Triangulating the three types of the data observation and interview data partly revealed with evidence that the very common terms vocabulary, word, phrases and sentences were heard throughout their observation and interview transcripts instead of chunks. Such unfamiliarity with chunks along with their
oral commitments to textbook vocabulary pools may be good indicators of their unintentional choices of chunks and are aligned with their vague perception data. Secondly, due to their incomplete prior teacher education for YLLs, their unawareness of chunks may, to some extent, explain their hesitant perception data about the links between vocabulary size and fluency and more evidence could be found in 4.2.3. Thirdly, by multiple comparisons, there were differences between their textbook reliance and their own judgment in vocabulary choices. Fourthly, several incompatible sequences in lexical sets in the currently used textbooks were reported to lead some teachers to obstacles – insufficient spacing, vocabulary overloads, grammar focus and interference. The similar interview data may reinforce some of such teaching practices through observations:
Here is the format of textbook design. Each unit encompasses three lessons. The first lesson is to provide several new words and one sentence pattern. The next lesson should be a revision for the previous one but actually it does not. [insufficient revision]
(Teacher ID11).
They learn nouns and verbs respectively with the ending /s/ for plurality and verbs with the ending sounds for past tense [grammar focus] ….. These are very common and difficult mistakes. (Teacher ID2)
4.2.2. Teachers’ use of vocabulary teaching techniques
By observation, the predominance of direct over indirect teaching in the questionnaire data was strengthened with a long list of teaching techniques in the observation checklist. Additionally, their contextualizing with few intercultural games and little intercultural embedment in textbooks (Dang & Seal, 2016) were align with their unconfident revelation in child- friendly activities. Another striking finding was related to their positive perception data of simple and short explanation. Instead, their classroom language in the observation checklist and transcripts was lengthy and analytical due to incomplete training in child friendly attention getting techniques, language routines and classroom management. Next, offering
modeling was seen not only limited in quantity but also ineffective in quality for several reasons – fossilization in their pronunciation, zero pressure in language proficiency from their learners, insufficient opportunities to improve pronunciation, teaching overloads and working conditions with zero pressure from young learners‟ very basic language proficiency.
In reference to indirect teaching, most of the participants were consistent in their good perceptions and teaching practices in play learning.
Meanwhile, wide reading as “the single largest contributor to young learners‟
vocabulary development (Graves, et al., 2013) and visual incidental learning around classroom, though well-perceived, were reported to be almost left neglected in practice. The underlying factors, disclosed by the interviewees, were attributed to the disproportioned development between teaching staffs, pupil populations and the infrastructure, poor teaching resources, incomplete teacher training, insufficient teacher-parent associations.
4.2.3. Teachers’ practices in explaining vocabulary meanings
In this aspect, there is relative consistency between the perception and practice data in developmental teaching in connection with semantic dimensions and multisensory learning, which was revealed with visual and oral evidence due to their strong commitments to textbook designs, prior FL teacher education and working experience at school. However, some evidence based findings emerged from the conflicting triangulation of the research data involving translating immediately, de-contextually or redundantly in little connection with learners‟ prior knowledge and cultural topics, some incompatible combinations of lexical sets in a few tasks in textbooks along with the observed limited repertoire of child-friendly intercultural techniques, more or less, may add more layers of complication in explaining meanings as Stahl (2005) stated four problems in teaching vocabulary meanings to young learners - appropriate vocabulary sizes to teach, word knowledge gaps among children, L1-related word knowledge
and traditional vocabulary instruction. One of the bright examples could be used to illustrate a few incompatible combinations of lexical sets in textbooks:
In first semester, in Unit 11 (English 3), pupils have to learn 6 new words about family members (sister, brother, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather) along with how to ask and answer about their ages whereas they have been taught how to count from 1 to 10. How difficult it is for us to present numbers from 20 to 100 to express their ages. [an inappropriate combination of lexical sets of family members and numbers] (Teacher ID7)
Or in Unit 4, lesson 2 (English 4), it‟s difficult to teach pupils to talk about their birthdays, whereas they have not learnt all the ordinal numbers from 1 to 31 to indicate dates in a month along with target words of 12 months in a year.
[Inappropriate combination of lexical sets of ordinal numbers, cardinal numbers for 31 days in a month and twelve months in a year] (Teacher ID11)
4.2.4. Teachers’ practices teaching vocabulary through skills for communication
As for teaching vocabulary use for communication through language skills, several consistent findings about their perception and practice data exist. First, some participants were slightly confused about the differences between sounds and phonics by using phonetic transcripts and analyses. Yet, this finding from only three phonic lessons, therefore, needs further explorations. Secondly, the participants‟ consistent uncertainty was visually and auditorially reported to come from prior training in teaching four skills, grammar-and receptive skill-focused examination requirements as well as recent PELT innovations. Another finding emerging from the interviewing data about frequent parental checks of class work or homework and YLLs slow writing led to a chronological screen of elastic time reserved for young learners‟
writing in three ranges, 1-3 minutes (30%); 4-6 minutes (40%) and 7-10 minutes (30%). That is why the teachers had to reserve sufficient time for learners either to write correctly in their notebooks or quickly to do exercises
in activity books, which may intensify time pressure in class. In addition to skill-based teaching, the significant data reflecting their vague perceptions of multimedia use could be traced back from the observations in which the observed teachers used computer screens as a blackboard with not much interaction, and many shallow processing activities with repetition and limited personalization.
4.2.5. Teachers’ practices of vocabulary teaching procedures
Concerning teaching procedures, Presentation attracted the most teaching techniques to establish meanings, use and form while Practice and Production included a lot of reinforcement with shallow processing techniques. In spite of a series of chronological examinations through 20 observations, two attempts to explore into pre-teaching vocabulary meaning before any activities and priorities of oral form over written forms for their trends ended in vain because there were many new words in a lesson, and many of them were taught for first encounters or for consolidation, and in a lesson, different words received different technique treatment from the teachers. These challenges could be acceptably explained by Harmer‟s highlight (2012) that the PPP circle allow teachers and pupils to decide at which stage to enter, whether to pre-teach vocabulary meaning or not or which element among meaning, form, use to prioritize despite “meaning first” (Cameron, 2001). On the whole, as an iceberg with the very interconnected findings revealed in the prior four aspects, some other invisible aspects of teaching vocabulary to young learners need further explorations.