Zhou Weijing
School of Foreign Languages Jiangsu University
Outline
Introduction Literature review Methodology Major findings and discussions Contributions & Limitations
Introduction
Motivation of the study Need for the study Orientation of the study
Introduction
1. Motivation
Vocabulary plays a central role in L2 learning and teaching, however, L2 teachers are often unsure about how best to incorporate L2 vocabulary into their daily teaching. pedagogical requirements for efficient L2 teaching
Pedagogical vexation results from theoretical inadequacy. (Read,2004). Although theres been a boom in L2 vocabulary studies since 1990s, the mechanism of L2 lexical learning remains one of the most intriguing puzzles in SLA (Reed, 2004). theoretical urge for sound understanding of L2 lexical learning
Personally, being an L2 teacher and researcher, I have been impelled to do research on L2 lexical learning. personal experience of L2 lexical learning and teaching
Introduction
How do L2 learners acquire L2 lexicon? How do L2 learners acquire new vocabulary via learning tasks? What factors affect L2 lexical learning in or outside classroom? How to tract L2 learners incremental lexical learning?
Consequently, our knowledge of L2 lexical learning has mainly been built upon fragmental studies and there isnt an overall theory of how L2 vocabulary is acquired (Schimitt, 1998, Read, 2004).
Introduction
3. Orientation of the study Handicaps hindering the studies up to date : No consistent or inclusive definition of the basic unit of L2 vocabulary, which makes the research domain a tricky and muddy area to explore. No solid evidence for an efficient way to enhance L2 learners lexical knowledge, in addition to controversies over incidental and intentional L2 approaches. Task-based L2 lexical learning seems to be an optimal area to investigate L2 lexical learning. Nevertheless, there is far from sufficient understanding of task-based L2 lexical learning according to the literature to date. Lopsided focus of present-day research on L2 lexical vocabulary learning. Inadequate support, either theoretically or empirically, for the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001), the newly-born theoretical construct targeting at L2 lexical learning. Besides word-based factors, few studies explored learner-related factors
Literature
review
Literature review
Key terms
---To get rid of problems of word and word familiar, the present study adopted lexical unit (LU) as the basic unit of L2 vocabulary covering single words and multi-word chunks and idioms.
Literature review
Theoretical framework
Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985,1989) Output Hypothesis (Swain,1985, 1995) Nations (2001) construct of L2 lexical knowledge
Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 ) ---the latest and sole theoretical construct ---targeting at L2 lexical learning.
R What does the word sound like? P How is the word pronounced? Written R What does the word look like? P How is the word written and spelled? word parts R What parts are recognizable in this word? P How word parts are needed to express the meaning? Meaning Form & meaning R What meaning does this word form signal? P What word form can be used to express this meaning? Concept & referents R What is included in the concept? P What items can the concept refer to? Associations R What other words does the word occur? P What other words could we use instead of this one? Use Grammatical functions R In what patterns does the word occur? P In what patterns must we use this word? Collocations R What words or types of words occur with this one? P What words or types of words must we use with this one? Constraints on use R Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this word? P Where, when, and how often can we use this word? Form
Spoken
Its basic contention : --- The retention of unfamiliar words is, generally, conditional upon the degree of involvement in processing these words.
Its 3 assumptions :
Retention of words, when processed incidentally, is conditional upon the following factors in a task: need, search and evaluation. Other factors being equal, words which are processed with higher involvement load will be retained better than words which are processed with lower involvement load. Other factors being equal, teacher/researcher-designed tasks with higher involvement load will be more effective for vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower involvement load. Task-induced involvement does not have much to do with whether it is an input or output task.
need, search & evaluation. L2 lexical learning is conditional upon taskinduced involvement. The higher involvement, the better acquisition and longer retention of unknown words.
Literature review
Empirical findings
Majority: looking for evidence for task-based L2 lexical learning A few: on effects of task type. Few: on effects of task frequency, word and learner factors indicating: task type, task frequency, word and text factors as well as learner factors affect L2 lexical learning Reading-based complex tasks : the most facilitative for L2 lexical learning.
Methodology
Based on previous studies, an experimental study of task-based L2 lexical learning was designed and conducted.
Methodology
Research Questions
Overall effects Modify effects Role of task-induced involvement Overall effects Modified effects Optimal task frequency
TASK-BASED FACTORS
Read silently + comprehension Read aloud + comprehension Read silently + reproduction Read aloud + reproduction
Design
Task type
Task frequency
LEARNER-BASED FACTORS
Lexical presentation
Notes: refers to the effects of independent variable on dependent variable refers to the effects of moderator variable on dependent variable
Methodology
Subjects
4 EGs: 119 English majors (EG 1/2/3: 30; EG 4: 29) Homogenous in age, learning background, motivation. Pretests: No significant differences between 4 EGs in
1. English proficiency 2. vocabulary size, and 3. baseline knowledge of target LUs.
Methodology
Material
A treatment text
Methodology
Instruments
Pretest
4 weeks before
Experiment
1 afternoon
Posttest
After the experiment
Methodology
Self-report categories
I. I dont remember having seen this word just now.
II. I have seen this word just now, but I dont know what it means. III. I have seen this word just now, and I think it means____________ (synonym or translation). IV. I know this word. It means _______________ (synonym or translation). I can use this word in a sentence: _____________________________ ( If you do this section, please do section VI).
V.
VKS Scoring
Self-report possible Categories scores Meaning of scores I. 1 This word is not familiar at all.
II.
2 3 4 5
III. IV.
V.
The word is familiar but the meaning is not known. A correct synonym or translation is given. The word is used with semantic appropriate in a sentence. The word is used with semantic appropriateness and grammatical accuracy in sentence
A 9-point scoring of VKS 9stage F 1 2 3 scoring 0 1 1.5 scheme Not familiar at all Familiar with the form + no /wrong meaning is given Familiar with the form + no /wrong meaning + copy of the original sentence Similar sense Similar sense + original /creative sentence Right sense Right sense + grammatical error in semantic presentation Right sense + copy of the original sentence/creative sentence with grammatical error Right sense + correct creative sentence
4 5 6 7
2 2.5 3 3-0.5 4 5
8 9
Findings &discussions
Conclusions
1. The facilitative power of each task varied significantly from one another. 2. RS+R was the most facilitative and RA+R was the least helpful. Task type significantly affects L2 lexical learning.
Findings &discussions
Between-subgroup (Kruskal-Wallis) Max 59.50 56.00 71.00 54.50 71.00 36.50 59.50 65.50 50.50 65.50 36.50 51.00 60.00 46.00
60.00
Chi-square
Asymp.Sig.
10 10 10 10 40 10 10 10 9 39 10 10 10 10
40
41.10 45.10 45.25 40.70 43.04 30.50 43.90 47.85 37.45 39.92 28.45 37.85 39.95 36.50
35.67
9.60 7.16 16.28 9.54 10.95 5.88 9.28 10.15 9.32 10.78 6.01 6.30 10.15 4.45
8.15
29.50 34.50 24.00 29.00 24.00 18.00 27.50 31.00 22.00 18.00 19.00 28.50 26.00 30.00
19.00
1.303
.728
16.390
.001
9.760
.021
Findings &discussions
.579
.901
19.023
.000
4.768
.190
Findings &discussions
Findings &discussions
Each EG: 3 subgroups according to their English proficiency (HL, ML, LL).
Significant correlations between English proficiency and L2 lexical learning outcomes. ( 1st: r=.352***; Average 1-3: r=.456***) Overall effects of task type : ---- totally rejected by HL, ----strictly followed by ML ---- abided by at the first trial and refuted at the later trials by LL.
Conclusion
Overall effects of task type were generally modified by English proficiency.
Findings &discussions
Role of task-induced involvement taskInvolvement loads of the 4 tasks according to motivational-cognitive motivationalconstruct of task-induced involvement (Laufer & Hulstijn,2001) task-
Subjects
Tasks
Involvement Index
+ + + +
2 2 4 4
Prediction:
No significant differences between EG1 and EG2 / between EG1 and EG2 Significant differences between EG(1+2) and EG(3+4)
Findings &discussions
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
RS+C RA+C RS+R RA+R
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
RS+C
RA+C
RS+R
RA+R
Lexical gains
involvement
Lexical gains
involvement
Findings &discussions
Involvement Load Hypothesis : partially supported. Optimal involvement Load Hypothesis 1) Tasks vary in their involvement: under-involving, optimal, and over-involving 2) Productive tasks are usually more involving than receptive ones. 3) Tasks with balanced integration of input and output are endowed with optimal involvement, resulting best learning outcomes.
>
RA+R
>
RS+C
Optimal involved
Over- involved
Under-involved
1. Both input and output are essential to L2VA. 2. Neither mere input nor overproduction facilitates high gains in L2VA. 3. Optimal involvement is required for L2VA.
Findings &discussions
df 58 57 117
Indications
1. 2. Involvement load Hypothesis: partially supported, partially rejected. Motivation-cognitive construct: problematic
Findings &discussions
Search ++s + ++ + +s + + + + +s + ++ + + + +s
Findings &discussions
Task frequency had the power to reduce involvement load and the gaps caused by the effects of task type, but the modifying effects can not override the effects of task type
el in e
Ru n
Ba s
Ru n
Ru n
Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts in regards to HL, ML and LLs lexical learning outcomes after each exposure Subgroup Source HL Task frequency Type III Sum of Squares df 7581.76 5017.60 4995.22 2480.62 2600.15 1939.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mean Square F Sig.
7581.7 118.0 .000 6 9 5017.6 104.6 .000 0 5 4995.2 146.2 .000 2 8 2480.6 52.14 .000 2 2600.1 33.59 .000 5 1939.0 50.57 .000 5
ML
LL
HL ML LL
el li ne
Ru n
Ru n
Ba s
Ru n
80 70 60 50 40 30 20
80
10
RS+R RS+C
RA+C RA+R
70
0
60 50
BSL
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
RS+R
RA+C RA+R
RS+C
LL
ML
RS+R RS+C RA+C RA+R
HL
Findings &discussions
Findings &discussions
Lexical formation and contextual elaborations significantly affected 4 EGs lexical learning. 1) Multi-word LUs were better learnt than single-word LUs. 2) Both implicit and explicit elaborated LUs were better learned than no elaborated ones. Lexical formation and contextual elaborations not only interwove with each other, but also interrelated with, or controlled by learners prior lexical knowledge
Findings &discussions
HL had the greatest achievements than ML and LL in the 2 types of presented LUs. HL and ML achieved more gains in implicitly elaborated LUs, whereas LL had more progress in explicitly elaborated LU. 3. Most and least acquired LUs Familiarity with the LU form and implicit/explicit elaborations led to the most acquired LUs, and vice versa. Ignorance of word parts, high density of target LUs and mutual antonyms of LUs also lead to least acquired LUs.
Methodological
Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in L2 lexical research. Devising more valid scoring of VKS
Pedagogically
Applying the effects of task type, task frequency, word and text factors as well as learner factors in L2 lexical teaching.
Task type
Learner factors English proficiency
Prior lexical knowledge
Task frequency
Task-based L2 learning
Thanks You!