Involvement Load Hypothesis: Word Meaning Retention across Oral and Written Task Types

• Autorzy: Javad Ahmadi Fatalaki
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Involvement Load Hypothesis for the first time has been proposed by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001). Based on their theory, second language vocabulary learning, consists of three basic components: need, search, and evaluation. Those Tasks which induce a higher involvement load are more effective than those with lower involvement. The important question is that which modality has the higher effect on task involvement load? In order to answer this question, this study aims at discussing the effect of modality-based activities, that is, Listening and Reading, on task-induced involvement on vocabulary learning of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners. To do so, 36 EFL learners from three branches of an English institute were selected. In order to have a more homogeneous sample population Nelson's (1977) placement test was administered. Based on their scores, students were classified into two high and low proficient groups. Then participants were then randomly assigned to two groups: The first group receives reading input and the second group receives listening input. The comparison of the students' performance in the immediate posttests revealed that the students who received reading task were more successful in the retention of newly-learned vocabularies and there wasn't significance difference between groups after the delayed posttest. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

English language; Linguistics; Education

PL

Język angielski; Językoznawstwo; Edukacja

• Czasopismo: International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS)
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 26
• Strony: 29--45

Twórcy

autor

Javad Ahmadi Fatalaki

• Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Bibliografia

• Ravandpour A. (2013). Verification of task-induced involvement hypothesis through language modality in incidental vocabulary learning (reading vs. listening modality). The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 2; 55-72.
• 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. I. M., Lockhart R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11; 671-684.
• Hulstijn J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-125). London: Macmillan.
• Krashen S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73; 440-464.
• Laufer B., Hulstijn J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22; 1-26.
• Liu W., Yun J., Chen N., Tsao S., McCormack S., Wheeler N. (Eds.). (2002). Reading master. Taipei: AMC Publishers.
• Martínez-Fernández Ana (2008). Revisiting the Involvement Load Hypothesis: Awareness, Type of Task and Type of Item. In Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum, ed. Melissa Bowles, Rebecca Foote, Silvia Perpiñán, and Rakesh Bhatt, 210-228. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
• Nelson T. O. (1977). Repetition and depth of processing. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior, 16; 151- 171.
• Paribakht T. S., Wesche M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy, 174-200.
• Schmitt N. (2008). Review article: instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3); 329-363.