اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 29 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 630 |
| تعداد مقالات | 6,368 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 9,730,706 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,362,371 |
The Effect of Task Type and Word Type on Vocabulary Learning: A Comparison Based on Involvement Load Hypothesis and Technique Feature Analysis | ||
| Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies | ||
| دوره 15، شماره 1، تیر 2023، صفحه 169-190 اصل مقاله (446.74 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22111/ijals.2023.45695.2355 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Maryam Ehsani1؛ Hossein Karami* 1؛ Omid Mallahi2 | ||
| 1Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of English Language Teaching, University of Hormozgan, Bandar Abbass, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study aimed to investigate the effect of task type (i.e., sentence fill-in/sentence writing) and word type (i.e., real/ pseudo) on initial learning and retention of 10 word meanings, taking the predictions of Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) and Technique Feature Analysis (TFA) into account. Participants were 59 intermediate-level EFL learners from eight intact classes. Each intact class was randomly assigned to one of the four learning conditions: 1) sentence fill-in with real words, 2) sentence writing with real words, 3) sentence fill-in with pseudowords, and 4) sentence writing with pseudowords. Initial learning was measured by administering a meaning recall test immediately after the tasks and medium-term retention was measured by administering the same test with rearranged items one week after the tasks phase. The results of a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA did not show any significant interaction effect between test time and learning condition. Furthermore, the main effect for learning condition was not statistically significant but there was a significant main effect for test time, suggesting that participants’ scores dropped significantly from the immediate posttest to the delayed posttest. The findings of two independent-samples t-tests failed to show any significant difference between the immediate and delayed posttest scores of the participants who received either sentence fill-in or sentence writing tasks. However, some tentative findings demonstrated that those participants who were assigned to the sentence writing task achieved higher scores on the posttests. This finding indicates that TFA has probably more predictive power than ILH and it also provides some evidence in favor of the heavier weight of the evaluation component of the ILH when compared to its search component. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| involvement load hypothesis؛ technique feature analysis؛ L2 vocabulary learning؛ vocabulary learning task | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Arndt, H. L., & Woore. R. (2018). Vocabulary learning from watching YouTube videos and reading blog posts. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 124–142.
Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in second language lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 20(4), 303-334.
Batterink, L., & Neville, H. (2011). Implicit and explicit mechanisms of word learning in a narrative context: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3181–3196.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Craik, F. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 268-294.
Eckerth, J., & Tavakoli, P. (2012). The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 227-252.
Ehsani, M., & Karami, H. (2022). Comparing the predictive power of involvement load hypothesis and technique feature analysis. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(2), 165-188.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N., & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43(4), 559–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00627.x
Folse, K. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293.
Hazrat, M., & Read, J. (2022). Enhancing the involvement load hypothesis as a tool for classroom vocabulary research. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3051
Hu, H., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Effective vocabulary learning tasks: Involvement load hypothesis versus technique feature analysis. System, 56, 28-39.
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning 51(3). 539-558.
Iravi, Y., & Malmir, A. (2022). The effect of lexical tools and applications on L2 vocabulary learning: A case of English academic core words. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17(3), 636-649.
Jafari Gohar, M., Rahmanian, M., & Soleimani, H. (2018). Technique feature analysis or involvement load hypothesis: Estimating their predictive power in vocabulary learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(4), 859-869.
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Ravandpour, A. (2020). The effect of input-based and output-based tasks with different and identical involvement loads on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1731223. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020. 1731223
Karami, H., Esrafili, M. (2021). The impact of task type and involvement load index on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning and retention. Journal of Language Horizons, 5(1), 251-266. https://dx.doi. org/10.22051/lghor.2020.31501.1311
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.
Khoshsima, H., & Eskandari, Z. (2017). Task effectiveness predictors: Technique feature analysis versus involvement load hypothesis. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes (IJEAP), 6(2), 50-69.
Kim, Y. J. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2), 285-325.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 285–299.
Laufer, B. (2019). Evaluating exercises for learning vocabulary. In S. Webb (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 351–368). Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
Meara, P., Batia, L. & Nation, P. (2005).Ten best ideas for teaching vocabulary. The Language Teacher, 29 (7), 3-6.
Montero Perez, M. (2020). Incidental vocabulary learning through viewing video. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–25.
Nation, I. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
Liu, S., & Reynolds, B. L. (2022). Empirical Support for the Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH): A Systematic Review. Behavioral Sciences, 12(10), 354-377. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs1210035.
Nation, I. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
Nation, I., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual (6th ed.). Open University Press.
Paribakht, T., S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 174–200). Cambridge University Press.
Pellicer-S´anchez, A. (2016). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition from and while reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 97–130.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 1–28.
Pulido, D. (2009). How involved are American l2 learners of Spanish in lexical input processing tasks during reading?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(01), 31-58.
Renandya, W., & Richards, J. (2012). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
San Mateo-Valdehí ta, A., & Criado de Diego, C. (2021). Receptive and productive vocabulary acquisition: Effectiveness of three types of tasks. Onomázein: Journal of Linguistics, Philology and Translation, 51, 36-56. https://dx.doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.51.05
Stæhr, L. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139-152.
Tu, H. (2004). Effects of task-induced involvement on incidental vocabulary learning in a second language [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28, 46–65.
Wilkins, D.A. 1972. Linguistics in Language Teaching. Edward Arnold.
Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2021). To what extent does the involvement load hypothesis predict incidental l2 vocabulary learning?. A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 71(1), 121-145. https://doi. org/10.1111/lang.12444.
Zou, D. (2016). Vocabulary acquisition through cloze exercises, sentence-writing and composition-writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 54-75. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 75 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 97 |
||