The effects of task-induced involvement load and input modality on incidental vocabulary learning

Yıl 2019, , 1355 - 1375, 31.12.2019

Cansu Kıvrak Dilek Uygun Gökmen

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.668478

Öz

Knowing enough vocabulary is crucial for second language learners to comprehend and produce the language. Therefore, a substantial bulk of research has aimed at finding the most effective ways to acquire new words. The Task-induced Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) states that vocabulary tasks are efficient when they induce higher learner involvement. The present study investigated how tasks with the same involvement load but different input modalities (written vs. audiovisual) affect vocabulary learning at different proficiency levels. 236 Turkish (lower- or upper-intermediate) EFL learners performed six vocabulary tasks with three involvement loads and two types of input. Four tasks included gap filling or sentence writing with eight target words after reading a text or watching a video, while two tasks involved reading or video comprehension only. Productive and receptive word knowledge was tested through vocabulary post-tests which required the target form or meaning. Data were obtained by counting the percentage/number of the correct forms and meanings. The results showed that for receptive word knowledge, sentence writing (higher involvement load) was more effective than gap filling (lower involvement load) for both levels regardless of input type, but the audiovisual input fostered more knowledge among the upper-intermediate learners. As for productive word knowledge, the pairing of gap filling with the written input and sentence writing with the audiovisual input was more effective for both levels. While these findings partially confirm the predictions for receptive word knowledge, they also highlight the role that input modality plays in productive word knowledge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Incidental vocabulary learning; task-induced involvement load; task efficacy; input type; productive and receptive word knowledge

Kaynakça

• Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
• Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognitive knowledge: Implications for metacognitively oriented reading instruction. In E. Israel, C. Block, L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 61-79). London: Routledge.
• Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 323-363.
• Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Godfroid, A. (2007). Catering for limited processing capacity to foster incidental vocabulary uptake. In K. Pelsmaekers & C. Rollo (Eds.), Economically speaking: Essays in honour of Chris Braecke (pp. 169-187). Antwerp: Garant Publishers.
• Brown, R., Waring, R., & Donkaewbua, S. (2008). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20, 136-163.
• Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 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.
• Fatalaki, J. A. (2014). Involvement load hypothesis: Word meaning retention across oral and written task types. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences Online, 37, 29-45.
• Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293.
• Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55-75.
• Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
• Griffith, P. L., & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognitive knowledge and what should be its role in literacy instruction. In E. Israel, C. Block, L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan- Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 3-18). London: Routledge.
• Hassanzadeh, M. (2016). Experimenting the influence of input modality on involvement load hypothesis. International Journal of Social, Behavioural, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 10(6), 2043-2048.
• Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond A Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 207- 223.
• Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 181-193.
• Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349-381). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
• Jing, L., & Jianbin, H. (2009). An empirical study of the involvement load hypothesis in incidental vocabulary acquisition in EFL listening. Polyglossia, 16, 1-11.
• Keating, G. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 365-386.
• Kim, Y. (2011). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 100-140.
• Krashen, S. D. (1993). The case for free voluntary reading. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 72-82.
• Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 567-587.
• Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.
• Lin, L. F. (2010). English learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition in the video-based CALL program. The Asian EFL Journal, 12(4), 51-66.
• Maleki, N. A. (2012). The effect of the involvement load hypothesis on improving Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition in listening comprehension classes. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(9), 119-128.
• Marefat, F., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2014). Vodcast: A breakthrough in developing incidental vocabulary learning. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 27-58.
• Mármol, G. A., & Sánchez-Lafuente, A. A. (2013). The involvement load hypothesis: Its effect on vocabulary learning in primary education. RESLA, 26, 11-24.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-81.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11(1), 9-29.
• Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary development. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp.174-200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 1-28.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
• Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). New York: Newbury House.
• Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25.
• van Zeeland, H. (2013). Vocabulary and listening. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1-6). Australia: Wiley-Blackwell.
• van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Incidental vocabulary acquisition through L2 listening. System, 41, 609-624.
• Vidal, K. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 219-258.
• Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 130-163.
• Webb, S., & Rodgers, M. P. H. (2009). The lexical coverage of movies. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 407-427.