International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TRANSLATION METHOD
AND THE PICTORIAL METHOD IN LEARNING AND
RETENTION OF VOCABULARY BY IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS

Mona Tavakoli (Corresponding author)

Department of English, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
E-Mail: Mona.t1366@yahoo.com

Mohammadreza Talebinezhad
Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza, Iran
E-Mail: rtalebinezhad@yahoo.com

Mahmood Hashemian
English Department, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran
E-Mail: tefl20@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
Many researchers have shown the significance of the role of vocabulary in language learning.
However, there have been a lot of questions about which method of teaching vocabulary will be
more effective, especially for elementary students. To further research on this issue, the present
study aimed at comparing two supposedly efficient methods of vocabulary teaching: pictorial
method and translation. The participants were 120 beginner Iranian students. They were divided
randomly into two groups. Each group consisted of 60 learners who were both male and female.
For the first group, vocabulary was taught by giving the words’ translation, and for the second
group vocabulary teaching entailed providing the words’ pictures. Because of the students’ level
(i.e. zero beginner), this study did not contain a pretest. During a three-week period, the students
learned a total number of 50 basic English words. At the end of the course, an immediate posttest
was administrated. After a week, the students were given a delayed posttest to gain information
about the long-term effects of those vocabulary teaching methods. Then, descriptive statistics
were calculated on the collected data to compare the performance of two groups, and a couple of
independent-samples t-tests were conducted to analyze the performances of the two groups on the
posttest and the delayed posttest. The results showed that the students in the pictorial group
outperformed their counterparts in the translation group in both the posttest and the delayed
posttest. Although the effect size in the posttest was small, its magnitude was large in the delayed
posttest. This would imply that by the passage of time, the words learned through the pictorial
method tend to be remembered more easily than those learned via the translation method. In
order for the newly taught words to retain in the long-term memory, then, English teachers are
advised to present the new words with accompanying pictures to their students.

KEYWORDS: Vocabulary learning, Retention, Translation method, Pictorial method

123
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
INTRODUCTION
Vocabulary is an important aspect of any language, in a way that knowing a language is highly
dependent on knowing vocabularies of that language. In this regard, Harmer (1993) believes, “If
language structures make up the skeleton of language, then it is vocabulary that provides the vital
organs and the flesh” (p.153). Without sufficient vocabulary, people cannot understand and
communicate with others or express their ideas. Wilkins (1972) wrote that “... while without
grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed” (pp. 111–
112).

Many researchers have pointed out that lexicon has been neglected for some eras in
second/foreign language teaching. However, during the past decade, there has been increased
focus on teaching vocabulary, partly as a result of developing new approaches to language
teaching, which are more word-centered. Here, the problem is to find ways or skills that can help
learners to better learn, retain, and retrieve vocabulary. Since English students in Iran learn it as a
foreign language, and are rarely exposed to real-life conversations, they cannot retain the
vocabularies for a long time. In addition, although language learners are mostly asked to
memorize the words for finding the meaning of a reading text, or taking schools’ exams, they
mostly have difficulty in learning them, probably because it is not easy to learn and retain lots of
vocabularies in mind and try to remember and use them actively when no useful method of
vocabulary learning has been employed. Thus, English teachers in Iran need to look for ways for
learners to learn and retain vocabulary better. One supposedly good way for teaching vocabulary
especially for beginner students which can lead to better learning is using pictures. Therefore, it
was necessary to conduct a study to investigate the effects of pictorial aids on vocabulary
learning.

One of the common findings in memory research is that pictures are remembered better than
words. It is because using pictures will lead to deeper semantic levels rather than shallow levels
(Craik & Tulving, 1975). Words are arbitrary symbols and processing them semantically takes a
long time (Clark, 1995). This phenomenon has been referred to as the picture superiority effect. It
is based on Paivio’s (1971, 1976) dual-coding theory. This view proposes that pictures are
remembered better than words because they are more likely to be represented by both verbal and
image codes. Nelson’s (1979) sensory-semantic model also proposes that pictures have an
advantage in memory because they contain a greater variety of visual features than do words.
Empirical evidence has so far demonstrated that pictorial clarification assists learners to
comprehend and maintain L2 idioms. However, Boers, et al. (2009) called into question the claim
that pictorial elucidation is helpful. That is, as far as their findings can be generalized to
vocabulary learning, they may cast doubts on “the rather indiscriminate and abundant use of
pictorials in modern textbooks and CALL packages” (p. 367). Within the framework of dual
coding theory, Shen (2010) compared two methods: verbal encoding and verbal encoding plus
imagery encoding. Analysis of the results revealed that, compared with the verbal encoding
method, the verbal plus imagery encoding method does not demonstrate a greater effect in
retention of the sound, shape, and meaning of concrete words, but statistically significant
differences are present in retention of the shape and meaning of abstract words.

124
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
Carpenter and Olson (2011) conducted a study on whether pictures are good in learning
vocabulary in a foreign language or not. The participants were 116 undergraduate students
divided to 4 groups. The group one was taught by pictures, and then asked to answer the
vocabulary questions in their L1. For the group two, pictures were also used in language teaching
and students were asked to answer in English. For teaching to the group three, translation method
was used, and the students were asked to recall the L1 words by English translation (cued recall).
Finally, for the group four the L1 vocabularies were presented by English translation, and then
the students were asked to free recall the English words. The result of the study reviled that the
free-recall test had an advantage of pictures over English translation, whereas the cued-recall test
did not.

Oberg (2011) investigated the effect of using picture cards on vocabulary learning of low-level
L2 learners. This study suggested that use of picture-based vocabulary cards and some games
using those words can help L2 learners to improve their vocabularies. Hummel (2010) examined
whether translation in language teaching can help or hinder the L2 vocabulary learning and
retention. The participants were 191 native French-speaking students enrolled in a TESL
program. The results indicated significant short-term lexical recall following all three conditions,
with no difference between the two translation conditions. However, a significant advantage was
found for the rote-copying condition compared to the two translation conditions.

There are a number of researchers who studied the effects of translation and picture on
vocabulary learning, but there are few researchers who compared the effect of the translation
method and the pictorial method on learning and retention of language vocabulary, and the
number of research studies on this topic in Iran is scant. Thus, this study was conducted to
compare the effects of picture and translation on vocabulary learning of Iranian beginner EFL
learners.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To achieve the aim of the study, the following research question was posed: Is there any
significant difference between using translation method and pictorial method in learning and
retention of new vocabulary by Iranian beginner EFL learners?

METHODOLOGY
Participants
The participants of this study were selected from four intact classes who were randomly divided
into two groups. There were 60 learners in each group. Since in this study one method of
teaching was pictorial method, the beginner level learners were selected in order that teaching
through pictures could be meaningful for them. So, the participants were zero beginners enrolled
at beginner level in a language institute in Isfahan. The participants were 40 male and 80 female
between the age ranges of 8 to 13 who had not taken part in any English class before.

125
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
Materials and Instruments
To answer the research questions, some different types of materials and procedures were
used:

A number of fifty basic English vocabularies, corresponding vocabulary picture cards, an

immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest. Because of students’ level, that was zero beginner,
this study did not include a pretest. This basic vocabularies taken from different beginner-level
books were chose. The frequency of these vocabularies was also checked according to Oxford
word list. Each vocabulary was based on one English alphabet, and for each alphabet two
vocabularies were selected (except for u and x from which only one word was selected).

A total number of 50 picture cards were prepared for teaching vocabulary to the learners in group
A. The intended pictures taken from the internet sites were printed on one side of some A4
papers, and then the ten-centimeter-pictures were cut. Each served as a card for clarifying the
vocabularies’ meaning. It was tried to use pictures which were plain and simple so that the
learners could understand them easily.

Two models of posttest were prepared for the two groups and were taken in the last session of the
course. For group A, who were taught through pictorial method, on a question sheet, 50 little
colored pictures were included and the learners were asked to write the related English
vocabulary for each picture. For group B, who were taught through translation method, 50 target
vocabularies were written in the learners’ L1 and they were asked to write the English equivalent
for each one.

The two models of test that were used as immediate posttest were used again and taken 3 days
after the treatments. During these 3 days the learners were given no instruction. The delayed
posttest was run for assessing the effects of treatments on long-term memory of the learners. The
test-retest reliability indices of the two tests were calculated to be .78 for the Group A test and .83
for the other test.

Procedure
Before starting the treatments, a few oral questions were asked from the learners to assess their
vocabulary knowledge. Regarding the fact that the learners were zero beginners, they were taught
50 alphabet-based basic vocabularies. Class sessions for group A were held three times a week in
the morning of odd days, and for group B three times a week in the morning of even days. The
setting of classes, the times, and all other situations for two groups were the same. Each session,
three English alphabet letters were taught, and for each alphabet two vocabularies, which started
with those alphabet letters, were given as examples. Because of limited high frequency
vocabulary, for only two alphabet words exceptionally just one vocabulary was exampled.
Totally, the number of 50 vocabularies was taught by the end of the course. The teaching course
consisted of 9 sessions which were held during 3 weeks. In group A, the vocabularies which were
the focus of the study were taught by presenting picture cards, and in group B the vocabularies
were taught by giving the words’ equivalents in learners’ L1. Then, in the last session after
having a review of the whole vocabularies, the learners were given an immediate test to examine

126
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
the treatment effects the learners’ short-term memory. After a 3-day delay without any
instruction, a delayed posttest was given to the learners. This study was carried out in the summer
of 2013. The data were obtained and subsequently were made ready for analysis by the SPSS
software program. To reach an answer to the research question of the study, independent-samples
t-test was conducted. This statistical tool was once used to compare the performances of the two
groups on the pretest, and it was utilized a second time to analyze the results of the delayed
posttest. The results of data analysis are presented in the following section.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The null hypothesis of the study assumed that there was no significant difference between using
translation method and pictorial method in learning and retention of vocabulary by Iranian
beginner EFL learners. Since this hypothesis made assumptions about both learning and retention
of vocabulary, it entailed two separate analyses which drew upon the data obtained in the posttest
and the delayed posttest. The results of the posttest analysis are presented below.
As it was previously mentioned, the posttest data were analyzed by means of an independent-
samples t-test. The descriptive table, along with the t-test table, is displayed in the following.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the Comparison of the Pictorial group (PG) and the
Translation Group (TG) on the Posttest
Std.
Groups N Mean Std. Error Mean
Deviation
Posttest PG 60 44.6500 3.75894 .48528
TG 60 42.6842 4.70758 .63678

In Table 1, the number of participants in each group, two groups’ mean scores and standard
deviations are displayed. The pictorial group (M = 44.65) managed to obtain a higher mean score
than did the translation group (M = 42.68). To find out whether the difference between the two
groups’ mean scores is statistically significant or not, the value under the Sig. (2-tailed) column
in the t-test table should be checked.

Table 2: The Results of Independent-Samples T-Test for the Comparison of the Pictorial Group (PG) and the
Translation Group (TG) on the Posttest
Levene’s Test t-test for equality of means
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence
tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Posttest Equal 1.515 .0221 2.471 118 .015 1.96579 .79563 .38979 3.54179
Variances
Assumed 2.455 106.00 .016 1.96579 .80061 .37850 3.55308
Equal
Variances
not
assumed

127
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
The value under Sig. (2-tailed) equals .015. In the event that this value is smaller than the
specified level of significance (i.e. .05), as is the case here, the null hypothesis (stating that there
is no significant difference between the two groups) is rejected. The conclusion here is that there
is a significant difference in the mean scores for the pictorial group (M = 44.65, SD = 3.75) and
the translation group, M = 42.68, SD = 4.80; t (118) = 2.47, p = .015 (two-tailed).

To measure the magnitude of the obtained significant difference, the effect size was calculated
through the eta square formula. The calculated value turned out to be .05. Based on the guidelines
proposed by Cohen (1988, cited in Pallant, 2007), the eta square between .01 and .06 indicates a
small effect, while a value ranging from .06 to .14 shows a moderate effect. Finally, a value
greater than .14 suggests that the effect size has been large. In the case of the results obtained
here, as it was mentioned above, the difference between the pictorial group and the translation
group was statistically significant, but the effect of using different teaching techniques appeared
to be small. This significant difference between the two groups is also graphically represented by
the following bar graph.

Figure 1: The Difference in the Mean Scores of the Pictorial Group (PG) and the
Translation Group (TG) on the Posttest

To get a picture of how well the taught vocabulary items were retained by the participants of the
study, a delayed posttest was administered. The data gathered in the delayed posttest were
analyzed using an independent-samples t-test. The tables related to this analysis are shown below.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for the Comparison of the Pictorial group (PG) and the Translation
Group (TG) on the Delayed Posttest
Std.
Groups N Mean Std. Error Mean
Deviation
Delayed Posttest PG 60 43.6667 4.40980 .56930
TG 60 38.8667 6.36321 .82149

Like what was observed in the posttest, the mean score of the pictorial group (M = 43.66) was
higher than that of the translation group (M = 38.86). In order to make sure the difference
between the two mean scores is statistically meaningful, the t-test table below should be
consulted.

128
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
Table 4: The Results of Independent-Samples T-Test for the Comparison of the Pictorial Group (PG) and the
Translation Group (TG) on the Delayed Posttest
Levene’s Test t-test for equality of means
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence
tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Posttest Equal 4.099 .045 4.803 118 .000 4.80000 .99947 2.82077 6.77923
Variances
Assumed 4.803 105.050 .000 4.80000 .99947 2.81824 6.78126
Equal
Variances
not
assumed

The p value under the Sig. (two-tailed) column is again smaller that the specified alpha level (p =
.000 < .05), indicating that the difference between the two groups is statistically meaningful.
Thus t could be understood that the pictorial group (M = 43.66, SD = 4.40) significantly
outperformed the translation group, M = 38.86, SD = 6.36; t (118) = 4.80, p = .000 (two-tailed).
Afresh, eta square was gauged to obtain the measure of effect size. This time, the value for eta
square equaled .16, indicating a large effect size. As a result, the pictorial group surpassed the
translation group in the delayed posttest and the effect of using different methods for teaching
vocabulary was proved to be large in the delayed posttest.

The following bar graph is a graphic representation of the significant difference between the
mean scores of the two groups on the delayed posttest.

Figure 2: The Difference in the Mean Scores of the Pictorial Group (PG) and the
Translation Group (TG) on the Delayed Posttest

The results showed that the mean score of the pictorial group (M = 43.66) was higher than that of
the translation group (M = 38.86). The p value under the Sig. (two-tailed) column is again smaller
129
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
that the specified alpha level (p = .000 < .05), indicating that the difference between the two
groups is statistically meaningful. Thus t could be understood that the pictorial group (M = 43.66,
SD = 4.40) significantly outperformed the translation group, M = 38.86, SD = 6.36; t (118) =
4.80, p = .000 (two-tailed). The value under Sig. (2-tailed) equals .015. In the event that this
value is smaller than the specified level of significance (i.e. .05), as is the case here, the null
hypothesis (stating that there is no significant difference between the two groups) is rejected. The
conclusion here is that there is a significant difference in the mean scores for the pictorial group
(M = 44.65, SD = 3.75) and the translation group, M = 42.68, SD = 4.80; t (115) = 2.47, p = .015
(two-tailed). The results of data analysis revealed that the pictorial group outperformed the
translation group on both the posttest and the delayed posttest. Not surprisingly, the effect size on
the posttest was small, while this measure on the delayed posttest was large. This would suggest
that by the passage of time, the pictorial method tends to leave more long-lasting effects than
does the translation method.

This result is in line with the findings of Oberg (2011) investigated the effect of using picture
cards on vocabulary learning of low-level L2 learners. The learners were asked to create picture-
based vocabulary cards by themselves based on the vocabularies written on a paper for them.
They were directed to draw picture for each vocabulary on one side of the cards, and write the L2
vocabulary on the back of the cards. Next, they were asked to say aloud the vocabulary items on
each card and then produce sentences using those items. This study suggested that use of picture-
based vocabulary cards and some games using those words can help L2 learners to improve their
vocabularies.

This finding is also in line with Tavakoli and Gerami (2012) conducted a pretest-posttest-
immediate and delayed posttest to determine the effects of keyword and pictorial methods on
EFL learners’ vocabulary learning and retention. Sixty elementary level learners with the age
range of eighteen to thirty-two distributed randomly to three groups. The first experimental group
received treatment in keyword method. The second experimental group received instruction
based on pictorial method. The control group received no effective instruction. The result of the
study showed that the keyword method is more effective in learners’ vocabulary development
than the pictorial and the translation methods.

CONCLUSION
One of the questions in language teachers’ minds is how can they teach vocabulary more
effectively. Some researchers have suggested different methods of vocabulary teaching. The
results of this study point to an efficient method for teaching vocabulary to language learners.
Teaching vocabulary through pictorial method could help students to learn more vocabularies and
also retain them better for a long time. The goal of this study was to demonstrate whether
teaching vocabulary through using picture cards was more effective than translating vocabularies
to Iranian L2 learners. The findings of the present study demonstrated that Iranian L2 learners’
vocabulary learning could improve by teaching through pictorial method much more than
translation method.

130
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume  6  (3),  July  2014;  123-­‐131                                                                                                                                                                                                        Tavakoli,  M.,  et  al      
EISSN:  2289-­‐2737  &  ISSN:  2289-­‐3245                                                                                                                                                                                              www.ijllalw.org                                          
Vocabulary is one of the important aspects of any language learning. In this vein, teachers play
an important role in assisting students in learning vocabularies more effectively. This research
study was an attempt to shed some light on the issue that using picture-based instruction of
vocabulary is a useful strategy in language teaching. The researcher hopes that the results of the
study will help teachers to enhance vocabulary teaching especially to English beginner learners.
However, the results of the current study should be used with caution primarily because the time
interval between the posttest and the delayed posttest could not exceed three days, which is a
relatively short time interval. This short time interval between the two tests could not be avoided
since access to the learners was impossible long after the completion of their term.

REFERENCES
Boers, F., Piquer Piriz, A. M., Free, H. S., & Eyckmans, J. (2009). Does pictorial elucidation
foster recollection of idioms? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 367-382.
Carpenter, S. K., & Olson, K.M. (2011). Are pictures good for learning new vocabulary in a
foreign language? Only if you think they are not. Journal of Experimental Psychology,38,
92-101.
Clark, E. V. (1995). Later lexical development and word formation. In P. Fletcher & B.
MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp.767-773). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Craik, F. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268-294.
Harmer, J. (1993). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Longman Group UK
Limited.
Hummel, K. (2010). Translation and short-term L2 vocabulary retention: Hindrance or help?
Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 61-74.
Nelson, D. L. (1979). Remembering pictures and words: Appearance, significance, and name.
In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp.
45-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oberg, A. (2011). Comparison of the effectiveness of a CALL-based approach and a card-based
approach to vocabulary acquisition and retention. CALICO Journal, 29 (1).
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. London, England: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Paivio, A. (1976). Imagery in recall and recognition. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition
(pp. 103–129). New York, NY: Wiley.
Shen, H. H. (2010). Imagery and verbal coding approaches in Chinese vocabulary
Instruction. Language Teaching Research, 14(4) 485-499.
Tavakoli, M., & Gerami, E. (2012). The effect of keyword and pictorial nethods on EFL
Learners’ vocabulary learning and retention. PortaLinguarum, 19, 299- 316.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

131