World Applied Sciences Journal 22 (12): 1739-1744, 2013
ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2013
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.22.12.432
Task-Type Based Vocabulary Instruction an
Impact on Incidental Word Retention
M.A. Elaheh Touti
Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages,
Islamic Azad University (IAU) South Tehran Branch, Iran
Abstract: Mastering upon a sizeable number of vocabulary items prompts the occurrence of facilitative
communication. This study attempts to stimulate theoretical and empirical research in the realm of incidental
L2 vocabulary by conducting a comparative study of the effects of the two types of text-level word-focused
tasks (i.e. fill-in-the-blank and writing) on EFL learners' retention of incidental lexical encounters. To this end,
this study employed 64 Iranian intermediate EFL learners fallen into two 32 experimental groups named as
fill-in-the-blank and writing. The research question of this study targets at “do text-level tasks through writing
treatment provide better incidental vocabulary retention rate than fill-in-the-blank tasks do? This study recruited
a Quasi-experimental design and the purview of data analysis in this study encompassed both descriptive and
inferential statistics. A t-test was also run to compare the mean scores of the two groups. The findings were
in favor of the writing group, due to the laudably magnificent cognitive demand induced by such a task.
The operationalization of the task induced involvement is in effect hinged upon the degree of three constituents
(need, search and evaluation) conducive of such an involvement.
Key words: Task-type
Incidental words
Word-focused Tasks
INTRODUCTION
As the mainspring in SLA, vocabulary occupies the
broadest zone of linguistic knowledge and thus highly
prone to attrition, both in individuals and in language
communities [1, 2]. Nowadays the weightiness of
vocabulary mastering upon both the acquisition of one's
native language and domineering a foreign language
grasps universal acceptance [3]. Vocabulary learning has
been taken as an indispensable ingredient in acquiring a
second language (L2), since learners should hold high
percentage of vocabulary coverage to speak, to read, to
write and to gain profound knowledge in L2 [4]. In a word,
the importance of vocabulary to the English learner is
second to none. As upheld by Healy et al. [5] "an
important component of improving foreign language
acquisition is improving the efficacy and effectiveness of
acquiring new vocabulary"(p.10).
In the realm of vocabulary acquisition, researchers
concur with two major foci: acquisition through direct
instruction of vocabulary (i.e. intentional) and incidental
vocabulary acquisition through exposure to content [6, 7].
Intentional vocabulary learning deals with activities that
Retention rate
aim at vocabulary development predominantly. However,
learning vocabulary predominantly through extensive
reading is labeled incidental learning of vocabulary [8-10].
Vocabulary learning tasks procure one effective pathway
of aggrandizing, entrenching and refurbishing the
learners' knowledge of new words.
Two of the most commonly used types of written
vocabulary tasks in ESL and EFL classrooms are blank fillin (i.e. cloze) and writing tasks. Among the very few
studies that have tackled these two tasks are those of
Hulstijn and Laufer [11] and Folse [12]. Tasks investigated
were a) answering comprehension questions, b)
filling-in-the-blank of a passage and c) composition
writing. The findings vindicated the superiority of writing
over the other two tasks in promoting learning and
retention of novel lexical items. In fact, Hustijn and Laufer
compared the two types of tasks at the text level, while
Folse conducted his study with the purpose of making a
parallel line between the two types of activities at the
sentence level. Different outcomes were attained from
both studies with regard to the effectiveness of the two
types of treatment (i.e. fill-in-the-blank and writing)
[13], p.32).
Corresponding Author: M.A. Elaheh Touti, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages,
Islamic Azad University (IAU) South Tehran Branch, Iran.
1739
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (12): 1739-1744, 2013
The Value of Text-Based Vocabulary Tasks: The
splendid incidental learning sprouting derived from textbased tasks has been ratified in a series of recent case
studies. Relevant results with respect to the merits rising
from task-based have been gleaned [14]. Further research
pertaining to the relationships between task demands,
learner noticing (i.e. attention) and learning upshot
revealed advanced recall in terms of dealing with wordfocused activities accompanied with a reading task than
vocabulary items being the target of extraneous exposure
in texts.
Furthermore, the way in which learners encode the
received stimulus has been suggested to leave a
scintillating magnitude of effect in incidental learning
[15-18]. These researchers emphasized the grievous role
of the overlapping leading factors of 'noticing' or
attending to the second language learning and
confirmed that incidental learning can spring from
task demands which arrest the learners' central
attention to be captivated on certain features of input
proved to be vital for learning. Another factor presumed
to carry a remarkable degree of prominence in the efficacy
of an exercise is depth of processing [19, 15]. In this
model, "the durability of memory traces is a direct
consequence of encoding, with a deeper and more
elaborate encoding leading to less ephemeral memory
traces: the deeper the processing, the better the learning"
[20], p.190).
The effectiveness of writing in flourishing vocabulary
learning has been revealed by Coomber et al. [21].
They ascribed this effectiveness to three contributors.
Residing the vocabulary items in authentic contexts
captures the scope of the first factor. The students'
utilization of their higher level cognitive functions attracts
the attention of the second agent. The nature of the
writing process in being slow which provides an ample
opportunity for the learners to invest more time to
elaborate the lexical items arrests the focus of the third
factor. Barcroft [22] claimed that writing spotlights the
lexical evaluation of the semantic features of the candidate
word. This evaluation contributes to the retention of the
respective vocabulary item.
In the light of these vicissitudes traceable in the
literature, this study was designed to explore more on,
rather validate, the effectiveness of two macro task types
(i.e. fill-in-blank and productive writing tasks) at the text
level on the retention rate of incidental vocabulary items.
To accomplish the purpose of the study, following
methodology was employed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants: Sixty four young intermediate EFL
learners were selected out of an entire population
(i.e. 90 participants) from different languages institutes.
The assumed participants were then randomly assigned
into two thirty two homogeneous experimental groups.
Materials: The instrumentation included the 2010 version
of PET, as a standardized general proficiency test in order
to select homogeneous groups in terms of their language
proficiency level. A researcher-made diagnostic
vocabulary test as the pretest composed of 70 multiple
choice items adopted from textbook-remote sources on
the topic of transportation and city services, aligned with
a small number of familiar words was employed to mitigate
the students' frustration and as a result heighten their
aplomb. A 28-item multiple-choice teacher-made
achievement vocabulary test, diagnosed as the
participants' least known items from among the whole
number of 70 lexical items in the pre-test, was administered
as the post-test to measure both the achievement and
retention rate.
Procedure: The study was executed in the Fall semester
in three different language institutes and constituted
administering the 2010 version of PET with its reliability
computed as .90. The remaining of the study was
allocated to a teacher-made diagnostic vocabulary test,
consisting of 70 multiple choice items administered as the
pre-test, with its reliability computed by Cronbach's Alpha
method as .87. Also, the post-test included twenty eight
vocabulary items diagnosed in the pre-test, as the
participants' least known words and the same as the
pre-test embedded in contexts in the form of multiple
choice items and its reliability reached by Cronbach's
Alpha method as .80. The reason behind truncating the
original list of incidental words was that the participants
in the post-test were presumed to go through only the
words sealed to be their least known encounters.
Adhering to research moral principles, the teachers and
learners comprising the attendants of the study, were kept
abreast of the aim of the study and invited to
acknowledge their consent in advance.
In the treatment, both FT and WT tasks were
accompanied with four thematically diverse reading
passages all revolving around the broad area of
transportation. Each four session, a list of seven
vocabulary items from among the twenty eight words with
1740
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (12): 1739-1744, 2013
a word study sheet including the English definitions of
the words were manifested in the form of two tasks
(i.e. fill-in and writing) and practiced by the two
experimental groups. Each session, immediately following
the tasks completion, the two treatment groups were
undergone a test as the post-test, comprising the same
seven lexical items appeared in the tasks, which was
represented in the form of multiple choice items along with
an answer sheet.
The participants in the two groups were required to
read a reading passage from which some words were
deleted in the first task (i.e. fill-in) and appeared in bold
followed by some comprehension questions and a writing
sample sheet on which the participants were required to
write their composition sample with the target words used
in each reading passage, in the second task (i.e. writing).
The post-test, diagnosed and recognized as the
participants' least known pre-test lexical items, embodied
twenty eight words divided into seven multiple choice
vocabulary items that the participants were supposed to
take during the treatment sessions. It, following the same
format as that of the pre-test, was prepared in the form of
multiple choice items aligned with an answer sheet and
was administered to the both experimental groups.
The reason behind administering multiple tests at the end
of each session after each task completion lied in the fact
that the more the participants were exposed to practicing
their own task sheet, the more accurate results could be
obtained from their performance.
Fig. 1: Pie Chart of the PET
Participants whose scores fell within the range of one
standard deviation above and below the mean of 44.32,
were invited to take part in the rest of the study.
The statistics are also supported visually by Figure 1.
Preceding the treatment, the pre-test was used to
check the participants' knowledge. The descriptive
statistics of the pre-test of the two groups are displayed
in Table 2 and Table 3.
Moreover, the visual statistics of the pre-test of the
fill-in the-blank group and writing group are depicted in
Figure 2 and Figure 3.
The core of the analysis was concerned with
comparing the two groups’ retention rates on the basis of
their performance in the post-test. To this end, Table 4
and Table 5 (see appendix section) represent the
descriptive statistics of collected data through FT and
WT in terms of the post-test.
By comparing the mean score of the two groups, it
can be noticed that the WT mean score= 23.50 is higher
than that of FT group=19.53. This discrepancy manifested
the outperformance of the former over the latter group.
Furthermore, the visual information of the post-test FT
and WT is depicted in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To conduct an ideal analysis of the collected data
and to compare the measures of the mean scores of the
two groups (i.e. FT and WT), the statistical methods of
t-test were recruited. First, PET was employed for
screening purpose of the participants who were selected
homogeneously. The descriptive statistics is presented in
Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of PET
Score
Valid N (listwise)
N
Statistic
Range
Statistic
Min
Statistic
Max
Statistic
Mean
Statistic
Std. Error
Mode
Median
Std. Deviation
Statistic
Variance
Statistic
90
90
54
14
68
44.32
1.332
48
45.50
12.641
159.794
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of the Pre-test in the FT group
Score
Valid N (listwise)
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance
32
32
37
8
45
18.31
8.372
70.093
1741
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (12): 1739-1744, 2013
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of the Pre-test in the Writing Task Group
Score
Valid N (listwise)
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance
32
32
34
8
42
17.41
7.202
51.862
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of the Post-test in the Fill-in-the-blank Task Group
Posttest of Fill-in Group
Valid N (listwise)
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance
32
32
15
11
26
19.53
3.767
14.193
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of the Post-test in the Writing Task Group
Posttest of Writing Group
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance
32
13
15
28
23.50
3.341
11.161
Table 6: Independent Samples Test for Comparison between the Post-test of the Two Groups
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
---------------------------
F
Equal variances assumed
.35
Equal variances not assumed
Sig.
t-test for Equality of Means
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
------------------------------T
df
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower
Upper
.55
-4.45
-4.45
61.12
62
.00
*.00
-3.96
-3.96
.89
.89
-5.74
-5.74
-2.18
-2.18
*P< .05 =It shows significant difference
Fig. 2: Bar Graph of the Fill-in-the-blank Task Group
Fig. 4: Histogram of the Post-test in the Fill-in-the-blank
Task Group
Fig. 3: Bar graph of the Writing Task Group
With regard to the nature of the present investigation
which is mainly concerned with the comparison of the
mean scores of the two groups, the quantifiable data from
the participants were gleaned by means of the t-test
formula utilized for describing the significance difference
between the groups. Considering the 0.95 level of
significance (p=.05), Table below indicates significant
difference. Since the amount of P-value reported to be 0
doesn't surpass .05 and also since the t-value observed
1742
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (12): 1739-1744, 2013
Fig. 5: Histogram of the Post-test in the Writing Task Group
(t=4.45) exceeds the t-value critical (2.00) at the .05 level of
significance, therefore the research hypothesis of the
study is rejected and based on which we could safely
claim that text level tasks through writing treatment
provide better incidental vocabulary retention rate than
fill-in-the-blank do.
The findings of the current study strongly endorse
those of other studies conducted by Hulstijn and Laufer
[11] Webb [23] and Mateo Valdehita [13] sharing the
common view of ennobling the virtue of writing tasks
and leading to lauding the role of writing at the text level
(i.e. WT).
What entraps the scope of the current study also
eulogizes the validity of Hulstijn and Laufer's Involvement
Load Hypothesis along with its three components of task
induced involvement (i.e. need, search and evaluation)
which is reminiscent of the practicality of operationalizing
general cognitive notions of depth of processing and
elaboration circumscribed by L2 vocabulary tasks.
On balance, word-focused tasks have been
undoubtedly corroborated to trigger the successful
inevitability of vocabulary retention overall in assisting
second language learners to deal with an enduring
reservoir of newly-met words smoothly. The ramifications
of this study verify those of other relevant [14, 24-26]
studies conducted in this kingdom of focus
(i.e. vocabulary learning).
Pedagogically, interlarding new words in meaningful
contexts unleash the learners' mental representation in a
way to proliferate their efficacies to utilize words in the
future. In addition, writing activities grant the
instructional mentor (i.e. the teacher) the opportunity to
monitor the furthurances of his/her apprentices and
obviate any linguistic glitches, including lexical hurdles
they might confront. Furthermore, the Involvement
Load Hypothesis allows teachers and task designers
to manipulate task features and predict what task will
best deserve academic and curriculum application in
terms of fostering incidental vocabulary retention.
However, both theoretical and empirical research in
the realm of L2 vocabulary learning should
be
manipulated in an attempt to explore more the nature of
the construct of task-induced involvement, with three
motivational and cognitive dimensions: need, search and
evaluation.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1743
Stringer, D. and K. Bardovi-Harling, 2010. Variables in
second language attrition: Advancing the state of
the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
32(1): 1-45.
Gass, S., 2004. Context and SLA. In B. VanParren,
J. Williams, S. Rott and M. Overstreet (Eds.),
Form-meaning Connections in Second Language
Acquisition pp: 77-96. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Morra, S. and R. Camba, 2009. Vocabulary learning in
primary school children: Working memory and
long-term Memory Components. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 104: 156-178.
Schmitt, N., 2008. Instructed language vocabulary
learning.
Language
Teaching
Research,
12(3): 329-363.
Healy, A., et al., 1998. Foreign language learning:
Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention,
p.10. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (12): 1739-1744, 2013
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Hulstijn, J., 2001. Intentional and incidental second
language vocabulary learning; reappraisal of
elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P.
Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second language
Instructions, pp: 258-286.
Nation, I., 2001. Learning vocabulary in another
language pp: 232. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Huckin, T. and J. Coady, 1999. Incidental vocabulary
acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21: 181-193.
Robinson, P., 2005. Cognitive abilities, chunkstrength and frequency effects in implicit artificial
grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of
Reber Walkenfeld and Hernstadt (1991) and
Knowlton and Squire (1996) And their relevance for
SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27: 235-268.
Nakata, T., 2008. English vocabulary learning with
word lists, word cards and computers. Implications
from cognitive psychology research for optimal
space learning. ReCALL, 20(1): 2-30.
Hulstijn, J. and B. Laufer, 2001. Some empirical
evidence for theinvolvement load hypothesis
in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning,
51(3): 539-558.
Folse, K., 2000. The effect of type of written practice
activity on second language vocabulary retention.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
South Florida.
San Mateo Valdehita, A., 2003-2004. Aprendizaje de
lexica en espanol como segunda lengua.
Investigacion sobre tres metodos. Unpublished
Mphil Dissertation. UN.
Newton, J., 1995. Task-based interaction and
incidental vocabulary learning: A case study. Second
Language Research, 11: 159-177.
Craik, F.I.M. and E. Tulving, 1975. Depth of
processing and the retention of words in memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
104: 268-294.
16. Baddeley, A.D., 1990. Human memory: Theory and
practice. Hove, UK, Erlbaum.
17. Schmidt, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in
second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
2: 129-158.
18. Ellis, R., 1990. Instructed Second Language
Acquisition, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
19. Craik, F.I.M. and K.S. Lockhart, 1972. Levels of
processing: A framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
11: 671-684.
20. Schouten- VanParren, C., 1995. Action psychology as
applied
to
foreign
language
vocabulary
acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
8(2-3): 181-204.
21. Coomber, J.E., D.A. Ramstad and D.R. Sheets, 1986.
Elaboration in vocabulary learning: A comparison of
three rehearsal methods. Research in the Teaching of
English, 20: 281-93.
22. Barcroft, J., 2000. The effects of sentence writing as
semantic elaboration in three writing tasks. Paper
presented at the Second Language Research Forum,
Minneapolis, MN.
23. Webb, S., 2005. Receptive and productive vocabulary
learning. The effects of reading and writing on word
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
17: 33-52.
24. Joe, A., 1995. Text-based tasks and incidental
vocabulary learning, Second Language Research, 11
Milton, James & Meara, Paul M. (1995). How periods
abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign
language. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics,
107/108, 17-34.
25. Paribalht and Wesche, 1999. Reading and incidental
L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of
lexical inferencing. Studies in second Language
Acquisition, 21: 195-224.
26. Zimmerman, C., 1997. Do reading and interactive
vocabulary instruction make a difference? An
empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31: 121-140.
1744