The present study examined two input modification techniques, namely lexical elaboration (LE) and typographical enhancement (TE), and the combination of these two (LE & TE) to seek the difference among them as far as incidental vocabulary learning through reading is concerned. Ninety-six Iranian EFL students whose reading proficiency was at intermediate level were divided into four groups and respectively read texts which were (a) lexically elaborated, (b) typographically enhanced, (c) both lexically elaborated and typographically enhanced, or (d) unmodified baseline. Right after reading, their incidental vocabulary learning was assessed by means of a modified version of Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). Results of the ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference among the four groups. In order to pinpoint where the differences exactly lay, a multiple comparison was done through the application of a post-hoc Scheffe Test. The results suggested that students performed significantly better on a text that had undergone both modification techniques (i.e. double-treatment). However, lexical elaboration alone did not have a statistically significant effect on incidental vocabulary learning through reading. More interestingly, there was no significant difference between the double-treatment and typographical enhancement groups although their mean scores were different.
Input modification lexical elaboration typographical enhancement incidental vocabulary learning
The present study examined two input modification techniques, namely lexical elaboration (LE) and typographical enhancement (TE), and the combination of these two (LE & TE) to seek the difference among them as far as incidental vocabulary learning through reading is concerned. Ninety six Iranian EFL students whose reading proficiency was at intermediate level were divided into four groups and respectively read texts which were (a) lexically elaborated, (b) typographically enhanced, (c) both lexically elaborated and typographically enhanced, or (d) unmodified baseline. Right after reading, their incidental vocabulary learning was assessed by means of a modified version of Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). Results of the ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference among the four groups. In order to pinpoint where the differences exactly lay, a multiple comparison was done through the application of post-hoc Scheffe Test. The results suggested that students performed significantly different and better on a text that had undergone both modification techniques (i.e. double-treatment). However, lexical elaboration alone did not have a statistically significant effect on incidental vocabulary learning through reading. More interestingly, there was no significant difference between the double-treatment and typographical enhancement groups although their mean scores were highly gapped.
Input modification lexical elaboration typographical enhancement Incidental vocabulary leaning
Primary Language | English |
---|---|
Subjects | Studies on Education |
Journal Section | Research Article |
Authors | |
Publication Date | April 9, 2021 |
Submission Date | June 24, 2020 |
Published in Issue | Year 2021 |
We would like to share important news with you. International e-journal of Educational Studies indexed in EBSCO Education Full Text Database Coverage List H.W. Wilson Index since January 7th, 2020.
https://www.ebsco.com/m/ee/Marketing/titleLists/eft-coverage.pdf
IEJES has been indexed in the Education Source Ultimate database, which is the upper version of the Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson) and Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson) database, from 2020 to the present. https://www.ebsco.com/m/ee/Marketing/titleLists/esu-coverage.htm
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.