習得對國小英語學習是一個重點，而且幾乎所有國小公立學校所使用之審定版的英語教科書裡，字彙的編排以語意及句法為依據，如生字「爸爸」、「媽媽」、「兄弟」及「姐妹」，全部都是名詞，被組在共同之主題「家庭」下。
基於語言學理論的語意聯結 (Channell, 1981) 和母語在腦部的組織詞庫(Aitchison, 1994, 1996)，將新詞依語意群集分類，成為絕大多數流行的做法，而且被看作是能夠促進詞彙的教學和學習，但沒有足夠的實證研究證據。
此外，在干擾的研究(Higa,1963; Postman, 1963; Gairns & Redman, 1986; Nation, 2000) 和'獨特假說' (Hunt & Elliott,1980; Hunt & Mitchell, 1982)裡，也擔心用語意群集來分類。更重要的是，越來越多對詞彙分類有效學習字彙途徑的研究，發現用語意群集的方式來學習字彙有負面之影響 (e.g. Tinkham, 1993; Waring, 1997)，因此，為了避免詞彙依語意群集分類時，可能出現的干擾現象，有一個建議，即應教導主題群集的方式(Tinkham, 1997; Nation, 2000)，即將相關情況或事件的字組在一起。這也意味著，不僅間接的將有共同主題概念相關詞組在一起，但也有不同詞類的字詞，如「邪惡」、「吸血鬼」、「吸」、及「血」。
在之前的研究，研究的關注，主要是對語意相關的詞和無關的詞之間的比較，只有少數實驗研究的比較是針對語意集群和主題群集。Tinkham (1997) 和 Al-Jabri (2005) 發現主題群集有其正面的影響，但在Hippner-Page (2000) 和 Liu’s (2003)的研究，他們發現無顯著差異介於語意集群和主題群集。正如我們可以看到確實沒有太多的實驗調查在處理語意集群和主題群集，但在國小英語學習，它是一個重要的問題，因為大部分審定過的國小英語教科書，可能會阻礙而不是促進英語詞彙的學習。因此，本研究的主要目的在於探討語意集群和主題群集對詞彙習得和詞彙記憶的影響。
採用單一組的研究設計。研究對象為16位在2009年秋季，參加英語社團的四年級小學生。所有受試者參與7次，80分鐘的英語社團，但實際有關語意集群和主題群集裡字詞的學習，每次四十分鐘，相同的教學，其中包括運用互動式電子白板講故事，字彙學習和字彙遊戲。教育領域上的新科技，互動式電子白板（IWB）是教師在課堂上寶貴的教學工具。結合Notebook Software 10，IWB提供有用的資源和教學功能。
從最初36個字的前測中選定24個字在研究，並確保沒有一個字是受試者已知的。16名學生學習24個字分別為兩個 6個字的語意群集和兩個 6個字的主題群集。之所以選擇六個字，是因為在三、四年及審定版裡，每一單元通常有4至6個新字。
自行設計的詞彙預試，受試者勾選已知道之英語單字，並將剩餘不知道之字組成四群組。此外，在每次單字教學後，使用自行設計的詞彙測試，受試者閱讀並將字和圖片配對。每一教學後的兩個星期，再做一次詞彙測試，除單字及圖片次序變動外，其他與前面的詞彙測試相同。用Non-parametric test, The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test 來檢驗後測和延遲測試在語意集群和主題群集的整體學習影響。此外，一份教學前問卷用來獲取受試者的英語學習背景和兩份教學後問卷：一分關於字彙學習策略；另一份關於受試者對教學的看法，並運用Non-parametric correlations, Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation 來了解語意群集和主題群集在字彙習得與字彙學習策略及英語學習背景之間的關聯性

整體結果顯示，在詞彙習得上(acquisition)語意群集略好於主題群集，在詞彙記憶(retention)上語意群集與主題群集完全相同，但在統計上語意群集與主題群集並無顯著性差異於詞彙習得或者於詞彙記憶。
雖然使用字彙學習策略在語意群集與主題群集所穫得的結果不同，他們仍然表示，英語教師在課堂上使用最頻繁的詞彙教學方法，也是本研究最一貫的策略用在學習詞彙上，並建議明確的教導詞彙學習策略可能有助於語意群集。
此外，有一種強烈的傾向在研究結果的顯示上，字彙的習得與受試者之英語學習背景如何時開始學習，是否有課外英語班及參加課外英語班的時間長短有關。有較多的英語學習經驗，似乎可以促進字彙學習。
最後，學生對語意群集與主題群集的教學反應，普遍持肯定的態度。教材內容和程序，可以被接納為詞彙教學方法。

Vocabulary acquisition is seen as an important aspect in elementary schools’ EFL classes and much of the new English vocabulary in authorized English textbooks (e.g. Hess, Rainbow, Hello Darbie, Longman, Joyce) for the public elementary schools here in Taiwan is presented in a semantically and syntactically organized manner, as when the words like father, mother, brother and sister, all nouns, are clustered under a common superordinate “Family”.
Based on the linguistic theory of semantic fields (Channell, 1981) and the natural organization of the mental lexicon in L1 (Aitchison, 1994, 1996) , the overwhelmingly popular practice of presenting new words together in semantic grouping has been seen as a facilitator of vocabulary teaching and learning—but without sufficient empirical evidence from research.
In addition, there are concerns in the research on the interference (Higa,1963; Postman, 1963; Gairns & Redman, 1986; Nation, 2000) and the ‘distinctiveness hypothesis’ (Hunt & Elliott,1980; Hunt & Mitchell, 1982) resulting from presenting vocabulary in semantic groups. What’s more, a growing research interest on the effective ways of grouping words to facilitate vocabulary acquisition has found negative effects of learning words in semantic grouping (e.g. Tinkham, 1993; Waring, 1997). Hence, in order to avoid the possible interference of presenting vocabulary at the same time in semantic grouping, there is a suggestion that vocabulary should be taught and learned thematically (Tinkham, 1997; Nation, 2000), that is, groups of words that are related to situations or sequences of events. It also means not only to present indirectly associated words with a common thematic concept but also to have different parts of speech in the grouping of words, such as the words evil, vampire, suck, blood.
In previous studies, the research concern was mainly on the comparison between semantically related words and unrelated words and only a few experimental studies made the comparison between semantic clusters and thematic clusters. Tinkham (1997) and Al-Jabri (2005) found positive effects for thematic clusters, but in Hippner-Page (2000) and Liu’s (2003) research, they found no significant differences between the presentation of L2 vocabulary in the semantic and thematic clusters. As we can see there are really not many experimental investigations that deal with the comparison between semantic cluster and thematic cluster, but it is an important issue in the EFL elementary context because much of the authorized English textbooks we use may have hindered rather than facilitated English vocabulary learning. Hence, the main purpose of the present study is to explore the effect on vocabulary acquisition as well as vocabulary retention of presenting new words through both semantic clustering and thematic clustering.
A one-group research design was employed. The subjects were 16 grade four elementary students who enrolled in an EFL club program in fall 2009. All the subjects participated in an eighty-minute club seven times but the actual instruction concerning word learning was forty minutes each time and received the same instruction, which consisted of storytelling, word learning and word games through Interactive Whiteboard for both semantic clustering and thematic clustering of words. A relatively new technology in the educational field, Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) is a valuable teaching tool for teachers in the classroom. Combined with Notebook Software 10, IWB provides useful resources and instructional functions.
The 24 words used in the study were selected as the targets words from an initial list of 36 words in the pretest to make sure none of the target words are known by the subjects. 16 students were presented with 24 words divided into two six-word semantic clusters and two six-word thematic clusters. The reason of choosing six words for each cluster is because in the authorized elementary English textbooks for grade 3 and 4, there are usually 4 to 6 new words in each unit.
A self-designed vocabulary test was used in the pretest, requiring the subjects to
check the words they had known and creating four clusters of words from the unknown words. Moreover, a self-designed vocabulary test was used in the posttest right after each cluster instruction, requiring the subjects to read and match the pictures with the target words. A delayed test was also used two week after each instruction. The format of the delayed test was the same as the posttest except for item order. Non-parametric test, The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was used to compare the overall effects of learning words in semantic and thematic clusters on the posttests and delayed tests. In addition, a questionnaire before the instruction was used to obtain subjects’ English learning background and two questionnaires after the presentation of each vocabulary set on the target words were provided. One was about vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) and the other was about the attitude of subjects towards instruction. Non-parametric correlations, Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation was used to find out the relationship between words learned and the use of vocabulary learning strategies as well as relationship between words learned and English learning background of the subjects for extra information about the words learning in semantic clusters and thematic clusters.
The overall results of new words acquisition revealed that semantic clusters were slightly better than thematic clusters and the overall results of new words retention revealed that semantic clusters were exactly the same as thematic clusters. There was no statistically significant difference between presenting English words in semantic clusters or in thematic clusters in the acquisition or retention of new words.
Although the results for the use of vocabulary learning strategies in semantic clusters and in thematic clusters were different, they still indicated that the vocabulary teaching methods used most frequently by English teachers in the classroom were also the strategies most consistently used in words learning by the subjects of this study and suggested that explicit teaching of vocabulary learning strategies could be helpful in semantic clusters.
Furthermore, there was a strong tendency in the results for the number of words learned to be related to the English learning background of the subjects in terms of when they started learning, whether they had supplementary English classes, and how many years of supplementary English classes they had. Having more experience of English learning does seem to facilitate words learning.
Finally, students’ attitudes towards presentations of semantic and thematic clusters were generally positive. The instructional materials and procedures could be accepted as ways of vocabulary teaching.

Ahern, A., & Bermejo, M. L. G. (2007). Storybooks in the young learners’ EFL classroom as a resource for teaching vocabulary. ELIA, 7, 35-51.
Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. (2nd ed.) Blackwell Publishers, Great Britain.
Aitchison, J. (1996). Taming the wilderness: Words in the mental lexicon. In G..M. Anderman & M.A. Rogers ( Eds.), Words, words, words: The translator and the language learner (pp.15-16). Great Britain: Multilingual Matters.
Al-Jabri, S. S. (2005). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on learning English vocabulary by Saudi Students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Bousfield, W. A. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 49, 229-240.
Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 415-422.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Channell, J. (1981). Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching. ELT Journal, 35, 115-122.
Chepyshko, R. (2009). Semantic category in L2 vocabulary learning: A MOGUL perspective. MA thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Cofer, C. N. (1966). Some evidence for coding processes derived from clustering in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 188–192.
Cohen, B. H. (1963). Recall of categorized word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 66, 227-234.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). The use of verbal and imagery mnemonics in second language vocabulary learning. Studies in second language acquisition 9 (1), 43-62.
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Craik, F., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.
Crow, J. T., & Quigley, J. R. (1985). A semantic field approach to passive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 497-513.
Erten, I. H., & Tekin, M. (2008). Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36, 407-422.
Finkbeiner, M., & Nicol, J. (2003). Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 369-383.
Fleming, M. (1995). Round the world folktale. NY: Princeton University Press.
Fromkin, V. (Ed.). (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton.
Fromkin, V. (Ed.). (1980). Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen and hand. New York: Academic Press.
Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). The role of phonological memory in vocabulary acquisition: A study of young children learning new names. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 439-454.

Hashemi, M. R., & Gowdasiaei, F. (2005). An attribute-treatment interaction study: Lexical-set versus semantically-unrelated vocabulary instruction. RELC Journal, 36, 341-361.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. NY: Newbury House Publishers.
Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 170-175.
Hippner-Page, T. (2000). Semantic clustering versus thematic clustering of English vocabulary words for second language instruction: Which method is more effective? MA thesis. Western Washington University.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207-223.
Hunt, R.R., & Elliott, J.M. (1980). The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 109, 49-74.
Hunt, R.R., & Mitchell, D.B. (1982). Independent effects of semantic and nonsemantic distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 81-87.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.

Liu, G. L. (2003). A comparison of the effects of learning words in semantic and thematic clusters in a tertiary EFL class in Taiwan. MA thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Mackey, W.F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Marzano, R. J. (1984). A cluster approach to vocabulary instruction: A new direction from the research literature. Reading Teacher, 38(2), 168-173.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Nation, I.S.P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. TESOL Journal, 9(2), 6-10.
Newton, J. (1995). Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: A case study. Second Language Research, 11, 159-177.
Papathanasiou, E. (2009). An investigation of two ways of presenting vocabulary ELT Journal, 63, 313-322.
Postman, L. (1961). Extra-experimental interference and the retention of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 97-100.
Postman, L. (1962). The effects of language habits on the acquisition and retention of verbal associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 7-19.
Postman, L. (1963). Does interference theory predict too much forgetting? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 40-48.
Postman, L., & Phillips, L.W. (1964). The effects of variable contexts on the acquisition and retention of paired associates. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 64-74.

Redman, S. (2001). English vocabulary in use: Pre-intermediate and intermediate (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seal, B.D.(1991). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed.) (pp. 69-95) USA: Heinle and Heinle.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 199-227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329-363.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365-398.
Sokmen, A. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp.237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tinkham, T. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21, 371-380.
Tinkham, T. (1997). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on learning of second language vocabulary. Second Language Research, 13, 138-163.
Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 24, 56-89.
Waring, R. (1997). The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: A replication. System, 25, 261-274.

Warwick, B. E. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 175-187.
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary. Applied Linguistics, 28, 46-65.