Ethan Hopkin<\/strong> One of the most often cited benefits of studying poetry in additional language classes is its ability to enrich a learner’s vocabulary. However, despite the growing interest in using poetry in language learning contexts, there remains limited empirical evidence to support this theory. To test if these benefits would appear in actual practice, thirty learners participated in an experiment comparing vocabulary acquisition through glossed definitions while studying poetry and acquisition via a more traditional word list and set of example sentences. Participants were tested on their existing knowledge of target words and then taught these words over the course of six weeks. The experimental group learned these words through a set of six poems, one poem a week. Two weeks after the experiment concluded, the learner’s vocabulary knowledge was reassessed. Both groups demonstrated a meaningful increase in their vocabulary, and no significant difference was identified between the two groups, indicating that both methods are equally effective in increasing learner vocabulary. This suggests that teachers interested in integrating literary studies with language studies may do so with some assurance that learners\u2019 vocabulary will develop.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: Poetry, Vocabulary Acquisition, Literature<\/p>\n The theoretical benefits of poetic texts and literary texts in general are quite expansive and thought to include motivating learners, improving linguistic and intercultural skills, and developing more general skills like critical thinking or empathizing (Alkhaleefah, 2017; Nilon, 2020; Porto & Zembylas, 2021). For instance, Elhabiri (2017) posited that studying literature explicitly can differ from using literature, for instance, using literary texts in intensive reading exercises rather than extensive reading exercises, because the study of literature can do more to encourage student noticing since the learners are directed to observe how the use of language impacted the delivery of the message. Freyn (2016) reported students claiming that poetry improved their vocabulary and caused them to have to think in English due to differences that emerge if a poem is translated. Khan (2020) recorded that the majority of participants in that study believed that reading poetry improves vocabulary, and a plurality of participants, by a large margin, believed in benefits ranging from cultural skills to reading comprehension and writing ability. It is also noteworthy that students in Khan\u2019s study were science students and had limited interest in poetry but found studying it to be a valuable experience.<\/p>\n Vocabulary growth is an often-highlighted benefit of studying poetry. For instance, the atomistic approach to studying poetry, thought to promote the development of various skills, may also cause students to notice vocabulary items, which is related to Nanquil\u2019s (2019) claims that the study of literary texts can provide learners with a rich source of vocabulary. According to Joe (2010), noticing vocabulary items is vital for the acquisition of new words, and \u2018conscious effort to learn the semantic and conceptual aspects of words, using deep and elaborative processes, is needed to prevent attrition\u2019 (p. 120). As a result, the detail-oriented approach favoured in several lenses of the study of poetry may help learners to be more aware of the specific words in a poem, thus increasing their likelihood of retaining them.<\/p>\n This also links to intercultural communication benefits because learners noticing these words can be directed to contemplate how these specific words reveal the underlying assumptions that shape the theme of the poem (Porto & Zembylas, 2021). Learners may also need to notice how the connotation of these words may change across cultural boundaries and to consider why a specific word and its semantic load were included to shape the work (Khan, 2020; Santill\u00e1n-I\u00f1iguez & Rodas-Pacheco, 2022). They practice stretching their understanding of various concepts.<\/p>\n Joe (2010) also observed that repeated exposure to a word is necessary for learners to acquire words, especially to be able to recognize them, a belief echoed widely among researchers of vocabulary acquisition (Cho et al., 2005; Matsuoka & Hirsh, 2010; Nichols et al., 2018). This aligns with the use of poetic texts in the L2 classroom as their generally short length allows for repeated reading in a class, resulting in multiple exposures to new vocabulary. This use of multiple exposures is also advocated for regardless of its possible benefits to vocabulary on account of the role it could play in facilitating reading fluency and understanding the poem (Kuswardani et al., 2023; Nichols et al., 2018; Salarvand et al., 2021). In other words, the natural study of a poem in class is likely to align with the requirements for vocabulary acquisition.<\/p>\n To test some of the theories on vocabulary acquisition through poetry, \u00d6zen (2012) carried out an experiment comparing the learning outcomes of participants who acquired vocabulary through poetry-centred tasks with those who learned through traditional coursework. The study found that those learning the words through poetry measured higher on the subsequent vocabulary assessment than those using more standard methods. \u00d6zen linked this to the role poetry can play in contextualizing words and demonstrating their connotation. He claimed that the use of poetry to enhance language learning was linked in part to its difference from typical activities and the communicative tasks that could be carried out while studying a poem.<\/p>\n Remaining Gaps in the Literature<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00d6zen (2012) did not make use of authentic poetry and instead used poems created for the study. This leaves a considerable gap in the literature as several of the other benefits of including literary studies in the L2 classroom have been predicated on the authenticity of the text in question (Alkhaleefah, 2017). If the poems are inauthentic, other reasons why a teacher may choose to study poetry, for instance, intercultural skills, could be neglected.<\/p>\n There is also the issue of pragmatism. Creating poems on top of creating activities for said poems may be beyond the capabilities or practical realities of many teachers, especially given the frequency of teacher discomfort with poetry (Khan, 2020). Additionally, there also exist concerns about quality and literary merit. Published poetry has typically been vetted on some level for issues of potential engagement and effective use of language. It is more likely to have been reviewed and edited by those experienced in literary fields and creative writing, and it is likely to have had more time spent on it.<\/p>\n While other studies have since performed research on the effect of poetry on vocabulary learning have used authentic texts, they have typically lacked a control group, weakening conclusions that can be drawn (Imron & Hantari, 2021; Mardayati & Riwayatiningsih, 2021; Sibuea et al., 2024). Their findings support the idea that vocabulary learning did occur, but they were not able to meaningfully compare it to vocabulary learning via other methods. Many of these studies were also not subject to peer review and provided somewhat murky descriptions of the procedures used to carry out the experimentation. As a result, while they do offer some insights into using poetry to support vocabulary growth, the evidence they provide is not robust.<\/p>\n Additionally, because the purpose of reading the poems in much of this research was to learn vocabulary, it is possible that the improved vocabulary acquisition outcomes would disappear if the focus of the classwork shifted, for instance, to poetic analysis. To be truly confident in recommending the use of poetic studies to enhance vocabulary learning, research needs to be conducted comparing more traditional methods, e.g. word lists and example sentences, with poetry-focused approaches using authentic texts.<\/p>\n This gap in the literature is part of a more widely observed trend that \u2018the use of poetry in language learning has not been researched in depth\u2019 (Santill\u00e1n-I\u00f1iguez & Rodas-Pacheco, 2022, p. 3). To be more specific, most of the benefits associated with poetry teaching in the L2 classroom are still theoretical or have limited testing. They have not been studied in depth or in practice, and experimental research is sparse. This is part of a greater pattern in the study of the use of literary studies in the L2. Alkhaleefah (2017) summarizes it well:<\/p>\n The argument for supporting the use of literature in ELT classrooms has not been fully validated using meticulous and rigorous methods of collecting and analysing data from EFL context in order to attest the validity and applicability of the assumptions put forward. Hence, more future research in different learning contexts involving different methodological approaches and different designs to examine the impact of using literature on language learners\u2019 abilities is certainly needed (p. 5).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The review of the literature for this experiment provided a similar picture despite its occurrence years after. A significant number of recommendations on the inclusion of poetry in the language classroom have substantial theoretical underpinnings but lack empirical evidence. As a result, many of the discussions among interested parties can be cyclical. Arguments are based on information that is currently unconfirmed, stymying the usefulness of this discourse. Both sides can provide arguments that would likely be persuasive if they are true, but they are unable to fully support the decisions due to a lack of generalizable evidence. This makes it difficult for teachers and curriculum designers to make informed decisions about whether to include poetry in their classes. Many benefits are claimed, but they lack strong enough support for teachers to be confident that these benefits will occur for their learners. More evidence is needed to provide a clear answer.<\/p>\n This issue is exacerbated by the limits on what empirical evidence exists. This experiment\u2019s literature review indicated that studies and research on the use of literary texts in language classrooms have not been carried out on representative samples. A disproportionate number focus on adult learners, especially university students. These university students are also disproportionately likely to be studying languages or education. This creates another gap in the literature: research focusing on students still in secondary or primary school, whose attendance in language classes may be involuntary, and a focus on learners in private language education.<\/p>\n Thus, increased empirical research, especially experimental research, is necessary to better understand the role poetry can play in L2 learning. Ideally, this research would target the most cited benefits, such as vocabulary acquisition, for learners in primary or secondary schools. This increase in evidence would help discussions around the implementation of poetry in the classroom to progress and provide more concrete reasoning for invested parties to decide whether or not it would be beneficial to them to teach poetry.<\/p>\n Goal of This Paper<\/strong><\/p>\n This paper aims to empirically test the efficacy of using poetic studies to enhance vocabulary acquisition, one of the most commonly referenced linguistic benefits of the study of literary texts. This would help assuage some of the general issues uncovered in the aforementioned papers.<\/p>\n There is considerable interest in the use of poetry to enhance linguistic capabilities, so it is important to determine whether it is a viable option for developing the desired competencies (Jabsheh, 2019; Khan, 2020). If it is not, then, regardless of how it relates to other literary genres, it would be inadvisable to generally recommend poetry\u2019s inclusion in the classroom. Additionally, issues of poetry\u2019s popularity and effectiveness compared to other genres are only relevant if poetry is effective in the first place. This paper aims to investigate one part of this: whether studying poetry can positively support vocabulary growth.<\/p>\n Specifically, this paper is concerned with determining the mechanical ability of the study of poetry as a literary genre to support vocabulary acquisition when learners are directed to notice the words. It is believed that doing so will help break the cyclical nature of debates surrounding the use of poetry and other literary genres in L2 classrooms and provide clearer information for language teachers and others involved in curriculum development. It is outside the scope of this research to determine whether it is appropriate to recommend poetic studies over other genres of literature. Additional research will also be needed in order to investigate other predicted linguistic benefits to studying poetry, such as pronunciation. Nonetheless, this paper aims to help fill the gap when it comes to vocabulary growth.<\/p>\n Thus, the research questions for this experiment are:<\/p>\n The hypothesized answer to these questions is that without a primary focus on vocabulary learning during the study of a poem, there will not be a statistically significant difference between poetry studying groups and word list studying groups, but that on average, learner vocabularies will meaningfully increase in both cases.<\/p>\n This experiment was carried out at a private international school in the Guanacaste province of Costa Rica on the northern Pacific coast. It took place in the first semester of the school year during the participants’ regular classes. The participating students were in grade six and ranged from ten to twelve years old. There were eleven females and twenty-two males, thirty-three in total. There was a considerable range in student English levels, with some students being high beginners and others advanced. The approximate average English level was informally assessed at a B1 of the CEFR scale based on their performance on Cambridge classroom materials during the previous school year.<\/p>\n These students varied significantly in ethnicity and language repertoire. Recorded nationalities of the students or of their parents include Costa Rican, Brazilian, Chinese American, Canadian, Italian, French, Belgian, Chilean, Venezuelan, English, Argentinian, Slovakian, and Spanish. Several students also have mixed ancestry. Similarly, the students had a variety in their language repertoires. They took two-thirds of their classes in Spanish, and several spoke Spanish in the home and outside of class. However, others also spoke French, Italian, Mandarin, Portuguese, or English in the home, mixing languages depending on the context.<\/p>\n Six lessons were created around the analysis of six different poems: \u2018Washing\u2019 by John Drinkwater, \u2018Today is Very Boring\u2019 by Jack Prelutsky, \u2018Fairies\u2019 by Rose Fyleman, \u2018Spring Break\u2019 by April Halprin Wayland, \u2018Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening\u2019 by Robert Frost, and \u2018Homework stew\u2019 by Ken Nesbitt. These poems were selected based on their perceived relevance to the experiences of the students in the class and their lexical coverage. All six poems had 95% coverage at the B1 level if students were taught fewer than ten words outside of the CEFR B1 word list (ER-Central, 2024). Those new words were then selected as the vocabulary items based on salience and the absence of familiar cognates in Spanish and put into a vocabulary assessment and vocabulary list as an addition to the school\u2019s standard curriculum.<\/p>\n The assessment was piloted one year before the main experiment by the researcher, as were the poems from which it was derived, with their corresponding lessons. The vocabulary test had two sections: a definition matching section where each question had a word bank and a list of definitions that the students had to match with the word and an application section where learners had to select which word from a selection of four best fit into a sentence. The latter was designed to focus on word use that expands beyond the denotation of the target items and, when possible, to better reflect a learner\u2019s ability to apply the word.<\/p>\n All the participants in the pilot then moved on to the next grade level. Adjustments were made to the number of vocabulary items and a few of the questions to make them clearer. A copy of the test is included in Appendix A<\/a>.<\/p>\n Participating students in both groups in the actual experiment then took the vocabulary pretest, taking twenty minutes. Over the course of the next six weeks, the experimental class (Group A, fifteen participants) had one forty-minute class per week with the researcher, who was also their English teacher, where they read one of the poems, analysed it, and had the vocabulary glossed for them.<\/p>\n The classes followed the same general format. Participants would do an activity to activate their schema, such as brainstorming ideas related to the topic of the poem or interviewing classmates about it. Then they were shown the words and were instructed to write them and, if they did not know them, their definitions in their notebooks. When they received a copy of the poem, the participants marked the words in the poem. Students would then read the poem.<\/p>\n After reading the poem, they would either hear a recorded recitation of the poem or take turns reading it aloud to a partner. The class would next turn to a discussion of the themes of the poem, clarifying any questions the students had. During class discussions, if the words were relevant to the analysis of the poem, the teacher would highlight their meanings. The researcher provided sets of questions related to the main ideas of the poem and a few poetic devices used and prompted students to share their responses and how they found them. The class finished with some kind of activity specific to the poem. For instance, after reading \u2018Today is Very Boring,\u2019 students illustrated two pictures: one of something they thought the narrator would find boring and one they thought the narrator would find interesting. They then explained why they thought what they did to the teacher when showing their pictures.<\/p>\n In the control group, also taught by the researcher (Group B, eighteen participants), during the same week that the experimental group had the poems, they received the words as part of a list without a poem. They, too, wrote down the words and the unfamiliar definitions. They also saw a sample sentence to highlight each word and suggest its range of use. For example, the word \u2018erupt\u2019 was linked to volcanoes but was also compared to emotional eruptions and eruptions of noise. The control group then filled the rest of their class period with different reading-focused activities based on their existing curriculum.<\/p>\n Two weeks after all the poems were studied and all words were taught, all students in both groups retook the vocabulary assessment, again taking twenty minutes. They also received reminders throughout the experiment that they would be tested on the words again. The differences in the scores of each participant were then compiled into Google Sheets and were used in an aligned rank transformation test on Multilingual Statistics for Linguistics and Language Teaching Studies to determine if there were significant differences in their starting points and outcomes (Spring, 2022). The software (Spring, 2022) recommended this test because while the data is continuous, one or more of the data sets is not normally distributed and their variances, (w=4.13; p =.010) as indicated by a Levene\u2019s test, lacked sufficient similarity for other test options.<\/p>\n Results<\/strong><\/p>\n The groups had slightly different starting points with the mean score for Group A being 42.2 out of 56 and the score for Group B being 36.5 out of fifty-six. While they did not know an equal portion of the words, the tested words were selected under the idea that learners were not expected to know any given number. As a result, they were still considered appropriate for the experiment. This gap persisted in the post-test. The mean post-treatment score for Group A was 49.6 out of 56, and for Group B, 43.56 out of 56. The gap was largely maintained. The groups stayed about 6 points apart.<\/p>\n Table 1. Pretest and Post-Test Statistics<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nUniversit\u00e4t Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat, Spain
\n<Ethanjhopkin99![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
gmail.com><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Poetry and the L2 classroom<\/h3>\n
\n
Context and Methodology<\/h3>\n
![\"Group](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej116\/a7pix\/image1.png\")
<\/p>\n