KINESTHETIC LEARNING STRATEGIES AND VOCABULARY RETENTION: A STUDY OF RURAL UPPER PRIMARY ESL PUPILS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v7i3.1249Keywords:
kinesthetic strategies, vocabulary retention, ESL, primary education, upper primary pupilsAbstract
Vocabulary acquisition and retention are still concerning issues for many ESL pupils, especially in rural primary schools. This is due to the passive learning strategies that can lead to disengagement and lack of retention. Upon this problem, a quantitative study, specifically a quasi-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design, has been conducted to examine the effects of kinesthetic strategies on vocabulary retention among 13 eleven years old rural upper primary ESL pupils. Besides, this study was implemented to evaluate the use of the strategies that are beneficial to the learning process. The intervention involved the association of physical movement with the meanings of words to aid better cognitive processing and memory recall. Results indicated strong evidence supporting the efficacy of kinesthetics strategies with a significant increase in vocabulary retention with a post-test score of 85% higher than the pre-test baseline. A structured observation checklist was used to illustrate a corresponding increase in both response time and pupils’ engagement. Most notably, the remedial group experienced the greatest improvement, transitioning from low participation to high participation during lessons. Ultimately, the findings of this study indicate that kinesthetic strategies can be an effective, inclusive, engaging and cost-efficient learning experience than can improve pupils’ English language performance in rural areas.
References
[1] Asher, J.J. (1969): The total physical response approach to second language learning. – The Modern Language Journal 53(1): 3-17.
[2] Asher, J.J. (2012): Learning another language through actions. – Sky Oaks Productions, Los Gatos 164p.
[3] Barsalou, L.W. (2020): Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. – Journal of Cognition 3(1): 1-24.
[4] Bruner, J.S. (1966): Toward a theory of instruction. – Harvard University Press, Cambridge 176p.
[5] Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. (2007): Research methods in education. – Routledge, London 638p.
[6] Creswell, J.W., Creswell, J.D. (2023): Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 6th Ed. – SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks 291p.
[7] Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., Hyun, H.H. (2023): How to design and evaluate research in education. – McGraw-Hill Education, New York 710p.
[8] Glenberg, A.M. (2015): Few believe the world is flat: How embodiment is changing the scientific understanding of cognition. – Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale 69(2): 165-171.
[9] Glenberg, A.M. (2010): Embodiment as a unifying perspective in cognitive science. – Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(4): 586-596.
[10] Hattie, J., Donoghue, G.M. (2024): Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. – Routledge, London 13p.
[11] Krashen, S.D. (1982): Principles and practice in second language acquisition. – Pergamon Press, Oxford 202p.
[12] Lantolf, J.P., Poehner, M.E., Thorne, S.L. (2024): Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. – Routledge, London 268p.
[13] Lightbown, P.M., Spada, N. (2021): How languages are learned. – Oxford University Press, Oxford 296p.
[14] Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., Major, L. (Eds.) (2019): The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. – Routledge, London 714p.
[15] Mertens, D.M. (2024): Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. – SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks 528p.
[16] Mertler, C.A. (2024): Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators. – SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks 376p.
[17] Nation, I.S.P. (2022): Learning vocabulary in another language. – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 624p.
[18] Patton, M.Q. (2024): Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. – SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks 690p.
[19] Piaget, J. (1952): The origins of intelligence in children. – International Universities Press, New York 419p.
[20] Richards, J.C., Rodgers, T.S. (2014): Approaches and methods in language teaching. – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 410p.
[21] Salkind, N.J., Frey, B.B. (2023): Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. – SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks 481p.
[22] Scrivener, J. (2020): Learning teaching: The essential guide to English language teaching. – Macmillan Education, Oxford 416p.
[23] Shapiro, L. (2019): Embodied cognition. – Routledge, London 304p.
[24] Simamora, J.A., Iskandar, P., Weda, S. (2025): The effect of kinesthetic learning activities on students’ speaking skills: A quantitative study. – International Journal of Language, Education, and Literature 2(2): 149-158.
[25] Smith, M.K., Jones, F.H., Gilbert, S.L., Wieman, C.E. (2013): The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. – CBE-Life Sciences Education 12(4): 618-627.
[26] Tellier, M. (2008): The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. – Gesture 8(2): 219-235.
[27] Thornbury, S. (2002): How to teach vocabulary. – Pearson Education, Harlow 185p.
[28] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978): Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. – Harvard University Press, Cambridge 159p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 AIMI KHAIRIYAH HAMDAN, AZLINA ABDUL AZIZ, HARWATI HASHIM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
