terms of their SPB total scores and
experienced teachers had a significantly higher SPB than novice teachers.
Subjects: Higher Education; Teachers & Teacher Education; Classroom Practice
Keywords: teachers’beliefs; teachers’cognition; teaching practice; vocabulary teaching
1. Introduction
In today’s modern world of education, second/foreign language teacher education as an indepen-
dent field of applied linguistics has gained upsurge attention because teachers are an integral part
of any successful educational system. According to Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans (2008,
p.1137), “since the 1980s, the teacher-thinking paradigm, which emphasizes the rational system of
teachers, has had a considerable influence on the research into teachers and teaching”. On the
other hand, the relationship between teachers’belief and what exactly they practice as their
academic behaviors in the classroom and their decision making have been recently emphasized
in the English Language Teaching (ELT) research. Hence, the present study is an attempt to
address the experienced and novice English teachers’beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary
in the Iranian context. In the previous two decades, second language studies have progressively
concentrated on educator perception, especially the connection between instructors’beliefs and
their educational practices (Phipps & Borg, 2009; Theriot & Tice, 2009). Nevertheless, few investi-
gations have analyzed L2 instructors’beliefs and practices about vocabulary teaching (Borg, 2006)
in spite of the focal part that vocabulary learning plays in L2 acquisition (Schmitt, 2008) and the
significance of teaching in cultivating learners’vocabulary (Niu & Andrews, 2012).
The assumption of the educators is that teachers’thinking guides their behaviors and their
conscious decisions during their teaching (Clark, 1986, as cited in Evelein, Korthagen, &
Brekelmans, 2008) based on the theories about learning and teaching they have in their minds.
On the other hand, teaching is known to be a stressful profession (Borg & Riding, 1991). “In
comparison with other professions, teachers show higher levels of exhaustion and cynicism, the
core dimensions of burnout”(Schaufeli & &Enzmann, 1998, p.23). Teachers’beliefs about what
they do is of paramount significance and could affect their classroom behaviors. Indeed, beliefs
can be reformed or reoriented by being exposed to input from other professionals and different
types of activity (Gross, 2008). Beliefs are halfway between information and activity; between
people and their performance (Alarcón Hernandez, Ortiz Navarrete, & Díaz Larenas, 2015). They
display the information that is most worth and has demonstrated itself in performance (Alarcón
Hernandez et al., 2015).
Given the important role of etchers’beliefs and the fact that vocabulary learning is significant
in the process of language learning and teaching, the present study was an attempt to
investigate the differences between L2 vocabulary teaching beliefs and real practices of novice
and experienced EFL teachers in the Iranian context. One of the main concerns of teacher
education programs is enabling the teachers to be true decision makers when needed (in the
so-called immediate situations). Such ability is influenced by various factors including teachers’
beliefs (Alarcón Hernandez et al., 2015). On the other hand, the teacher-thinking paradigm and
beliefs, which accentuate the rational system of decision making and teaching in the classroom,
have had a considerable influence on the research into teachers’real practices and classroom
behaviors (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). Teachers’beliefs about vocabulary teaching include memory,
meaning, and function based lexical instruction (Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh, Jahandar, &
Khodabandehlou, 2012). Memory-based belief points to “concentrating on memorizing words,
analyzing the parts of speech, focusing on affixes, listening and repeating, writing and practi-
cing, imagining the written forms of the words and connecting the words with their synonyms
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 2 of 33

and antonyms”(Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh et al., 2012, p. 23). Instructors assert that utilizing
keyword techniques to retain the words, focusing on the form of the words and utilizing
techniques to recall the words (without much regard for meaning) is a powerful instructing
technique to deal with vocabulary instruction (Bhasin & Baveja, 2010).
Borg (2006) hypothesizes that teaching experience is an important factor which might shape
the beliefs of EFL teachers. Previous studies suggested that there could be positive relationships
between the enrichment of teachers’beliefs and their professional practices (Alarcón Hernandez
et al., 2015; Amiryousefi, 2015; Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh et al., 2012; Niu & Andrews, 2012). As
the research findings might be a culture bound issue, different results might be achieved in
different cultures. Based on the purposes of the study and the problems stated above the following
research questions were raised:
RQ1: To what extent are Iranian EFL teachers’beliefs in teaching L2 vocabulary reflected in their
classroom practices?
RQ2: Are there any statistically significant differences between the novice and experienced
English teachers’beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary?
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) taking part in the present study were 100
EFL teachers selected from among the male and female teachers of English teaching in
Modiran Language Institute in Tehran. The reason behind this decision was that the researcher
had already taught and supervised other teachers in some of these institutes and this famil-
iarity facilitated the process of conducting research. The EFL teachers taking part in the present
study received the Novice and Experienced Teacher Questionnaire (Rodríguez & McKay, 2010)
based on which the researcher could determine if they were novice or experienced. Therefore,
theparticipantswerebothexperiencedteachers (with more than 3 years of experience in
teaching English in the institutes) and novice teachers (with 2 years of experience or less than
that as well as the student teachers studying at the Bachelor of Arts (BA) level and working as
teachers in the institutes). The participants were both male and female teachers and within the
age range of 22 to 45 (M = 34). Out of the huge population of EFL teachers in different
institutes in Tehran (N = 2700) (http://tehranedu.ir),basedonKrejcieandMorgan(1970)
table of sample size, 100 EFL male and female teachers working in different branches of
Modiran language Institute were selected as the main participants of the study (n = 100).
2.2. Instruments
To collect the desired data, a Novice and Experienced Teacher Questionnaire, Questionnaire of
Teachers’Beliefs about L2 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching and an In-depth Classroom
Observation were used as the instruments of the study. The description of the instruments used
in the study is as follows:
2.2.1. Novice and experienced teacher questionnaire
This questionnaire has been developed and validated by Rodríguez and McKay (2010) (See
Appendix A). Novice and Experienced Teacher Questionnaire can relatively specify the teachers’
level of experience. It consists of three scales with a total of 12 items. The Cronbach’s Alpha
reliability index reported for this questionnaire is (α= .72), which is a good reliability (Rodríguez &
McKay, 2010). The minimum score is 12 and the maximum score is 60. The cut score specified is 30
to 36. It means that the teachers with scores below 30 are labeled as novice and the ones with
scores above 36 are considered as experienced ones. The teachers with scores between 30 and 36
are left out to confirm the clear cut scoring system.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 3 of 33

2.2.2. Questionnaire of teachers’belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching
This questionnaire had already been developed and used for surveying integration of grammar in
the L2 classroom by Borg and Burns (2008). To be used as a means of data collection, the
questionnaire was adopted and adapted to the L2 vocabulary learning and teaching and the
questionnaire for the current study was developed (See Appendix B). Then, the questionnaire
was piloted through being administered to a group of 30 EFL teachers and its reliability was
checked again. The Cronbach’s Alpha index for the questionnaire calculated in this study was .82.
The content validity of the questionnaire was put to the scrutiny of two experts who were TEFL
PhD holders of Islamic Azad University in the Science and Research branch of the university. The
questionnaire included 30 items in total. The initial 15 items on the questionnaire measured the
self-perceived beliefs of the participants concerning vocabulary teaching while the second 15
items examined teachers’beliefs on their self-perceived practices regarding vocabulary teaching.
2.2.3. In-depth classroom observation
To examine the real practices of the participants in classroom settings, items 16 to 30 of the
Questionnaire of Teachers’Belief about L2 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching were used. The
researcher observed 20 of the participants while they were teaching and recorded their perfor-
mance in relations to vocabulary teaching on the 15 items checklist. Class observation helped the
researcher to elicit the required data concerning the correspondence of beliefs about vocabulary
teaching generally as well as specific beliefs and reported practices about the integration of
vocabulary skills teaching. Teachers might have expressed strong beliefs in the need to avoid
teaching vocabulary in isolation and may have reported high levels of integration of vocabulary in
their practices. This in-depth classroom observation revealed how well they had put into practice
their own beliefs. To be in line with the ethic codes in research, teachers already were informed
two days prior to being observed that they would be observed. Also, the teachers were informed
that the results of the observation were used only for research purposes and the data would be
kept confidential with the researcher and would not be a part of the formal observations done by
the institutes managers. Hence, they did their real job in the classroom without any anxiety or
stress about being observed.
2.3. Procedure
At first 100 male and female teachers of English teaching English in different branches of Modiran
Institute in Tehran were selected based on their teaching experience and considering convenience
sampling. Then they were briefed about the purposes of the study and data collection and the
specifications of the questionnaires. In the next step, they were asked to fill out the questionnaires
of teachers’belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching. Then, three classroom sessions of
the 20 of the participants filling out the questionnaires were observed, and analyzed. The data
were analyzed via Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software; version 24, and then
reported and checked against the research questions of the study.
3. Results
3.1. Answering the first research question
The first research question of the study was:
Question 1. To what extent are Iranian EFL teachers’beliefs in teaching L2 vocabulary reflected in
their classroom practices?
Answering this question required two comparisons as follows:
●Comparison of self-perceived practices (SPP) and self-perceived beliefs (SPB) means of 100
teachers in terms of total scores and item scores
●Comparison of externally observed practice (EOP), SPP and SPB means of 20 teachers in terms
of total scores and item scores
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 4 of 33

3.1.1. Comparison of SPP and SPB total scores
In order to compare SPP and SPB total scores, first the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 1).
Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed
to check normality assumption, showing that the data met this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96),
hence running t test as a parametric test requiring normally distributed data to compare the SPP and
SPB mean scores.
Table 2presents the paired samples t test results showing that there is no significant difference
between the SPP and SPB mean total scores of the teachers (p > .05). This result shows that on the
whole there is no difference between the beliefs and practices of teachers in terms of L2 vocabu-
lary teaching as perceived by the teachers themselves.
3.1.2. Comparison of EOP, SPP and SPB total scores
In order to compare EOP, SPP and SPB total scores, first the descriptive statistics were computed
(Table 3). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were
computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data met this assumption (i.e. ratios
within −1.96), hence running repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) as a parametric
test requiring normally distributed data to compare the EOP, SPP and SPB mean scores.
Another assumption of RM ANOVA is sphericity measured by Mauchly’s test whose results in
Table 4show that it is not met (p < .05); therefore, Greenhouse-Geisser results were checked in
Table 5of RM ANOVA results, which does not assume sphericity.
Table 5presents the RM ANOVA results showing that there is a significant difference among the
EOP, SPP and SPB total scores (p < .05). In order to see where among the scores the significant
difference exists, multiple post hoc pairwise comparisons were run having Bonferroni adjustment
controlling for Type I Error.
The multiple post hoc pairwise comparisons result in Table 6show that on the whole teachers’
EOP is significantly different from and lower than their SPP and SPB (p < .05).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
N Min Max Mean SD Std.
Error
Std.
Error
SPP 100 37.00 73.00 53.640 6.87481 .038 .241 .387 .478
SPB 100 38.00 73.00 54.180 6.62316 −.005 .241 .090 .478
Valid N
(listwise)
20
Table 2. Paired samples test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean SD Std.
Error
Mean
Lower Upper t df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Pair 1 SPP—SPB −.540 5.69675 .56967 −1.67036 .59036 −.948 99 .345
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 5 of 33

Table 3. Descriptive statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
N Min Max Mean SD Statistic Std. Error Std. Error
EOP 20 38.00 57.00 48.10 5.04610 −.458 .512 −.516 .992
SPP 20 51.00 70.00 57.40 5.07211 .859 .512 .362 .992
SPB 20 43.00 67.00 56.55 6.07389 −.355 .512 −.028 .992
Valid N (listwise) 20
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 6 of 33

Table 4. Mauchly’s test of sphericity
a
Measure: MEASURE_1
Epsilonb
Within
Subjects
Effect
Mauchly’s
W
Approx. Chi-
Square
df Sig. Greenhouse-
Geisser
Huynh-
Feldt
Lower-
bound
Test .664 7.358 2 .025 .749 .798 .500
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. Design: Intercept
Within Subjects Design: Test
b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed
in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Table 5. Tests of within-subjects effects (RM ANOVA results)
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig. Partial
Eta
Squared
Test Sphericity
Assumed
1057.433 2 528.717 28.843 .000 .603
Greenhouse-
Geisser
1057.433 1.498 706.130 28.843 .000 .603
Huynh-Feldt 1057.433 1.597 662.170 28.843 .000 .603
Lower-bound 1057.433 1.000 1057.433 28.843 .000 .603
Error(Test) Sphericity
Assumed
696.567 38 18.331
Greenhouse-
Geisser
696.567 28.453 24.482
Huynh-Feldt 696.567 30.342 22.958
Lower-bound 696.567 19.000 36.661
Table 6. Pairwise comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
(I) Test (J) Test Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
12−9.300* 1.398 .000 −12.969 −5.631
3−8.450* 1.639 .000 −12.753 −4.147
2 1 9.300* 1.398 .000 5.631 12.969
3 .850 .927 1.000 −1.583 3.283
3 1 8.450* 1.639 .000 4.147 12.753
2−.850 .927 1.000 −3.283 1.583
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 7 of 33

Table 7. Descriptive statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
N Min Max Mean SD Std. Error Std. Error
q1SPB 100 1.00 5.00 4.0200 1.04427 −1.127 .241 .785 .478
q1SPP 99 1.00 5.00 3.5152 1.34288 −.755 .243 −.650 .481
q2SPB 100 1.00 5.00 4.0100 1.10550 −1.256 .241 1.014 .478
q2SPP 100 1.00 5.00 4.1100 .88643 −1.285 .241 1.766 .478
q3SPB 99 1.00 5.00 4.2727 .86683 −1.427 .243 2.228 .481
q3SPP 99 1.00 5.00 4.0303 1.04447 −1.268 .243 1.092 .481
q4SPB 99 1.00 5.00 3.3838 1.11307 −.675 .243 −.155 .481
q4SPP 100 1.00 5.00 3.5600 1.13991 −.861 .241 −.009 .478
q5SPB 99 1.00 5.00 3.0707 1.41603 −.281 .243 −1.322 .481
q5SPP 99 1.00 5.00 3.4545 1.23943 −.698 .243 −.519 .481
q6SPB 100 1.00 5.00 2.0100 1.27521 1.084 .241 −.089 .478
q6SPP 99 1.00 5.00 2.1919 1.23451 .655 .243 −.773 .481
q7SPB 100 1.00 5.00 3.5200 1.13244 −.625 .241 −.248 .478
q7SPP 99 1.00 5.00 3.2020 1.12467 −.585 .243 −.531 .481
q8SPB 100 1.00 5.00 4.2700 .95193 −1.573 .241 2.336 .478
q8SPP 100 1.00 5.00 4.4400 .87985 −2.174 .241 5.576 .478
q9SPB 99 1.00 5.00 3.3838 1.26739 −.577 .243 −.723 .481
q9SPP 94 1.00 5.00 3.7553 1.13295 −1.179 .249 .835 .493
q10SPB 99 1.00 5.00 3.3838 1.36058 −.507 .243 −.987 .481
q10SPP 99 1.00 5.00 3.1717 1.30962 −.269 .243 −1.099 .481
q11SPB 98 1.00 5.00 4.1735 1.03571 −1.437 .244 1.607 .483
q11SPP 100 1.00 5.00 4.2900 1.02784 −1.637 .241 2.172 .478
q12SPB 100 1.00 5.00 4.5600 .70094 −2.193 .241 6.990 .478
q12SPP 100 1.00 5.00 4.3700 .77401 −1.687 .241 4.165 .478
(Continued)
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 8 of 33

Table 7. (Continued)
Skewness Kurtosis
N Min Max Mean SD Std. Error Std. Error
q13SPB 100 1.00 5.00 3.6900 1.10732 −.859 .241 .189 .478
q13SPP 100 1.00 5.00 3.9300 .99752 −1.104 .241 1.008 .478
q14SPB 100 1.00 5.00 2.8300 1.26375 .052 .241 −.937 .478
q14SPP 100 1.00 5.00 2.5500 1.27426 .334 .241 −.967 .478
q15SPB 100 1.00 5.00 3.8600 1.32589 −1.064 .241 −.021 .478
q15SPP 98 1.00 5.00 3.5612 1.23578 −.712 .244 −.348 .483
Valid N (listwise) 86
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 9 of 33

3.1.3. Comparison of SPP and SPB item scores
In order to compare SPP and SPB item scores, first the descriptive statistics were computed
(Table 1). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors)
were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data for the majority of items
did not meet this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96). Moreover, since the items were scored on
a Likert scale, the item data were considered as ordinal data, hence running Wilcoxon Signed
Ranks Test as a non-parametric test not requiring normally distributed data to compare the SPP
and SPB items mean scores.
Table 7displays the descriptive statistics for the items. Tables 8and 9present the Wilcoxon
Signed Ranks Test results for each item showing that there is a significant difference between
some SPP and SPB items, that is items 1, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 15.
These items along with their means are listed in Table 10.Insum,theWilcoxonSigned
Ranks Tests results and the observed means demonstrate that in teachers’belief, teachers
consider:
Table 8. Wilcoxon signed ranks test
q1SPP—
q1SPB
q2SPP—
q2SPB
q3SPP—
q3SPB
q4SPP—
q4SPB
q5SPP—
q5SPB
q6SPP—
q6SPB
q7SPP—
q7SPB
q8SPP—
q8SPB
Z−3.199b −.518c −1.816b −1.420c −2.499c −1.597c −2.551b −1.659c
Sig. .001 .605 .069 .156 .012 .110 .011 .097
b. Based on positive ranks.
c. Based on negative ranks.
Table 9. Wilcoxon signed ranks test
q9SPP—
q9SPB
q10SPP—
q10SPB
q11SPP—
q11SPB
q12SPP—
q12SPB
q13SPP—
q13SPB
q14SPP—
q14SPB
q15SPP—
q15SPB
Z−2.402c −1.779b −1.251c −2.172b −1.576c −1.788b −2.190b
Sig. .016 .075 .211 .030 .115 .074 .029
b. Based on positive ranks.
c. Based on negative ranks.
Table 10. SPP and SPB item differences
Item No. Item Content SPB/SPP Mean
1 Teachers should present vocabulary to learners before expecting
them to use it.
q1SPB 4.0200
q1SPP 3.5152
5 During lessons, a focus on vocabulary should come after
communicative tasks, not before.
q5SPB 3.0707
q5SPP 3.4545
7 In a communicative approach to language teaching vocabulary is
not taught directly.
q7SPB 3.5200
q7SPP 3.2020
9 In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules. q9SPB 3.3838
q9SPP 3.7553
12 Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners use them
repeatedly by themselves.
q12SPB 4.5600
q12SPP 4.3700
15 It is necessary to study the vocabulary of a second or foreign
language in order to speak it fluently.
q15SPB 3.8600
q15SPP 3.5612
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 10 of 33

●More significance for “presenting vocabulary to learners before expecting them to use it”in
comparison to their own actual practice.
●Less significance for item 5, which is “During lessons, a focus on vocabulary should come after
communicative tasks, not before”than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.
●More significance for item 7, which is “In a communicative approach to language teaching
vocabulary is not taught directly.”than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.
●Less significance for item 9, which is “In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to
explain the rules.”than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.
●More significance for item 12, which is “Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners
use them repeatedly by themselves.”than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.
●More significance for item 15, which is “It is necessary to study the vocabulary of a second or
foreign language in order to speak it fluently.”than their actual practice of vocabulary
teaching.
3.1.4. Comparison of EOP, SPP and SPB item scores
In order to compare EOP, SPP and SPB item scores, first the descriptive statistics were computed
(Table 11). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors)
were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data for the majority of items
did not meet this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96). Moreover, since the items were scored on
a Likert scale, the item data were considered as ordinal data, hence running Friedman Test as
a non-parametric test not requiring normally distributed data to compare the EOP, SPP and SPB
items mean scores.
Tables 12 and 13present the Friedman results for each item showing that there is a significant
difference among some EOP, SPP and SPB items, that is items 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
In order to see where among EOP, SPP and SPB items these significant differences exist, pairwise
post hoc comparisons were run, who results are presented in Table 14.
These items along with their means are listed in Table 15. In sum, the Friedman test results, post
hoc comparisons and the observed means demonstrate that based on when teachers are exter-
nally observed, teachers give less significance to the following items:
●Item 2, which is “Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can use the language more
effectively than those who are not.”than their self-perception of their belief and actual
practice of vocabulary teaching.
●Item 3, which is “Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary structures help learners develop
fluency in using vocabulary.”than their self-perception of their belief of vocabulary teaching.
●Item 8, which is “In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows learners to use structures
fluently”than their self-perception of their belief and actual practice of vocabulary teaching.
●Item 9, which is “In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules.”than
their self-perception of their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.
●Item 11, which is “Correcting learners’spoken vocabulary errors in English is one of the
teacher’s key roles.”than their self-perception of their belief and actual practice of vocabulary
teaching.
●Item 12, which is “Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners use them repeatedly by
themselves.”than their self-perception of their belief and actual practice of vocabulary teaching.
All in all, it seems that in all the items identified above, teachers show less practice of the issues
addressed in the items when compared with what they believe and practice in their classrooms.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 11 of 33

Table 11. Descriptive statistics
N Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
q1SPB 20 1.00 5.00 3.9500 .99868 −1.653 .512 3.511 .992
q1SPP 20 1.00 5.00 4.0000 1.12390 −1.977 .512 4.067 .992
q1EOP 20 1.00 5.00 3.4500 1.14593 −.797 .512 −.574 .992
q2SPB 20 1.00 5.00 4.1500 1.13671 −1.518 .512 2.023 .992
q2SPP 20 2.00 5.00 4.1000 .71818 −1.099 .512 3.030 .992
q2EOP 20 2.00 3.00 2.9500 .22361 −4.472 .512 20.000 .992
q3SPB 20 2.00 5.00 4.4000 .82078 −1.548 .512 2.609 .992
q3SPP 20 1.00 5.00 4.1000 1.11921 −1.467 .512 2.015 .992
q3EOP 20 1.00 5.00 3.5000 1.10024 −.659 .512 −.076 .992
q4SPB 20 1.00 5.00 3.4500 .99868 −1.433 .512 2.204 .992
q4SPP 20 1.00 5.00 3.6500 1.08942 −1.649 .512 2.260 .992
q4EOP 20 1.00 5.00 3.8500 1.03999 −1.543 .512 2.414 .992
q5SPB 20 1.00 5.00 3.5000 1.35724 −.912 .512 −.383 .992
q5SPP 20 1.00 5.00 3.8500 1.30888 −1.572 .512 1.591 .992
q5EOP 20 1.00 4.00 2.9500 1.23438 −.456 .512 −1.621 .992
q6SPB 20 1.00 5.00 2.1500 1.30888 .946 .512 −.418 .992
q6SPP 20 1.00 5.00 2.2500 1.40955 .634 .512 −1.226 .992
q6EOP 20 1.00 4.00 2.1000 1.07115 .925 .512 −.197 .992
q7SPB 20 2.00 5.00 3.7000 1.12858 −.312 .512 −1.244 .992
q7SPP 20 2.00 5.00 3.8500 .67082 −.985 .512 2.448 .992
q7EOP 20 1.00 5.00 3.3000 1.12858 −.908 .512 −.175 .992
q8SPB 20 4.00 5.00 4.6000 .50262 −.442 .512 −2.018 .992
q8SPP 20 1.00 5.00 4.6500 .93330 −3.508 .512 13.433 .992
q8EOP 20 2.00 5.00 3.9500 .51042 −2.751 .512 13.144 .992
(Continued)
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 12 of 33

Table 11. (Continued)
N Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
q9SPB 20 1.00 5.00 3.1500 1.38697 −.428 .512 −1.045 .992
q9SPP 20 2.00 5.00 4.1000 .71818 −1.099 .512 3.030 .992
q9EOP 20 1.00 3.00 2.8000 .52315 −2.745 .512 7.401 .992
q10SPB 20 1.00 5.00 3.6000 1.23117 −.632 .512 −.660 .992
q10SPP 20 1.00 5.00 3.4500 1.19097 −.803 .512 .023 .992
q10EOP 20 3.00 3.00 3.0000 .00000 . . . .
q11SPB 20 1.00 5.00 4.0000 1.29777 −1.124 .512 .026 .992
q11SPP 20 1.00 5.00 4.0500 1.31689 −1.176 .512 .056 .992
q11EOP 20 1.00 4.00 3.0500 1.23438 −.664 .512 −1.397 .992
q12SPB 20 4.00 5.00 4.6500 .48936 −.681 .512 −1.719 .992
q12SPP 20 4.00 5.00 4.6500 .48936 −.681 .512 −1.719 .992
q12EOP 20 1.00 4.00 3.5500 .94451 −1.825 .512 1.930 .992
q13SPB 20 2.00 5.00 3.9000 .91191 −.713 .512 .154 .992
q13SPP 20 2.00 5.00 4.2000 .76777 −1.147 .512 2.362 .992
q13EOP 20 2.00 4.00 3.4000 .94032 −.945 .512 −1.242 .992
q14SPB 20 1.00 5.00 3.1500 1.18210 .106 .512 −.964 .992
q14SPP 20 1.00 5.00 2.5000 1.19208 .518 .512 −.668 .992
q14EOP 20 1.00 3.00 2.5500 .68633 −1.283 .512 .542 .992
q15SPB 20 1.00 5.00 4.2000 1.05631 −1.929 .512 4.119 .992
q15SPP 20 1.00 5.00 4.0000 1.12390 −1.236 .512 1.350 .992
q15EOP 20 1.00 5.00 3.7000 .97872 −1.564 .512 2.437 .992
Valid N (listwise) 20
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 13 of 33

Table 12. Friedman test
12345678
N 2020202020202020
Chi-Square 2.122 21.909 9.864 5.353 6.045 .300 3.073 18.034
df 22222222
Asymp. Sig. .346 .000 .007 .069 .049 .861 .215 .000
Table 13. Friedman test
9 101112131415
N 20202020202020
Chi-Square 17.552 6.814 17.200 26.034 7.614 4.000 5.773
df 2222222
Asymp. Sig. .000 .033 .000 .000 .022 .135 .056
Table 14. Pairwise post hoc comparison of EOP, SPP, and SPB Items
Sample1-
Sample2
Test Statistic Std. Error Std. Test
Statistic
Sig. Adj. Sig.
q2EOP-q13SPB 1.125 .316 3.558 .000 .001
q2EOP-q13SPP 1.200 .316 3.795 .000 .000
q2SPB-q13SPP .075 .316 .237 .813 1.000
q3EOP-q13SPB .600 .316 1.897 .058 .173
q3EOP-q13SPP .825 .316 2.609 .009 .027
q3SPB-q13SPP .225 .316 .712 .477 1.000
q5EOP-q13SPB .325 .316 1.028 .304 .912
q5EOP-q13SPP .575 .316 1.818 .069 .207
q5SPB-q13SPP −.250 .316 −.791 .429 1.000
q8EOP-q13SPB .875 .316 2.767 .006 .017
q8EOP-q13SPP 1.075 .316 3.399 .001 .002
q8SPB-q13SPP −.200 .316 −.632 .527 1.000
q9EOP-q13SPB .450 .316 1.423 .155 .464
q9EOP-q13SPP 1.200 .316 3.795 .000 .000
q9SPB-q13SPP −.750 .316 −2.372 .018 .053
q10EOP-q13SPB .525 .316 1.660 .097 .291
q10EOP-q13SPP .675 .316 2.135 .033 .098
q10SPB-q13SPP .150 .316 .474 .635 1.000
q11EOP-q13SPB .900 .316 2.846 .004 .013
q11EOP-q13SPP 1.050 .316 3.320 .001 .003
q11SPB-q13SPP −.150 .316 −.474 .635 1.000
q12EOP-q13SPB 1.200 .316 3.795 .000 .000
q12EOP-q13SPP 1.200 .316 3.795 .000 .000
q12SPB-q13SPP .000 .316 .000 1.000 1.000
q13EOP-q13SPB .250 .316 .791 .429 1.000
q3EOP-q13SPP .725 .316 2.293 .022 .066
q13SPB-q13SPP −.475 .316 −1.502 .133 .399
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 14 of 33

3.2. Answering the second research question
The second research question of the study was:
Question 2. Are there any statistically significant differences between the novice and experienced
English teachers’beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary?
To answer this question, first the teachers participating in this study were divided into novice
and experienced based on a questionnaire. Then they were compared in terms of EOP, SPB and SPP
total and item scores.
3.2.1. Comparison of SPP and SPB total scores of novice and experienced teachers
In order to compare SPP and SPB total scores of novice and experienced teachers, first the
descriptive statistics were computed (Table 16). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing
the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that
the data met this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96), hence running one-way ANOVA as
a parametric test requiring normally distributed data to compare the SPP and SPB mean scores
of novice and experienced teachers.
Another assumption of ANOVA is Equality of Error Variances measured by Levene’s test whose
results in Table 17 show that it is not met for SPP scores (p < .05); therefore, a stricter Alpha level
(i.e. .025) was considered in ANOVA results for SPP.
According to Table 18 of ANOVA results novice and experienced teachers differ significantly in
terms of their SPB total scores (p < .05). Based on the descriptives above, experienced teachers
have a significantly higher SPB than novice teachers.
3.2.2. Comparison of SPP and SPB item scores of novice and experienced teachers
In order to compare SPP and SPB item scores of novice and experienced teachers, first the descriptive
statistics were computed (Table 19). Then,skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their
standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data for the
Table 15. EOP, SPP and SPB item differences
Item No. Item Content SPB/SPP Mean
2 Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can use the language
more effectively than those who are not.
q2SPB 4.15
q2SPP 4.10
q2EOP 2.95
3 Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary structures help
learners develop fluency in using vocabulary.
q3SPB 4.40
q3SPP 4.10
q3EOP 3.50
8 In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows learners to use
structures fluently.
q8SPB 4.60
q8SPP 4.65
q8EOP 3.95
9 In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules. q9SPB 3.15
q9SPP 4.10
q9EOP 2.80
11 Correcting learners’spoken vocabulary errors in English is one of the
teacher’s key roles.
q11SPB 4.00
q11SPP 4.05
q11EOP 3.05
12 Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners use them
repeatedly by themselves.
q12SPB 4.65
q12SPP 4.65
q12EOP 3.55
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 15 of 33

Table 16. Descriptive statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
Experience. Level N Min Max Mean SD Std. Error Std. Error
Novice SPP 38 40.0 60.0 52.5263 5.1082 −.76 .383 −.33 .750
SPB 38 42.0 64.0 52.3684 5.4098 −.12 .383 −.25 .750
Valid
N (listwise)
38
Experienced SPP 62 37.0 73.0 54.3226 7.7221 .02 .304 .03 .599
SPB 62 38.0 73.0 55.2903 7.0812 −.17 .304 .13 .599
Valid
N (listwise)
62
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 16 of 33

majority of items did not meet this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96). Moreover, since the items
were scored on a Likert scale, the item data were considered as ordinal data, hence running Mann-
Whitney U Test as a non-parametric test not requiring normally distributed data to compare the SPP
and SPB items mean scores.
Table 20–22 present the Mann-Whitney U Test results for each item showing that there is
a significant difference between novice and experienced teachers in terms of some SPP and SPB
items, that is items 2 of self-perceived practice, 3 of self-perceived practice and belief, 8 of self-
perceived belief, and 9 of self-perceived practice.
Table 23 lists the items of difference between novice and experienced teachers along with their
observed means. These results specifically show that according to teachers’self-perceived practice:
●Experienced teachers give more significance to item 2, which is “Learners who are aware of
vocabulary rules can use the language more effectively than those who are not”than novice
teachers.
●Novice teachers give more significance to item 3, which is “Exercises that get learners to
practice vocabulary structures help learners develop fluency in using vocabulary”than experi-
enced teachers.
●Experienced teachers give more significance to item 8, which is “In learning vocabulary,
repeated practice allows learners to use structures fluently”than novice teachers.
●Experienced teachers give more significance to item 9, which is “In teaching vocabulary,
a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules”than novice teachers.
3.2.3. Comparison of EOP total scores of novice and experienced teachers
In order to compare EOP total scores of novice and experienced teachers, first the descriptive
statistics were computed (Table 24). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by
their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data met
this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96), hence running independent samples t test as
a parametric test requiring normally distributed data to compare the EOP mean scores of novice
and experienced teachers.
According to Table 18 of t test results novice and experienced teachers do not differ significantly
in terms of their EOP total scores (p > .05).
Table 17. Levene’s test of equality of error variances
a
F df1 df2 Sig.
SPP 5.944 1 98 .017
SPB 1.890 1 98 .172
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Experience. Level
Table 18. Tests of between-subjects effects
Source Dependent
Variable
Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
Experience.
Level
SPP 76,018 1 76.018 1.618 .206 .016
SPB 201.144 1 201.144 4.760 .032 .046
a. R Squared = .016 (Adjusted R Squared = .006)
b. R Squared = .046 (Adjusted R Squared = .037)
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 17 of 33

Table 19. Descriptive Statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
Experience. Level N Min Max Mean SD Std. Error Std. Error
Novice q1SPB 38 2.00 5.00 4.1579 .97333 −1.26 .383 .866 .750
q1SPP 37 1.00 5.00 3.7027 1.30947 −.980 .388 −.155 .759
q2SPB 38 1.00 5.00 3.9737 1.10250 −1.35 .383 1.434 .750
q2SPP 38 1.00 5.00 3.8947 .89411 −1.46 .383 2.740 .750
q3SPB 38 2.00 5.00 3.8947 .89411 −.743 .383 .132 .750
q3SPP 37 1.00 5.00 3.5946 1.21242 −.629 .388 −.656 .759
q4SPB 38 1.00 5.00 3.2632 1.10733 −.935 .383 .120 .750
q4SPP 38 1.00 5.00 3.3947 1.12801 −.976 .383 .070 .750
q5SPB 38 1.00 5.00 2.8947 1.41018 −.170 .383 −1.41 .750
q5SPP 37 1.00 5.00 3.5135 1.30430 −.746 .388 −.644 .759
q6SPB 38 1.00 5.00 1.8947 1.18069 1.358 .383 1.019 .750
q6SPP 38 1.00 4.00 2.0263 1.19655 .746 .383 −1.02 .750
q7SPB 38 1.00 5.00 3.5789 1.13021 −.503 .383 −.773 .750
q7SPP 38 1.00 5.00 3.1053 1.18069 −.318 .383 −.965 .750
q8SPB 38 1.00 5.00 3.8421 1.10347 −.945 .383 .066 .750
q8SPP 38 1.00 5.00 4.4737 .86170 −2.18 .383 6.086 .750
q9SPB 38 1.00 5.00 3.0789 1.32301 −.300 .383 −1.03 .750
q9SPP 37 1.00 5.00 3.5405 1.06965 −1.11 .388 .781 .759
q10SPB 38 1.00 5.00 3.3421 1.38088 −.270 .383 −1.27 .750
q10SPP 37 1.00 5.00 3.2432 1.27814 −.484 .388 −.887 .759
q11SPB 37 2.00 5.00 4.1892 .84452 −1.25 .388 1.700 .759
q11SPP 38 1.00 5.00 4.3421 .93798 −1.79 .383 3.668 .750
q12SPB 38 3.00 5.00 4.5000 .55750 −.494 .383 −.833 .750
q12SPP 38 2.00 5.00 4.3158 .73907 −1.43 .383 3.264 .750
(Continued)
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 18 of 33

Table 19. (Continued)
Skewness Kurtosis
Experience. Level N Min Max Mean SD Std. Error Std. Error
q13SPB 38 1.00 5.00 3.5000 1.15665 −.774 .383 −.162 .750
q13SPP 38 1.00 5.00 3.8947 .98061 −1.05 .383 1.107 .750
q14SPB 38 1.00 5.00 2.7368 1.17828 −.083 .383 −.827 .750
q14SPP 38 1.00 5.00 2.3684 1.19506 .329 .383 −1.05 .750
q15SPB 38 1.00 5.00 3.6316 1.36404 −.899 .383 −.437 .750
q15SPP 38 1.00 5.00 3.5789 1.08133 −.959 .383 .721 .750
Valid N (list
wise)
34
Experienced q1SPB 62 1.00 5.00 3.9355 1.08448 −1.06 .304 .790 .599
q1SPP 62 1.00 5.00 3.4032 1.36056 −.657 .304 −.806 .599
q2SPB 62 1.00 5.00 4.0323 1.11573 −1.23 .304 .962 .599
q2SPP 62 2.00 5.00 4.2419 .86243 −1.28 .304 1.427 .599
q3SPB 61 1.00 5.00 4.5082 .76644 −2.32 .306 7.509 .604
q3SPP 62 1.00 5.00 4.2903 .83739 −1.81 .304 4.455 .599
q4SPB 61 1.00 5.00 3.4590 1.11913 −.558 .306 −.319 .604
q4SPP 62 1.00 5.00 3.6613 1.14439 −.852 .304 .021 .599
q5SPB 61 1.00 5.00 3.1803 1.42019 −.366 .306 −1.25 .604
q5SPP 62 1.00 5.00 3.4194 1.20855 −.697 .304 −.356 .599
q6SPB 62 1.00 5.00 2.0806 1.33427 .961 .304 −.475 .599
q6SPP 61 1.00 5.00 2.2951 1.25624 .614 .306 −.651 .604
q7SPB 62 1.00 5.00 3.4839 1.14150 −.711 .304 .082 .599
q7SPP 61 1.00 5.00 3.2623 1.09395 −.785 .306 −.061 .604
q8SPB 62 1.00 5.00 4.5323 .74035 −2.24 .304 7.419 .599
q8SPP 62 1.00 5.00 4.4194 .89714 −2.21 .304 5.796 .599
(Continued)
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 19 of 33

Table 19. (Continued)
Skewness Kurtosis
Experience. Level N Min Max Mean SD Std. Error Std. Error
q9SPB 61 1.00 5.00 3.5738 1.20359 −.772 .306 −.312 .604
q9SPP 57 1.00 5.00 3.8947 1.16011 −1.35 .316 1.298 .623
q10SPB 61 1.00 5.00 3.4098 1.35864 −.669 .306 −.760 .604
q10SPP 62 1.00 5.00 3.1290 1.33655 −.158 .304 −1.16 .599
q11SPB 61 1.00 5.00 4.1639 1.14281 −1.44 .306 1.306 .604
q11SPP 62 1.00 5.00 4.2581 1.08546 −1.57 .304 1.714 .599
q12SPB 62 1.00 5.00 4.5968 .77797 −2.60 .304 8.143 .599
q12SPP 62 1.00 5.00 4.4032 .79876 −1.86 .304 5.020 .599
q13SPB 62 1.00 5.00 3.8065 1.06876 −.931 .304 .566 .599
q13SPP 62 1.00 5.00 3.9516 1.01509 −1.16 .304 1.143 .599
q14SPB 62 1.00 5.00 2.8871 1.31952 .082 .304 −1.03 .599
q14SPP 62 1.00 5.00 2.6613 1.31752 .304 .304 −.999 .599
q15SPB 62 1.00 5.00 4.0000 1.29311 −1.22 .304 .456 .599
q15SPP 60 1.00 5.00 3.5500 1.33309 −.622 .309 −.711 .608
Valid N (list
wise)
52
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 20 of 33

Table 20. Mann-Whitney U
q1SPB q1SPP q2SPB q2SPP q3SPB q3SPP q4SPB q4SPP q5SPB q5SPP
1033.00 987.500 1126.000 884.000 671.000 763.500 1054.500 1010.000 1018.500 1062.000
Sig. .272 .227 .693 .020 .000 .003 .429 .201 .296 .518
a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level
b. Not corrected for ties.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 21 of 33

Table 21. Mann-Whitney U
q6SPB q6SPP q7SPB q7SPP q8SPB q8SPP q9SPB q9SPP q10SPB q10SPP
1116.000 1016.000 1116.500 1076.000 722.000 1132.000 902.000 810.000 1135.000 1090.500
Z−.474 −1.077 −.456 −.628 −3.567 −.376 −1.924 −2.050 −.178 −.420
Sig. .635 .282 .649 .530 .000 .707 .054 .040 .859 .674
a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level
b. Not corrected for ties.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 22 of 33

Table 22. Mann-Whitney U
q11SPB q11SPP q12SPB q12SPP q13SPB q13SPP q14SPB q14SPP q15SPB q15SPP
1044.000 1168.50 990.000 1071.00 1004.50 1121.500 1113.000 1038.500 963.500 1110.500
Sig. .501 .940 .113 .395 .193 .665 .635 .309 .108 .823
a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level
b. Not corrected for ties.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 23 of 33

3.2.4. Comparison of EOP item scores of novice and experienced teachers
In order to compare EOP item scores of novice and experienced teachers, initially an independent
samples t-test was run (Table 25). After that, the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 26).
Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed
to check normality assumption, showing that the data for some of items did not meet this
assumption (i.e. ratios beyond −1.96). Moreover, since the items were scored on a Likert scale,
the item data were considered as ordinal data, hence running Mann-Whitney U Test as a non-
parametric test not requiring normally distributed data to compare the EOP items mean scores.
Tables 27 and 28present the Mann-Whitney U Test results for each item showing that there is
a significant difference between novice and experienced teachers in terms of only item 15.
Table 29 shows the observed mean of item 15, which specifically shows that according to
teachers’EOP, the experienced ones give more significance to items 15, which is “I insist on
studying the L2 vocabulary in order to make my students speak fluently.”than novice teachers.
4. Discussion
The present study sought to investigate to which extent Iranian EFL teachers’beliefs in teaching L2
vocabulary are reflected in their classroom practices. Moreover, the study aimed to probe any
statistically significant differences between the novice and experienced English teachers’beliefs
and practices in teaching vocabulary. The results of statistical analysis for research question one
indicated that on the whole there was no difference between the beliefs and practices of teachers
in terms of L2 vocabulary teaching as perceived by the teachers themselves. However, there was
a significant difference among the EOP, SPP and SPB total scores. Moreover, on the whole teachers’
EOP was significantly different from and lower than their SPP and SPB. The results concerning
Table 23. SPP and SPB item differences between novice and experienced teachers
Item Content SPB/SPP Mean
Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can use the
language more effectively than those who are not.
Novice q2SPP 3.8947
Experienced q2SPP 4.2419
Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary structures
help learners develop fluency in using vocabulary.
Novice q3SPB 3.8947
Experienced q3SPP 3.5946
Novice q3SPB 4.5082
Experienced q3SPP 4.2903
In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows learners to
use structures fluently.
Novice q8SPB 3.8421
Experienced q8SPB 4.5323
In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain
the rules.
Novice q9SPP 3.5405
Experienced q9SPP 3.8947
Table 24. Descriptive Statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
Experience. Level N Min Max Mean SD Std.
Error
Std.
Error
Novice EOP 10 41.0 53.00 48.60 3.97772 −.96 .687 .025 1.334
Valid
N (listwise)
10
Experienced EOP 10 38.0 57.00 47.60 6.11374 −.16 .687 −.94 1.334
Valid
N (listwise)
10
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 24 of 33

Table 25. Independent samples test
Levene’s Test for Equality
of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Lower Upper
EOP Equal
variances
assumed
2.4 .13 .43 18 .670 1.00 2.30651 −3.845 5.845
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 25 of 33

Table 26. Descriptive statistics
Experience. Level N Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Std. Error Std. Error
Novice q1EOP 10 2.00 5.00 3.70 .94868 −1.2 .687 .947 1.33
q2EOP 10 3.00 3.00 3.00 .00000 . . . .
q3EOP 10 2.00 5.00 3.30 1.15 .342 .687 −1.2 1.334
q4EOP 10 2.00 5.00 3.80 1.03 −1.0 .687 .485 1.334
q5EOP 10 1.00 4.00 2.90 1.19 −.25 .687 −1.8 1.334
q6EOP 10 1.00 4.00 2.30 1.25 .569 .687 −1.3 1.334
q7EOP 10 2.00 4.00 3.50 .84 −1.3 .687 .107 1.334
q8EOP 10 4.00 5.00 4.10 .31623 3.16 .687 10.0 1.334
q9EOP 10 2.00 3.00 2.90 .31623 −3.1 .687 10.0 1.334
q10EOP 10 3.00 3.00 3.00 .00000 . . . .
q11EOP 10 2.00 4.00 3.20 1.03280 −.48 .687 −2.2 1.334
q12EOP 10 2.00 4.00 3.60 .84327 −1.7 .687 1.40 1.334
q13EOP 10 2.00 4.00 3.40 .96609 −1.0 .687 −1.2 1.334
q14EOP 10 1.00 3.00 2.70 .67495 −2.2 .687 4.76 1.334
q15EOP 10 1.00 4.00 3.20 1.1352 −1.0 .687 −.39 1.334
Valid
N (listwise)
10
Experienced q1EOP 10 1.00 5.00 3.20 1.316 −.45 .687 −1.2 1.334
q2EOP 10 2.00 3.00 2.90 .31623 −3.1 .687 10.0 1.334
q3EOP 10 1.00 5.00 3.70 1.05935 −2.0 .687 5.41 1.334
q4EOP 10 1.00 5.00 3.90 1.10050 −2.2 .687 6.62 1.334
q5EOP 10 1.00 4.00 3.00 1.33333 −.70 .687 −1.5 1.334
q6EOP 10 1.00 4.00 1.90 .87560 1.46 .687 3.61 1.334
q7EOP 10 1.00 5.00 3.10 1.37032 −.54 .687 −.87 1.334
(Continued)
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 26 of 33

Table 26. (Continued)
Experience. Level N Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Std. Error Std. Error
q8EOP 10 2.00 4.00 3.80 .63246 −3.1 .687 10.0 1.334
q9EOP 10 1.00 3.00 2.70 .67495 −2.2 .687 4.76 1.334
q10EOP 10 3.00 3.00 3.00 .00000 . . . .
q11EOP 10 1.00 4.00 2.90 1.44914 −.60 .687 −1.9 1.334
q12EOP 10 1.00 4.00 3.50 1.08012 −1.9 .687 2.81 1.334
q13EOP 10 2.00 4.00 3.40 .96609 −1.0 .687 −1.2 1.334
q14EOP 10 1.00 3.00 2.40 .69921 −.78 .687 −.14 1.334
q15EOP 10 4.00 5.00 4.20 .42164 1.77 .687 1.40 1.334
Valid
N (listwise)
10
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 27 of 33

the second research question revealed that novice and experienced teachers differed significantly
in terms of their SPB total scores and experienced teachers had a significantly higher SPB than
novice teachers.
Given that in the present study instructors’beliefs and their practices were in line with one another
but their actual practice was different from their self-perceived practices, it can be concluded that the
instructors’beliefs and practices were not in line with each other. This finding has already been
supported by many other studies (Attardo & Brown, 2005; Richardson, 2007). Some of these investi-
gations report significant interactions between instructors’beliefs and their teaching activities.
Johnson (1992) surveyed L2 language teachers to profile their teaching theories and perspectives.
He examined 30 L2 instructors’theoretical views and beliefs regarding L2 instruction and learning. In
other words, he intended to investigate L2 teachers’ideas of L2 teaching and learning. Based on his
observation, the teaching practices of these 30 teachers did not matchwith the respective instructors’
theoretical ideas. In simple terms, the way teachers thought of L2 teaching and learning did not
correspond with their teaching behavior and practices. Johnson (1992) concluded that the results of
this study lent credit to the notion that ESL instructors teach based on their theoretical beliefs.
Moreover, some other studies have yielded results that are consistent with the findings of this
study. They report that there is sometimes some inconsistency between instructors’acknowledged
beliefs/attitude and their teaching activities. For example, Van der Schaaf, Stokking, and Verloop
(2008) examined the effects of 18 instructors’pedagogical beliefs obtained from their portfolios on
the teaching status as well as their teaching practices assessed by students using a questionnaire.
The results revealed that the relationship between instructors’beliefs and attitudes as reported by
themselves and students’rating of their teaching activities lacked consistency in some cases. For
instance, the instructors pointed to their desire to teach research skills to their students. On the
contrary, the raters reported that the same instructors were mostly busy talking during class time
and not working on research skills. The students perceived the role of their teachers as of little help
in their classroom research activities.
Table 27. Mann-Whitney U
q1EOP q2EOP q3EOP q4EOP q5EOP q6EOP q7EOP q8EOP
40.000 45.000 37.500 47.000 48.000 43.000 42.000 40.500
Sig. .389 .317 .318 .789 .866 .564 .506 .168
a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level
b. Not corrected for ties.
Table 28. Mann-Whitney U
q9EOP q10EOP q11EOP q12EOP q13EOP q14EOP q15EOP
44.500 50.000 44.000 49.000 50.000 36.500 24.000
Sig. .503 1.000 .605 .914 1.000 .226 .015
a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level
b. Not corrected for ties.
Table 29. Differences between Novice and experienced teachers in item 15
Item Content Mean
I insist on studying the L2 vocabulary in order to
make my students speak fluently.
Novice 3.2000
Experienced 4.2000
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 28 of 33

Given the fact that available literature lacks conclusive findings concerning the relationship
between instructors’belief and practice, it follows that instruction and the learning context
influence such relationships. According to Brown and Cooney (1982) beliefs, are described as
orientations to action, with time and context serving as the main determinants of behavior
which need to be included in research and measurement.
The results of the present study concerning the observation of the factors more by experienced
teachers in comparison with novice teachers can be justified in the light of self-efficacy. Teacher
efficacy is the teacher’s self-confidence in his or her ability in order to form and implement courses
of action vital to successfully achieve a specific teaching task in a specific context (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). According to Bandura (1977), teacher efficacy can be defined as
a kind of self-efficacy in which people can make beliefs about their capability in performing at
a particular level of achievement. This kind of self-efficacy is future-oriented and affects thought
arrangements and feelings. Based on this theory, efficacy may be simply affected in learning; as
a result, the first years of teaching could be critical to the long-term improvement of teacher
efficacy. Two elements about teacher efficacy are personal teaching efficacy and general teaching
efficacy. According to Riggs and Enochs (1989), the general teaching efficacy is also called out-
come prospect which means people evaluate the significances of the performance level which they
expect to attain. In addition, efficacy belief of novice teachers differs from experienced teachers
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The efficacy belief of experienced teachers seems
unchangeable in comparison with novice teachers. Moreover, there is a difference between novice
teachers and experienced teachers based on three aspects of professional training which are
knowledge base, pedagogical action and fundamental influences (Angell, Ryder, & Scott, 2005).
Correspondingly, novice and expert teachers were compared by Hogan, Rabinowitz, and Craven
(2003) following Shulman’s(1986) classifications (content knowledge, pedagogical content knowl-
edge, and pedagogical knowledge). And they came to the conclusion that experts and novice
teachers differed in four key features:
●Experienced teachers were able to plan both long-term and short-term syllabus, while novice
teachers were able to plan the short-term syllabus.
●Experienced teachers used more strategies in teaching specific skills while novice teachers can
use fewer ones.
●From experienced teachers’point of view, the class can be considered as unique individuals,
while from novice teachers’point of view the class is regarded as a whole.
●Student accomplishment and improvement was more important than anything else for
experienced teachers, while for novice teachers, the attention was just paid to class interest.
Overall, the results of the current study corroborate Hogan et al.’s(2003) findings in that novice
and experienced teachers in the present study were found to differ significantly in terms of their
SPB total scores with experienced teachers having a significantly higher SPB than novice teachers.
5. Conclusion
The results of the present study shed more light on the differences between novice and experi-
enced teachers when it comes to beliefs and practices concerning vocabulary learning. Thus,
teacher educators are encouraged to consider the differences between novice and experience
teachers’beliefs and practices in vocabulary teaching in teacher education courses. Moreover,
based on the findings of the present study, teacher educators and trainers may devise and plan
courses through which teacher trainees become familiar with how their belief systems can possibly
affect their practice in real classroom environments. In this way, teachers will gain more aware-
ness, which will ultimately affect their practices positively. Teachers should receive explanations
about the benefits of thinking about the way their teaching beliefs may interact with their teaching
practice so as to be encouraged to become reflective practitioners. Giving more explanations to the
teachers would help them have a better understanding of the procedures involved in reflective
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 29 of 33

teaching practices as well. Teacher educators are encouraged to be more sensitive to teaching and
learning theories they intend to transfer to L2 teachers. The more up-to-date they are about
teaching and learning theories, the more they can familiarize L2 teachers with more modern
theories.
The relationship between teachers’beliefs and practices suggests that theory and practice are
not separated. This is of great importance to language teaches. In other words, any attempt to
change teachers’theories and beliefs about teaching and learning would have consequences for
their actual teaching in classrooms. Thus, the results of the current study can lay the foundation
for teachers to acknowledge the point that theory and beliefs are interwoven and thus teachers
can be encouraged to stay up-to-date with theories of learning in order to establish beliefs which
can lead to their best practice in the classroom.
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Author details
Jahangir Mardali
1
E-mail: jahangir.mardali2018@gmail.com
Masood Siyyari
1
E-mail: siyyari@gmail.com
1
Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran, Iran.
Citation information
Cite this article as: English teachers’beliefs and practices
in teaching vocabulary: The case of teaching experience,
Jahangir Mardali & Masood Siyyari, Cogent Education
(2019), 6: 1686812.
References
Alarcón Hernandez, P., Ortiz Navarrete, M., & Díaz
Larenas, C. H. (2015). A case study on EFL teachers’
beliefs about the teaching and learning of English in
public education. Porta Linguarum,23, 171–186.
Amiryousefi, M. (2015). Iranian EFL learners’and tea-
chers’beliefs about the usefulness of vocabulary
learning strategies. SAGE Open,5(2), 1–10.
doi:10.1177/2158244015581382
Angell, C., Ryder, J., & Scott, P. (2005). Becoming an
expert teacher: Novice physics teachers’develop-
ment of conceptual and pedagogical knowledge.
Working Document.
Attardo, S., & Brown, S. (2005). What’s the use of lin-
guistics? Pre-service English teachers’beliefs towards
language use and variation. In N. Bartels (Ed.),
Applied linguistics and language teacher education
(pp. 91–102). New York: Springer.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying the-
ory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,84,
191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bhasin, K. M., & Baveja, B. (2010). Student teachers’
thinking about knowledge, learning and learners in
India, University of Delhi. Literacy Information and
Computer Education Journal (LICEJ),1(1), 1–13.
Borg, M. G., & Riding, R. J. (1991). Occupational stress and
satisfaction in teaching. British Educational Research
Journal,17,263–281. doi:10.1080/0141192910170306
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language educa-
tion: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult
TESOL classrooms. Applied Linguistics,29(3),
456–482. doi:10.1093/applin/amn020
Brown, C. A., & Cooney, T. J. (1982). Research on teacher
education: A philosophical orientation. Journal of
Research and Development in Education,15(4),
13–18.
Clark, C. M. (1986). Ten years of conceptual development in
research on teacher thinking. In M. Ben-Peretz,
R. Bromine, & R. Halkes (Eds.), Advances of research on
teacher thinking (pp. 7–20). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Evelein, F., Korthagen, F., & Brekelmans, M. (2008).
Fulfilment of the basic psychological needs of stu-
dent teachers during their first teaching experiences.
Teaching and Teacher Education,24, 1137–1148.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.001
Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh, M. A., Jahandar, S., &
Khodabandehlou, M. (2012). The effect of teachers’lex-
icon teaching beliefs on EFL learners’vocabulary intake.
Journal of Education and Learning,1(2), 155–168.
Gross, B. (2008). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven, J. A. (2003).
Representation in teaching: Inferences from research
of expert and novice teachers. Educational
Psychologist,38(4), 235–247. doi:10.1207/
S15326985EP3804_3
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’
beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for
non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading
Behavior,24(1), 83–108. doi:10.1080/
10862969209547763
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample
size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement,30, 607–610.
doi:10.1177/001316447003000308
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education
for a global society. New York: Routlege.
Niu, R., & Andrews, S. (2012). Commonalities and discre-
pancies in l2 teachers’beliefs and practices about
vocabulary pedagogy: A small culture perspective.
TESOL Journal,6, 134–154.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between
teachers’grammar teaching beliefs and practices.
System,37(3), 380–390. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2009.03.002
Richardson,J. E. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An approach
from critical discourse analysis. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1989). Toward the development of
an elementary teachers’science teaching efficacy
belief instrument. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, San Francisco, California.
Rodríguez, A. G., & McKay, S. (2010). Professional devel-
opment for experienced teachers working with adult
English language learners. CAELA network brief.
Center for Adult English Language Acquisition.
Retrieved from www.cal.org/caelanetwork
Schaufeli, W., & &Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout com-
panion to study and practice: A critical analysis.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 30 of 33

Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary
learning. Language Teaching Research,12(3), 329–363.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge
growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,15,4–14.
doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Theriot, S., & Tice, K. C. (2009). Teachers’knowledge
development and change: Untangling beliefs and
practices. Literacy Research and Instruction,48(1),
65–75. doi:10.1080/19388070802226287
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001).
Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education,17,783–805.
doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Van der Schaaf, M. F., Stokking, K. M., & Verloop, N.
(2008). Teacher beliefs and teacher behaviour in
portfolio assessment. Teaching and Teacher
Education,24(17), 1691–1704. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2008.02.021
Appendix A
Novice and Experienced Teacher Questionnaire
You might choose 1(Little), 2(A little), 3(Not-decided), 4(Much), and 5(Very Much)
12345
1 How satisfied are you with the
level of preparation from your
university’s college of education
program?
2 To what extent do you struggle
with classroom management
during your teaching?
3 To what extent do you struggle
with instructional delivery during
your teaching?
4 To what extent do you struggle
with parental involvement during
your teaching?
5 To what extent do you struggle
with the greatest success during
your teaching?
6 To what extent have you
participated in a formal new
teacher induction program either
at the district or at building level?
7 To what extent have your
participations in the in-service
training courses helped you get
more experience?
8 To what extent do you most
likely turn to for assistance if you
are experiencing a problem
within your classroom or with
your instructional practice?
9 To what extent was “teaching
students with special needs”
covered during your teacher
preparation experience?
10 To what extent do you think you
are able to motivate the
students?
11 To what extent can you hold the
students’attention?
12 To what extent do you feel you
can manage your classroom
effectively?
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 31 of 33

Appendix B
Questionnaire of Teachers’Belief and Practices about L2 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching
You might choose 1(Little), 2(A little), 3(Not-decided), 4(Much), and 5(Very Much)
12345
1 Teachers should present vocabulary to learners
before expecting them to use it.
2 Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can
use the language more effectively than those who
are not.
3 Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary
structures help learners develop fluency in using
vocabulary.
4 Teaching the rules of English vocabulary directly is
more appropriate for older learners.
5 During lessons, a focus on vocabulary should come
after communicative tasks, not before.
6 Vocabulary should be taught separately, not
integrated with other skills such as reading and
writing.
7 In a communicative approach to language
teaching vocabulary is not taught directly.
8 In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows
learners to use structures fluently.
9 In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to
explain the rules.
10 It is important for learners to know terminology of
the words.
11 Correcting learners’spoken vocabulary errors in
English is one of the teacher’s key roles.
12 Vocabulary learning is more effective when
learners use them repeatedly by themselves.
13 Indirect vocabulary teaching is more appropriate
with younger than with older learners.
14 Formal vocabulary teaching does not help learners
become more fluent.
15 It is necessary to study the vocabulary of a second
or foreign language in order to speak it fluently.
16 I present vocabulary on the board prior to the
reading section.
17 I explain the vocabulary rules to my students so
that they can use the language more effectively.
18 I provide my students with exercises to practice
vocabulary structures and help them develop
fluency in using vocabulary.
19 When I have older learners, I use direct and explicit
teaching of the rules of English vocabulary in my
teaching.
20 I focus on vocabulary after teaching the
communicative tasks.
21 I teach L2 vocabulary separately, not integrated
with other skills such as reading and writing.
22 In my teaching within the communicative
approach I do not teach L2 vocabulary directly.
23 I ask my students to practice new words
repeatedly.
(Continued)
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 32 of 33

© 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed undera Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0license.
You are free to:
Share —copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt —remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution —You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legallyrestrict others from doing anythingthe license permits.
Cogent Education (ISSN: 2331-186X) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
•Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
•High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
•Download and citation statistics for your article
•Rapid online publication
•Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
•Retention of full copyright of your article
•Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
•Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com
12345
24 I explain the rules of L2 vocabulary to my students.
25 I teach terminology and etymology of the words to
the learners.
26 I correct my learners’spoken vocabulary errors in
English.
27 I ask my students to use the vocabulary taught
repeatedly
28 When dealing with younger learners I rely on
indirect vocabulary teaching.
29 I do not use formal vocabulary teaching in my
class.
30 I insist on studying the L2 vocabulary in order to
make my students speak fluently.
Mardali & Siyyari, Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1686812
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1686812
Page 33 of 33