TAN SIEW POH
IPG Kampus Kota
Bharu
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The context of
the study
Students of higher institution
of learning are usually required to take English Language Proficiency (ELP) as
one of the elective subjects. This is essential since a large number of their
reference books are written in English. The predicament is that these learners
need to use English as their medium of study even though English is not used in
any other areas of their lives. In the ELP classes, very little vocabulary
building gets done and it is quite impossible to cover a wide range of lexis or
discuss collocations and semantic relationships. It is always the assumption of
instructors that if they teach grammar, reading and writing skills, students
will build their vocabulary on their own. On the contrary, Huckin and Coady
(1999) argued that reading for meaning does not automatically lead to the acquisition
of vocabulary.
The importance of vocabulary
is highlighted explicitly by Krashen (1983) when he maintains that: Vocabulary is basic to communication. If acquirers do
not recognise the meaning of the key words used by those who address them they
will be unable to participate in the conversation. If they wish to express some
ideas or ask for information they must be able to produce lexical items to
convey their meaning. Indeed, if our students know the morphology and syntax of
an utterance addressed to them, but do not know the meaning of key lexical
items, they will be unable to participate in the communication.
It is especially challenging
for students who learn English for Academic Purposes when they begin reading in
their specialised areas as they typically need words measured in the thousands,
not hundreds. Besides, knowing a word implies knowing its orthographic form,
pronunciation, collocations and appropriateness (Nation, 1990).It is
recommended that a reader should have a basic vocabulary of at least 2000high
frequency words to be able to understand nearly nine out of ten words in most
written texts. Vocabulary developers have to consider both the breadth
(explicit learning of words on lists) and depth (implicit learning of words
through extensive reading) since list-learning only creates superficial
knowledge while extensive reading is time-consuming.(Cobb, 1999).
The focus of numerous vocabulary
researches is essentially on strategies adopted by successful second language
learners. A number of strategies have been identified for vocabulary
acquisition in a second language and their effects on retention were taken into
consideration. Cohen and Aphek (1981) suggested the use of mnemonic devices
that were related to meaning, sound and image. Generally it was noted that any
attempt to form association involving the target words enhanced the retention. Another
interesting finding of Cohen and Aphek (1981) was that certain task was also found
to work better for learners of different levels of proficiency. Listing was
best for beginners, while contextualization was more effective for intermediate
learners.
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) established
three types of strategies: metacognitive, cognitive and social/ affective
strategies. Metacognitive deals with the learning process, planning, monitoring
of comprehension or production and self-evaluation after completing the
learning activities. Cognitive is connected to individual learning tasks and
entail direct manipulation of learning materials including guessing, using a
dictionary, note-taking, rehearsal, encoding and activating the appropriate
schema. O’Malley and Chamot(1990) found that successful learners are thoughtful
and aware of the learning process. These learners are capable of making
conscious decisions pertaining to their learning style.
Sanaoui (1995) claimed that
learners who had a structured learning approach were more successful in
retaining the vocabulary taught in class than those who had an unstructured
learning approach. The two approaches were examined specifically in relation to
five aspects: (i) the extent to which learners engaged in independent study,
(ii) the range of self-initiated learning activities, (iii) the extent to which
learners recorded the lexical items they were learning, (iv) the extent to
which learners reviewed the records, (v) the extent to which they practised
using vocabulary items outside their L2 course.Generally, it is noted that learners
must be encouraged to manage their own vocabulary learning as more frequent and
elaborate strategy use was linked to higher achievement level in academic
vocabulary test as well as overall English Proficiency. (Kojic-Sabo and Lightbrown,
1999).
It is also concluded that
successful language learners use a variety of strategies and they are aware of
the importance of vocabulary learning (Schmitt, 2000). Schmitt maintained that
the high-frequency words should probably be taught while low-frequency words be
learned incidentally through reading or listening.However, it is noticed that
students tend to overlook unfamiliar vocabulary especially low-frequency words
when they are reading. Therefore learners should not be left alone to pick up
the low-frequency words that may be crucial to facilitate their comprehension
of the text. Wesche and Paribakht (2000) did a research on reading-based
exercises in second language vocabulary learning and the findings supported the
positive implication of multiple exposures to words that would eventually lead
to vocabulary acquisition. They proposed that vocabulary acquisition is
cumulative where precise knowledge of the word’s meaning will gradually lead to
automatic retrieval through practice using varied tasks. Varied tasks provide opportunity
for the words to be recycled and attention be given to different lexical
features and this strengthen the knowledge of particular lexical items. When
learners are engaged in the tasks, their attention can be diverted to the
target words in relation to the forms, meanings and collocation.If left to
their own device, many important words will not be learned incidentally through
extensive reading.
1.2 Statement of Problem
A survey was carried out on
the level of vocabulary for preparatory programme learners at the Kota Bharu
campus for Teacher Education and it was found that the mean score for Academic
Vocabulary (Levels Test 5) was 23 out of 30 while the range was from the lowest
of 12 to a high score of 29. When they were told to write expository essay, it
was noted that a number of learners fail to use appropriate vocabulary for
writing about topics they have chosen. They used limited number of
low-frequency words which depicted lack of depth in their discussion especially
on issues related to the chosen topics.
In addition, learners of
higher learning institution are typically assigned reading texts or articles
and expected to pick up the vocabulary incidentally to be used for the write-up
later. However, they are unable to retrieve the keywords if attention is not drawn
towards the specific words and at the same time it is uncertain which task is
more effective in enhancing vocabulary retention. Some recent studies have
claimed that output (speaking and writing) should complement input (listening
and reading) in enhancing learner’s vocabulary proficiency.
1.3 The goals and objectives of the study
1.3.1 Goals
This is a study to determine
whether comprehension task or fill in the blanks task is more effective in
facilitating L2 learners in retaining the vocabulary after a specific time. A
comparison of vocabulary test scores will be made after one week and a month later. These two tasks are chosen
since they are quite commonly used by instructors in the English Language
learning classroom.
1.3.2 Research Questions
(i) Is fill-in-the-blank task
or reading comprehension more effective in enhancing the retention of
vocabulary within a week?
(ii) Which group
(fill-in-the-blank or reading comprehension) retains more vocabulary after one
month?
1.4 Significance of the study
This study is significant for
several reasons. First, its main concern is lexical items which are central to
language learning. Words are not simple entities though they may appear to be
so. Thornby (2002) points out that a word is in fact a complex phenomenon.
Vocabulary knowledge is
crucial as students will need vocabulary knowledge to understand lectures and
course texts. Finding a workable strategy will provide significant implications
for language learning. Pearson, Hiebert and Kamil (2007) in an overview of
vocabulary assessment over the years stated that there are few studies of
vocabulary that attend to the ability to reflect on and manipulate vocabulary
or metalinguistic knowledge in a systematic way especially in choosing the
words for instructional interventions or for assessments. Most of the time,
vocabulary test is embedded in comprehension tests which tells us nothing about
students’ knowledge of any identifiable domain or corpus of words.
Hence this study is focusing on words which appear in
academic texts on specific topic.
This will provide a starting
point for intervention to assist them in their learning process. At the same
time the study will focus on what learners actually do when they are learning
new words. The findings will not only have pedagogical implications but will
also highlight the important roles of vocabulary learning in the development of
language learning at large.
2.0 Theoretical framework for the study
2.1 Vocabulary knowledge
Knowing a word implies knowing
more than its literal meaning and orthographic form. It also requires the
knowledge of the various connotations, grammatical behaviour, association,
collocation, frequency and register (Schmtt and McCarthy, 1996). Laufer (1997)
has given a summary of the type of knowledge that is essential in order to know
a word:
a. Form – spoken and written, (pronunciation and
spelling)
b. Word structure – the basic
free morpheme (or bound root morpheme) and the common derivations of the words
and its inflections.
c. Syntactic pattern of word in a phrase and
sentence.
d. Meaning: referential (including multiplicity
of meaning and metaphorical extensions of meaning), affective
(the connotation of the word), and pragmatic (the suitability of the word in a
particular situation).
e. Lexical relations of the word with other
words, such as synonym, antonymy, hyponymy.
f. Common collocations.
Another dimension of knowledge
is the distinction between receptive knowledge(spoken) and productive
knowledge(written) of a word. According to Lewis (1993) spoken English which
consists primarily of discourse-management phrases has a high density of
lexical phrases, used to indicate the speaker’s intention to develop personal
relationships. Written language on the other hand has a much higher density of relatively fixed collocations which make high
information content noun phrases (Lewis, 1993). In general, receptive
vocabulary is larger than productive vocabulary which leads to the general
psycholinguistic principle that comprehension normally precedes production.
Nagi and Scott (2000) identify
five aspects of word knowledge used in reading:
(a) Incrementality : the
knowledge of words becomes deeper if they are encountered repeatedly.
(b) multidimensionality: word
knowledge involve understanding nuances of meaning.
(c) polysemy : many words have
multiple meaning, especially the more common the word
(d) interrelatedness: learning
or knowing a word often entails association with other related words,either in
a linguistic context or in one’s semantic memory store
(e) heterogeneity: a word’s
meaning differs depending on its function and structure.
Word learnability will have an
implication on teachers’ decision regarding presentation, practice and testing
(Laufer, 1997). According to Laufer (1997) there are several factors affecting
word learnability including pronounceability, orthography, length, morphology,
synformy (similarity of lexical forms), grammar
(part of speech) and semantic features of the word. Hence, mnemonic method for memorisation may
not be effective in cases where it is hard to find a link for a new word in
form, sound or image to prior knowledge. Even guessing meaning from context
will pose some difficulties as certain words may appear to be familiar
(pseudofamiliar) but they are not. Therefore, learners have to be careful when
drawing conclusions about sentence meaning based on individual words.
Nevertheless, attention to the
target words is a prerequisite for successful learning of words (Schmitt,
1995). According to Nation (2001), learning of vocabulary could be intentional
or incidental. While intentional learning requires learners to focus on
linguistic form, incidental learning would need learners’ attention to be
placed on meaning. To enhance the various aspects of word knowledge, Wesche and
Paribakh (2000) proposed the use of text-based vocabulary exercises together
with a reading text instead of the use of multiple texts for learning of
particular words and their lexical features.
2.2 Retention of vocabulary
Before achieving the automatization
level of word acquisition, learners need to commit the word to memory.
Researchers have identified three systems for the storing of information: the
short-term store, working memory, and long-term memory. Thornbury (2002)
explains that ‘short-term store is the brain’s capacity to hold a limited
number of items of information for periods of time up to a few seconds’. He describes
working memory as the focus on words long enough for one to perform operation
on them (about 20 seconds). Working memory is compared to a mental sketch pad
which is essential for cognitive tasks such as reasoning, learning and
understanding. Working memory has a limited capacity and no permanent content.
Long-term memory on the other hand is a kind of filing system which has an
enormous capacity and its contents are durable.
The greatest challenge for a language learner would be to commit what
they have learnt into their long-term memory for retrieval at a later time.
2.3 Vocabulary Instruction and Learning
Testing has been commonly
carried out to provide feedback for learners and teachers about learning.
Besides, testing may have a useful backwash effect if learners begin to pay
more attention to a particular area when they know they will be tested on.
Hence it is not surprising to have teachers transferring the technique they see
the test makers use in their classroom practices. Nilsen and Nilsen (2003) suggest a shift from the
counter-productive way of teaching for testing to a more conducive way of
vocabulary instruction. They list a variety of good characteristics of
classroom teaching and learning:
(a) Students and teachers
engage in lots of talk
(b) Collaborative learning
(c) Students learn multiple
meanings of words
(d) Multiple tasks including
making individual notebooks, creative writing and extensive reading.
(e) Encourage conjecturing and
intelligent guessing.
(f) Learners are taught to work with similarities
and differences among lexical extensions and metaphors.
Pearson et al (2007) maintain
that assessing vocabulary knowledge is still inevitable if we are going to
understand the implication of vocabulary teaching in reading comprehension but
sadly as they subtly put it “vocabulary assessment is grossly undernourished,
both in its theoretical and practical aspect”.
Pearson et al (2007) put forward three salient explanations for the weak
empirical link between vocabulary instruction and reading comprehension:
(a) learning words does not
cause comprehension
(b) vocabulary instruction is
incapable of promoting conceptualization beyond the texts to which the word is
tied.
(c) the conventional measures
of vocabulary are inadequate to document the relationship between word learning
and global measures of comprehension.
Michael McCarthy in an
interview for Cambridge Connection (“Interview”, 2001) reiterated that
vocabulary actually forms the biggest part of the meaning of any language. He remarked that successful
learners are those who develop techniques and discipline for learning
vocabulary. There is a study related to how ESL and EFL students approach the
complex task of vocabulary learning and it is found that no matter what
learning environment one is in, initiative on the learner’s part, a willingness
to put extra effort into the learning process, to take it outside the classroom
and to build it by independent learning activities are crucial factors for
higher levels of achievement. (Kojic-Sabo, I & Lightbown, P. M., 1999)
3.0 Design of the study
3.1 Participants and Setting
Two intact groups were used in
this research as there were equal number of students in each group and they
were in similar programme at the Teacher Education Institute. The students had
just completed their SPM the previous year and they were in their first
semester for the foundation course of the Bachelor of Education degree.
3.2 Target words
logistic ,enthusiastically,
myth,
accomplishment,
pioneer,
rapport,
integrity,
ridicule,
implementation,
ritual,
circumstances,
credibility,
breakthrough,stimulation,
notion, barrier,
mediocrity,
mnemonic,
assign,
sufficient
|
This study used the twenty
words listed in the box above and the selection was that they be unknown to the
subjects. Other than that several aspects were also taken into consideration
when selecting these words such as their relevance to the subject matter the
students will encounter in the field of education and the difficulty in terms
of spelling and pronunciation. A pilot test was conducted with a group of
advanced ESL students (n=18) whose proficiency level was higher than that of
the subjects chosen. Results reveal that only two words were known by two
students. Thus the words were deemed appropriate for this study.
3.3 Procedures
The reading comprehension
group (Rc) was given a section of a book (Chapter 8 of Super-teaching; master
strategies for building student success by Eric P. Jensen, 1988) to read and a
list of twenty unfamiliar vocabulary with the meanings for reference. They were
divided into 5 groups and asked to prepare a presentation for the different
sections of the text. Two days later they did the presentation in class with
the words from the list being highlighted and explained by the instructor. A
week later, they were given a test to match the twenty words with their
appropriate meaning within an hour’s time.
Fill in the blanks group (Fb) was given a
passage with twenty blanks and the similar list of twenty words with Rc group.
They were given time to read the passage before filling in the blanks with the
words from the list provided. The meaning of the words was discussed in class
and instructor made it a point to explain them before and after the activity. A
week later, they sat for the same test to match the twenty words with their
appropriate meaning.
After one
month, both groups (Rc and Fb) were given another test on the retention of the
twenty words. Students were asked to give the meaning of the words either in
English or Bahasa Melayu and then construct a sentence using the words. Two
marks will be awarded for the correct
meaning while 1 mark will be awarded for appropriate but not very
accurate meaning. Correct sentence constructed is awarded two marks and 1 mark
for a sentence which reflects the correct meaning and use of the words. This is
actually a modified version of the vocabulary knowledge scale (VKS; Paribakht
& Wesche, 1997) used by Folse (2006) in his study. The test requires both
passive knowledge (L1 translation or L2 synonym) and active usage of a word ( a
student-generated sentence). The time given for the test is one hour.
4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Data Analysis
Figure 1 : No of
correct response based on the Rc and Fb group after one week
No
|
Word
|
Rc
|
Fb
|
No
|
Word
|
Rc
|
Fb
|
1
|
rapport
|
4
|
14
|
11
|
barrier
|
15
|
5
|
2
|
integrity
|
9
|
14
|
12
|
notion
|
1
|
15
|
3
|
credibility
|
4
|
12
|
13
|
implementation
|
5
|
16
|
4
|
logistics
|
8
|
17
|
14
|
assign
|
3
|
15
|
5
|
accomplishment
|
7
|
17
|
15
|
mnemonic
|
15
|
18
|
6
|
breakthrough
|
2
|
14
|
16
|
circumstances
|
8
|
17
|
7
|
sufficient
|
10
|
17
|
17
|
myths
|
5
|
17
|
8
|
mediocrity
|
0
|
15
|
18
|
ridicule
|
9
|
18
|
9
|
stimulation
|
4
|
15
|
19
|
ritual
|
12
|
18
|
10
|
pioneer
|
8
|
16
|
20
|
enthusiasticaly
|
5
|
16
|
From figure 1 it is noted that
the word ‘mnemonic’ recorded highest number of correct response for both groups
even though it was predicted that shorter word with simpler spelling like ‘assign’
would obtain the highest score. The lowest for the Rc group is the word
‘notion’ while it was ‘barrier’ for the Fb group. Therefore educators would
occasionally wrongly identify words that they think students would have
difficulty in understanding and retaining for retrieval in future.
Figure 2 : Results
for the Vocabulary Test Score of both Fb and Rc groups
Group
|
Mean
|
N
|
SD
|
Fb (1 week)
|
17.5556
|
18
|
2.43074
|
Rc(1 week)
|
7.6667
|
18
|
3.41278
|
Fb (1 month)
|
11.0556
|
18
|
2.53150
|
Rc(1 month)
|
7.7778
|
18
|
3.59011
|
As shown in Figure 2, the
number of words retained by the Fb group is about 17 words out of 20 and the
number retained by the Rc group is about 7. The mean score for the Fb group is
about 9.89 higher than the mean score of the Rc group for the test carried out
after one week. The result after a month shows that the mean score for the Fb
group is still higher than the Rc group by about 3.28. However, the Fb group
shows a drop of 6.5 in the mean score after a month while the Rc group does not
show any significant change in the test score after a month.
Hence, it
can be seen that the filling in the blanks activity is more effective in
enhancing students’ retention of a higher number of vocabulary than incidental
learning of vocabulary through reading comprehension. However, after a month
the Fb group seems to forget more words while Rc group retain about the same
number of words. Nevertheless, the number of words retained is still higher for
the Fb group compare to Rc group.
4.2 Conclusion and classroom implications
We can conclude that filling
in the blanks activity facilitate retention of vocabulary better than reading
comprehension exercises. Educators sometimes overlook filling in the blanks
activity and deem it a rather superficial exercise. With time constraint when
it comes to learning vocabulary, it would be pedagogically sound to incorporate
fill in the blanks tasks that involve relevant context with what students are
currently majoring in their studies. In fact, Jourdenais, Ota, Stauffer,
Boyson, & Doughty (1995) found that by using an enhanced version of
learning material with L2 Spanish learner has resulted in more noticing of
target item. the target items were underlined and printed in a different font
while some were put in bold font and others were shadowed. It could be
concluded that by drawing students’ attention to the target items could help in
retention and probably filling in the blanks task also entails greater depth of
processing or meaning negotiation than merely encountering the word through
reading and comprehension.
At the same
time educators need to be wary of the kinds of words students might have
problems remembering. It is not always words which are longer or more
complicated in spelling that pose a problem to students but it could be simpler
words that need to be highlighted. At the same time there may be a limited number
of words a learner is able to retain after one month because some words may be
stored in the long term memory while others will just fade away or be
forgotten.
4.3 Direction for future research
Where teaching of L2 is
concerned there are numerous activities an educator can use to facilitate the
learning of the target language. Studies can be carried out to determine why
certain tasks are more effective than other tasks in enhancing vocabulary
retention. For instance, de la Fuente (2002) compared different communicative
tasks and found that the opportunity to partake in generative tasks facilitates
more incidental vocbulary acquisition than simply expose learners to the target
words. Follow-up interviews could be conducted to ascertain whether other variables
played a role in the vocabulary retention of the students.
Bibliography
De la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2
vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive
acquisition of words. Studies in Second
Laguage Acquisition, 24, 81 -112.
Dochy,
F. and Alexander, P. (1995). Mapping prior knowledge: a framework for
discussion among researchers. European Journal of the Psychology of
Education 10 , 225-242.
Duin,
A. H. & Graves, M. F. (1987). Intensive vocabulary instructon as a
prewriting technique. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol.22, no.3 ,
311-330.
Ellis,
R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieve June 16,
2009, from ebrary database.
Gu,
Y. & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning srategies and language
learning outcomes. Language Learning, , pp. 643-697.
Helgesen,
M. (2004, May 11). Language Planning : an effective, common sense tool. MICEL.
Paper presented at the Fifth Malaysia International Conference On English
Language Teaching. Melaka: MICELT.
Henriksen,
B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21 , 303-317.
Hu,
M. & Nation, I.S.P. . (2001). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language .
Huckin,
T. & Coady, L. (1999). Learning vocabulary. vol 21, 181-193.
Jensen, E.P. (1988).
Super-teaching; master strategies for building student success. USA: Turining
Point
Jourdenais, R., Ota,
M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Sougty, C.
(1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud
protocol analysis. in R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention
an
d awareness in foreign language leraning (pp. 1 - 63). Manoa: University of
Hawaii PressKieras, D. E. (1985). Thematic
processes in the comprehension of technical prose. In Britton, B.K. &
Black, J. B. (Eds.) Understanding Expository Text: A theoretical Handbook
for Analyzing Explanatory Text (pp. 89-107). Hillsdalem NJ: Erlbaum.
Kojic-Sabo,
I. & Lightbown, P.M. (1999). Students' approaches to vocabulary learning
and their relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal , pp.
176-192.
Krashen,
S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach. Alemany Press and
Pergamon Press 1983.
Laufer,
B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In
Lauren, C & Nordman, M. (Eds.) Special Language: From Humans Thinking to
Thinking Machines. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lewis,
M. (1993). The Lexical Approach, The State of ELT and a Way Forward.
London: Language Teaching Publications.
Nagy,
W., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In P. M. Kamil, Handbook
of reading research. Vol 3 (pp. 269-284). NJ: Erlbaum.
Nation,
I.S. P. & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. C. (Eds.), Vocabulary
and language teaching (pp. 97-110). New York: Longman.
Nation,
P. . (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. &.
Schmitt, Vocabulary: Description, Acquistion and Pedagogy (pp. 6-19).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation,
P. (. (1994). New Ways in Teaching Vocabulary. Virginia: TESOL.
Nielsen,
A. P. & Nilsen, D. L. (2003). Vocabulary Development: Teaching vs. Testing.
The English Journal, Vol. 92. No.3 Revitalizing Grammar , 31-37.
O'Malley,
J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearson,
P. D., Hiebert, e. H. & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Theory and research into
practice: Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading
Research quarterly, vol.42. No2 , 282-296.
Pigada,
M & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A
case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, vol 18, No. 1 , pp. 1-28.
Read,
J. (2000). Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schachter,
J. A new account of language transfer. In S. a. Gass, Language transer in
Language Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Schmidt,
R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics. No.11 , 129-158.
Selinger,
B. (1995). Summarizing text: developmental students demonstrate a successful
method. Journal of Developmental Education 19 , 14-16, 18,20.Sutarsyah,
C., Nation, P. & Kennedy, G. (1994). How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP? RELC
Journal, 25.
Wesche,
M. B. & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in second language
vocabulary learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language Journal,
Vol. 84, No.2, 196-213.
West,
M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman,
Green.
Xue,
G., & Nation, I.S. P. (1984). A universtiy word list. Language learning
and communication,3 , 215-229.
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan