Abstract/Summary

There is a dearth of rigorous empirical research focusing on improving the academic achievement of visually impaired (VI) learners in all curricular areas (Cooney et al., 2015) despite the inferiority of their educational outcomes compared to sighted (SI) learners (WHO, 2019). The paucity of research appears to be particularly prevalent in the field of foreign language learning (Schultz & Savaiano, 2023). Research with VI learners has mainly examined methodologies for teaching a second or foreign language (L2) rather than investigating the effects of these methodologies on learning (e.g., Carpenter, 2020; Guinan, 1997; Nehari, 2017; Nikolic, 1987; Topor & Rosenblum, 2013). Understanding the impact of teaching is especially important in relation to vocabulary, in view of its centrality for all aspects of language learning and also because of its challenges for VI learners. This thesis investigated how different modes of vocabulary instruction through listening impacted 32 VI and SI female upper-secondary school learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in Saudi Arabia (SA). Given that listening is the primary channel through which VI learners obtain information (Barclay & Staples, 2012; Jedynak, 2023). The study investigated two modes of vocabulary instruction paired with aural input, adopting a mixed within-and between-subjects counterbalanced design. Mode 1 was codeswitching (CS), in which Arabic (L1) was used to explain the meaning of target English words. Mode 2 was aural input manipulation followed by CS (AIMCS), whereby the target item was emphasised within an example sentence through increased volume. The current study also explored whether and how the effect of the instruction was moderated by learners’ listening proficiency and their existing vocabulary size. The effects of repetition on the retention of the target vocabulary items were also considered. In addition, learners’ responses to the two modes of instruction, both in terms of the strategies it prompted and their perceptions of its helpfulness or otherwise, were investigated through stimulated recall interviews with 16 students. The data collection procedure was over two academic terms, with three intervention sessions each term. Learners completed a pre-listening test and aural vocabulary pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests. The 32 participants in the study comprised 16 Saudi VI upper secondary school students of English alongside a comparison group of 16 SI learners. Codeswitching was selected as one teaching mode because of the importance of having a correct mental representation in the L1 before the L2 version can be learnt (Jedynak, 2016). AIMCS was selected because of VI individuals’ greater pitch sensitivity than SI individuals (Gougoux et al., 2004; Sepúlveda-Palomo et al., 2024; Smeds, 2015). It was paired with codeswitching to more clearly isolate the effect of each type of instruction, i.e. CS alone or CS plus AIM. Before the intervention, learners completed two baseline tests assessing their listening comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. They then listened to six English passages over six teaching sessions and received oral explanations for 60 target vocabulary items. The two teaching modes were counterbalanced in each session, so that learners in both groups experienced both modes. A vocabulary post-test was employed at the end of each session to measure the learners’ knowledge of target lexical items. Two weeks after each session, a delayed post-test was administered to assess longer-term retention. Towards the end of each intervention session, a review activity took place to revise the selected taught lexical items. After the last delayed post-test, stimulated recall interview sessions were conducted with 16 learners —eight from the experimental group and eight from the comparison group. Lastly, five weeks after the intervention, a final delayed post-test was administered to explore the impact of repetition on vocabulary gains. Generalised linear mixed effects models showed that for short-term learning, learners’ pre-listening proficiency significantly moderated the effect of Group and Instruction on vocabulary learning. While SI learners benefited equally from the intervention, VI learners with higher levels of listening proficiency showed greater improvement in vocabulary learning than their peers with lower levels of listening proficiency. In addition, although both types of instruction showed positive effects on learning, the AIMCS approach seemed more useful for more proficient listeners, whereas the CS approach showed a similar effect regardless of learners’ pre-listening proficiency. Such moderation effects, however, disappeared for longer-term vocabulary learning. More proficient listeners retained significantly more vocabulary at delayed post-test regardless of Group and the type of instruction received. Concerning the effects of number of repetitions, final delayed post-test findings indicated no significant effect of repetition on the target lexical items’ retention. Overall, these results suggest that AIMCS was the most beneficial teaching method for both groups, particularly VI learners, although the effects were primarily short-term. Listening proficiency also moderated the outcomes, with the greatest benefits observed in learners with higher listening proficiency. Qualitative analysis of the students’ stimulated recall interviews revealed that higher and lower proficiency learners used similar strategies to comprehend the teacher’s explanations (e.g., visualisation and selective attention on CS). However, higher proficiency learners seemed to use these strategies in combination with a broader range of other strategies compared to lower proficiency learners. The findings also indicated that vision deficit impacted VI higher and lower proficiency learners’ strategy use (i.e., their use of visualisation lacked visual elements). Additionally, the analysis of learners’ perceptions regarding the helpfulness of the two modes of vocabulary instruction indicated that the majority, albeit mainly VI learners, deemed AIMCS to be a better approach than CS alone. VI learners affirmed that AIMCS catered for their vision deficits by exploiting their auditory skills by pairing AIM with CS, which elevated both attention, comprehension, and retention. This study provides both theoretical insights and pedagogical recommendations for L2 vocabulary instruction tailored to VI learners. It highlights the vital role of listening proficiency in both developing vocabulary knowledge and influencing the effectiveness of CS and AIMCS instructional methods. Moreover, the study sheds light on how we can better design inclusive teaching approaches that leverage the auditory strengths and unique strategy use of VI learners. This, in turn, can support improved vocabulary acquisition and retention, contributing to a more equitable and accessible language learning experience for learners with visual impairments.