Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: the effects of Task Type, Word Occurrence and Their Combination

http://ltr.sagepub.com/Language Teaching Research

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/15/4/391The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1362168811412019

2011 15: 391 originally published online 26 August 2011Language Teaching ResearchBatia Laufer and Bella Rozovski-Roitblat

and their combinationIncidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type, word occurrence

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Language Teaching ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/15/4/391.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 26, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Sep 14, 2011Version of Record >>

at University of Haifa Library on May 24, 2014ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Haifa Library on May 24, 2014ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/,DanaInfo=ltr.sagepub.com+

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/content/15/4/,DanaInfo=ltr.sagepub.com+391

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/,DanaInfo=www.sagepublications.com+

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/cgi/,DanaInfo=ltr.sagepub.com+alerts

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/,DanaInfo=ltr.sagepub.com+subscriptions

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/,DanaInfo=www.sagepub.com+journalsReprints.nav

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/,DanaInfo=www.sagepub.com+journalsPermissions.nav

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/content/15/4/,DanaInfo=ltr.sagepub.com+391.refs.html

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/content/15/4/,DanaInfo=ltr.sagepub.com+391.full.pdf

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/content/early/2011/05/31/,DanaInfo=ltr.sagepub.com+1362168811412019.full.pdf

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/site/sphelp/,DanaInfo=online.sagepub.com+vorhelp.xhtml



LANGUAGETEACHINGRESEARCH

Language Teaching Research 15(4) 391 –411

© The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1362168811412019

ltr.sagepub.com

Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type, word occurrence and their combination

Batia Laufer and Bella Rozovski-RoitblatUniversity of Haifa, Israel

AbstractWe investigated how long-term retention of new words was affected by task type, number of word occurrences in the teaching materials and the combination of the two factors. The tasks were: reading a text with occasional Focus on Form when learners used dictionaries (T+F), or reading a text with Focus on Forms, i.e. word focused exercises (T+Fs). The words occurred 2–3, 4–5, and 6–7 times. Consequently, there were six conditions that reflected the 2 × 3 ‘task × occurrence’ combinations. Learners were exposed to 60 target words, 10 words in each condition during a 13-week course of study, and were subsequently tested on them by two unannounced tests: passive recall and passive recognition. An increase in word occurrence was found to have an effect on retention in T+Fs only. Starting with 4 occurrences, T+Fs fared better than T+F. Task type effect was superior to the effect of word occurrence in recall only (2 word exercises fared better than 6–7 occurrences in text). The value of word-focused practice was also confirmed by learners’ responses to an introspective questionnaire.

Keywordsvocabulary acquisition, foreign language, instructed learning, task type, number of word occurrences, task and word encounters, incidental vocabulary, long-term retention

I Background

Acquisition of new words in a second language depends on how many times learners encounter them in the language input (Nation & Wang Ming-Tzu, 1999; Webb, 2007a) and how well they process these words (Hulstijn, 2001; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001).

Corresponding author:Batia Laufer, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905, IsraelEmail: [email protected]

412019 LTR15410.1177/1362168811412019Laufer and Rozovski-RoitblatLanguage Teaching Research

at University of Haifa Library on May 24, 2014ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


392 Language Teaching Research 15(4)

However, there is no agreement about the optimal number of encounters necessary for acquisition. Nor is there agreement about the best conditions that induce processing: purely communicative activities (Krashen, 1989; Cho & Krashen, 1994; Huckin & Coady, 1999), Focus on Form, i.e. drawing attention to words during communicative activities (Ellis et al., 1994; Ellis & He, 1999; De La Fuente, 2002), or Focus on Forms, i.e. non-communicative, mainly decontextualized practice of vocabulary (Qian, 1996; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Laufer, 2003, 2006). As for the optimal combination of the two factors, to our knowledge, no research is available on this issue. For exam-ple, could meeting a word in one challenging task be as effective as meeting the word 3–4 times during reading? Our study explores incidental acquisition of new words as a function of two variables: number of word occurrences in the teaching material, type of task that learners perform with the words, and various combinations of the two fac-tors. In our literature review we focus on empirical studies that investigate the effect that different learning activities and repeated exposures to words have on the acquisi-tion of words.

Krashen and colleagues have been advocating reading as the main source of vocab-ulary learning (Krashen, 1989, 2008; Cho & Krashen, 1994; Mason & Krashen, 2004). Reading provides comprehensible input, which is the key to language acquisi-tion, first and second, grammar and vocabulary. There are empirical studies that show that words can indeed be ‘picked up’ from reading. Most studies used relatively short texts (up to 7,000 words) and measured short-term retention of new words after a reading activity. The reported vocabulary gains are 1–5 words per text (Pitts et al., 1989; Day et al., 1991; Hulstijn, 1992; Knight, 1994; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Zahar et al., 2001). Slightly higher gains (6 words per text) are reported by Dupuy and Krashen (1993), but this study included the use of video in addition to reading. Furthermore, learners knew that they would be tested, which may have led to some intentional memorization of words. In Cho and Krashen (1994), the participant who engaged in pleasure reading without using a dictionary learnt 7 words from a booklet of 7,000 words. Similar numbers of words (3–5) were acquired from one graded reader (Lahav, 1996; Horst et al., 1998).

Even though the figures above are not impressive, the defenders of the vocabulary-through-reading position claim that results from isolated texts and even a book or two do not reflect the value of reading for vocabulary growth. Only a flood of reading will ensure repeated exposures to words, reveal the linguistics and pragmatic properties of the new words, and reinforce the learner’s memory of already familiar words. Hence, some researchers set out to explore the value of massive exposure to reading material for word learning. In Mason and Krashen (1997), for example, the participants read on average 30 books during one semester which contained from 6,000 to 16,000 words each. Comparison of scores between identical 100-item pre- and post-test cloze pas-sages containing 1,600 words showed that the average gain was 8.90 words. However, the supplied words were marked correct, even though they were not identical with the words in the original text, that is, no acquisition of target vocabulary was measured. In their second experiment, two groups of advanced learners read one authentic book per week during a whole year. Comparison of scores as in experiment 1 showed that the gains of two experimental groups were 17.06 and 18.85. Even though in both



Laufer and Rozovski-Roitblat 393

experiments the extensive readers outperformed ‘traditional’ learners, it is not clear what the gain scores mean in terms of vocabulary acquisition. Horst (2005) found that after a six-week program of extensive reading (on average 10.52 books per student), 18 words were learned fully or partially out of 35 tested. These figures are higher than in earlier studies. However, the participants in the program received one hour per week during which they performed activities connected with the material, including vocabu-lary activities like constructing word notebooks.

The claim stated earlier that repeated encounters with new words contribute to their memorization raises an important question: how many exposures are necessary for mem-orizing new words and retaining them over time? Waring and Takaki (2003) investigated 25 target words that appeared with different frequencies in a text: 1 time, 4–5, 8–10, 13–14, and 15–18 times. They tested immediate and delayed retention by three tests:

• recognition of form, that is whether learners remembered that a word had occurred in the text;

• recognition of meaning among four options; and• recall of meaning, that is providing the first language (L1) meaning of the target

words.

The average scores on the immediate tests were 61% on form recognition, 42.2% on meaning recognition and 18.4% on meaning recall. However, three months later, the results were 33.6%, 24.4% and 3.6% on the three tests, respectively. None of the items met less than 8 times was remembered after three months on the recall test. Waring and Takaki conclude that learners have to meet a word at least eight times to have a 50% chance of recognizing its form three months later. They have to encounter the same word more than 18 times to have 10% to 15% chance of recalling its meaning.

Brown et al. (2008) investigated immediate and 3-month delayed retention of 28 words that appeared 2–3 times, 7–9, 10–13 and 15–20 times in three graded readers (altogether 16,700 running words). They used a meaning recognition test and a meaning recall test, as in the previous study. The average scores on the immediate tests were 12.54 out of 28 on recognition and 4.10 out of 28 on recall. On the delayed tests, the scores were 11.37 and 0.97 respectively. Of the seven words that were met 15–20 times, 4.29 were recognized and 1.97 recalled; of the seven words met 10–13 times, 2.86 were rec-ognized and 1.39 recalled.1 The researchers conclude that much more than 7–9 encoun-ters with new words are necessary to ensure acquisition and prevent forgetting. Both studies indicate that some words are learned partially (recognition of form or recognition of meaning) and that the degree of knowledge is related to the number of word occurrences.

In a 1-month case study, Pigada and Schmitt (2006) traced the acquisition of three aspects of knowledge: spelling, grammatical behaviour, and meaning of 133 target words. They appeared with different frequencies: 1, 2–3, 4–5, 6–10, 10+, and 20+ times, in four pocket-size books (approximately 30,000 words in total). Overall, there was a 52% improvement in spelling, 20.2% in meaning and 27.6% in grammatical behaviour. With regard to frequency–acquisition relationship, they conclude that ‘there is no frequency point where meaning acquisition is assured, but by about 10+




exposures, there does seem to be a discernable rise in the learning rate’ (p. 18). However, in the case of some words, even after 20+ exposures, the participant did not learn anything about their meaning.

Earlier studies suggested different frequency of occurrence requirements. Saragi et al. (1978) found that words encountered six or more times were learned by 93% of learners. But Jenkins et al. (1984) found that words that appeared 10 times were learnt by only 25%. Nagy et al. (1985) estimated the likelihood of acquisition after one encounter to be about .15. However, Herman et al. (1987) lowered the estimate to .05.

We may draw several conclusions from the studies on multiple encounters with words. First, there is no definite number of encounters that is thought to ensure some kind of learning. Second, different numbers of exposure may be necessary for different degrees of learning. Third, multiple exposures are possible only if learners read extensively. As it is questionable whether the flood of reading can be implemented in classroom context with 2, 3, or even 5 hours of instruction per week, some researchers have claimed that input in general and reading in particular cannot be the main source of vocabulary learn-ing and that it should be supplemented with form focused instruction (FFI).

Two major types of FFI have been discussed in the literature: Focus on Form (FonF) and Focus on Forms (FonFs). Focus on Form (FonF) was defined by Long as ‘drawing students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication’ (Long, 1991, pp. 45–46). The term ‘form’ includes the function that a particular form performs. For example, attention to the ‘form’ -ed subsumes the realization that -ed signals an action per-formed in the past. FonFs is equated with teaching discrete linguistic structures in separate lessons in a sequence determined by syllabus writers. According to Ellis (2001), in a FonFs approach, students view the language as the object of study. In FonF, on the other hand, students view the language as a tool for communication and themselves as language users.

The notion of FFI was developed in the context of grammar learning, but it was extended to vocabulary by Laufer (2005). An example of FonF vocabulary activity is looking up unknown words in a dictionary during a reading task. Learners attend to lexical items since they are necessary for the completion of an authentic reading task. An example of FonFs activity is matching words in column A to their definitions in column B, or filling in these words in given sentences, one word in each sentence. Here learners’ attention is drawn to words in a non-communicative, non-authentic language activity.

Many studies provide support for the efficacy of FFI for lexical learning. These stud-ies examined the usefulness of various instructional techniques on vocabulary learning: glosses, dictionary use, negotiation of meaning, sentence completion, sentence writing and computer assisted learning devices (hypertexts, concordances, on-line dictionaries). In comparisons of FFI and non-FFI tasks, the FFI condition was usually superior to the non-FFI condition in terms of the number of words retained after task completion (Luppescu & Day, 1993; Ellis et al., 1994; Knight, 1994; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Ellis & He, 1999; Laufer, 2001, 2003; Kim, 2006). Comparisons of FFI tasks to one another revealed that some tasks yielded better results than other tasks. For example, looking up words in a dictionary during reading was more conducive to word retention




than reading with marginal glosses (Hulstijn et al., 1996). A reading activity followed by post-reading word-focused activities was more effective than consulting a dictionary while reading (Peters, 2006; Peters et al., 2009). Various productive tasks were usually more effective than comprehension tasks (Ellis & He, 1999; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer, 2003; Webb, 2005; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008)

Evidence has been accumulating to show that FonFs tasks that require learners to practise words in non-communicative contexts are quite useful and not less effective than FonF tasks. Mondria and Wiersma (2004) examined receptive – i.e. from second language (L2) to first language (L1) – and productive (i.e. from L1 to L2) learning of decontextualized word pairs. The mean retention scores on the immediate receptive (L2 to L1) test were 13.5 and 15.7 out of 16 (following productive and receptive learning respectively), and on the delayed test (12–14 days after the learning session) 6.6 and 7.9. This shows that 41%–49% of the target words were retained as a result of 15 minutes of learning, which means that 56 seconds were required for learning a word.

Laufer (2006) compared the effectiveness of FonF and FonFs activities, and dem-onstrated the contribution of word-list learning to retention. During the first phase of the experiment, the FonFs group scored considerably higher (71.63%) than the FonF group (46.62%). Yet, following the second phase, during which the two groups studied the target L2–L1 pairs for 15 minutes for a quiz, the scores were similar in the two conditions: about 88% on the immediate test and 62% on the delayed test. For addi-tional studies on the effectiveness of learning lists, see Griffin and Harley (1996), Prince (1996), Qian (1996), Laufer and Shmueli (1997), Waring (1997), Mondria (2003), Webb (2007b).

The overall conclusion of the studies above is unambiguous: instructional activities of FonF and FonFs are beneficial to vocabulary learning. To explain this effectiveness, Laufer (2005, 2006) has related FFI to the Noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1994), the Involvement load hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) and the Pushed Output hypoth-esis (Swain, 1985), the latter being relevant to productive tasks only. Attention is a pre-requisite for learning, and FFI tasks make learners ‘notice’ vocabulary, i.e. make them pay attention to the words. Most of the tasks induce learner ‘involvement’, i.e. induce ‘need’ for doing something with the word, ‘search’ for the appropriate word meaning or form, and ‘evaluation’, i.e. comparison or combination of the target word with other words in given or original contexts. In the case of productive tasks, learners are also ‘pushed’ to make the most of their linguistic resources. The three explanations are related to the belief that retention of new information depends on the amount and the quality of attention that individuals pay to various aspects of this information (Eysenck, 1982; Anderson, 1995; Baddeley, 1997). In vocabulary learning this means that if learners pay careful attention to the word’s pronunciation, orthography, grammatical category, mean-ing and semantic relations to other words, they are likely to retain the word (i.e. the link between at least one representation of the word’s form and at least one of its meanings). Therefore, since form focused tasks induce elaborative attention to words’ formal and semantic features, they are also conducive to their retention.

From the review above, it follows that vocabulary learning is determined by repeated encounters with the words and by quality of attention that learners pay to them (or elabo-ration, or involvement) during a communicative or any other learning task. We do not




know, however, which of these factors has a stronger impact on learning and whether there is an optimal combination of the two. For example, is writing one original sentence with a word as effective as meeting it three or four times in the input? To our knowledge, two studies address the issue of the relative influence of the two factors.

Webb (2005) did not intend to explore the relative contribution of frequency and task type, but his study indirectly provided evidence for a stronger effect of task type. Webb investigated how reading and writing tasks affected five aspects of word knowledge: orthog-raphy, syntax, association, grammatical functions, and form–meaning link. In a reading task, the participants saw the target words with their L1 glosses in three sentences. In a writing task, learners saw a list of the target words with their L1 glosses and wrote original sentences with them, one sentence per target word. When time on task was identical in the two condi-tions, reading was more effective. In the second experiment, when learners used as much time as they needed, writing took longer, but proved more effective for all aspects of word knowledge. The writing group scored on orthography 10.04 (out of 20), on association 9.47, on syntax 8.29, on grammar 10.78 and on meaning 8.18. The reading group scored 7.92, 6.86, 6.55, 8.63, 4.78, respectively. Since non-identical time on task represents authentic learning, an argument can be made for the superiority of task type (productive with one encounter) over repeated encounters (three encounters in a receptive task).

Folse (2006) examined the relative importance of multiple exposures and task involvement load. Students practised target vocabulary in three conditions: one ‘fill-in-the-blank’ exercise, three ‘fill-in-the-blank’ exercises, and one ‘original-sentence-writing’ exercise. The latter has the highest involvement load (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001). The ‘three fill-in-the-blank’ condition was significantly better (mean score was 4.78 out of 15) than the other 2 conditions (‘one fill-in-the-blank’, which was 2.18; ‘one original-sentence-writing’, which was 2.39). Folse argues that the number of word retrievals is more important for word retention than task involvement load.

In both studies above, the new words were embedded in a sentence context rather than in an authentic reading task. Moreover, in both studies word retention was tested shortly after learners’ exposure to the words. The present study investigates retention of new words as a function of two main factors:

• the number of encounters with the words (2–7 encounters); and• type of task: text comprehension with occasional word look up vs. text followed

by Focus on Forms activities.

It also examines learning after a relatively long period of study, i.e. 13 weeks.

II The study

The particular research questions were as follows:

1. Will there be a significant difference in the number of retained words between two task conditions, reading a text with occasional FonF and reading a text fol-lowed by FonFs activities, when the number of encounters with the words is identical in the two task conditions?




2. Will there be a significant difference between the three ‘number of encounters’ conditions: 2–3, 4–5, 6–7 in the number of the retained words in each task?

3. How will the different combinations of number of encounters and task type compare to each other regarding word retention?

4. What is learners’ perceived value of the two tasks and word occurrences with regard to word retention?

In the first task condition, text and occasional FonF (henceforth T+F), learners read a text, and whenever they felt they needed to understand a word (even though no under-standing of the target words was required to answer comprehension questions) they either used a dictionary, or asked the teacher for its meaning. In the second task condi-tion, text followed by FonFs activities (henceforth T+Fs), learners read a text, used a dictionary whenever they felt necessary, and practised the target words in specially designed vocabulary exercises.

An equal number of encounters in the two tasks meant that if a word appeared five times, for example, then in condition T+F it appeared five times in various texts, while in condition T+Fs, the word appeared once in a text and four times in vocabulary exercises.

Retention was operationalized as two types of passive word knowledge: passive recall, where learners supplied an L1 translation of the target words, and passive rec-ognition, where learners recognized the correct translation of the target words from four options.

1 Participants

Initially, there were about 40 potential participants from two intact classes of the Pre-Academic Unit in a University taking a course in English for Academic Purposes. The English courses in this Unit are intended for learners who are high school graduates, i.e. studied English for 7–8 years, but whose level is lower than that required for entering the regular University courses. They were placed at the intermediate level by an internal placement test. At this level learners are generally expected to be able to read a text that consists mainly of 2,000 words with the help of a dictionary. They were native speakers of Hebrew, Arabic, and Russian.

Since the study lasted 13 weeks (52 academic hours), some learners missed many classes, some did not submit all the assignments and some were exposed to English out-side the classroom. We, therefore, selected 20 participants who attended at least 80% of classes and made up the missed material, submitted all the written assignments, and reported, in response to a questionnaire, that they had not been exposed to the target words outside the classroom.

2 Target words

Learners were pre-tested on 120 words from the course book. Based on our teaching experience, we believed that many of these were unfamiliar.




In the first pre-test, learners supplied the L1 meaning of the words. In the second, they recognized the correct translation of the word from four options. Following the pre-tests, we selected 60 target words for the experiment based on the following criteria:

• The words were unfamiliar to all the learners on both tests.• They belonged to one of the major parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives,

adverbs.• They varied in terms of word length (1–4 syllables).• They had only one L1 translation.

Thirty words were assigned to the T+F condition, and the other 30 were assigned to T+Fs condition. We believe the two sets of words to be of similar difficulty in terms of intra-lingual and interlingual features that determine word difficulty (Laufer, 1990, 1997). For example, in each condition, the words had equivalent concepts in L1, they were of simi-lar length and morphological structure and of similar pronounceability vis-à-vis the learners’ L1. Ten were assigned to each one of the three ‘number of encounters’ condi-tions. Table 1 presents the target words by task and number of encounters.

3 Materials

The course book included 17 units. Each unit consisted of a text of about 600 tokens, comprehension questions, a summary completion exercise of the text, and post-reading

Table 1 Target words according to six experimental conditions

Number of encounters

T+F T+Fs

2–3 times approximately detest artificial attitudecontamination emphasize decline debts

grain indigenous era domesticate merely participation significant evolve sting severe yield lethal

4–5 times acquire confirm enormous entireannual drawback flavor interruption

diverse prevalent infancy prevent indicate treatment modify urge inferior offspring vital restricted

6–7 times acknowledge collapse funds maturediminishinvestprofound

deteriorateestimatereluctantsubstitutevulnerable

lackprecisequantityruralsurplus

obsoleteobtainprosperity




exercises for practising the words in T+Fs condition. The target words were spread over as many texts as possible. Additional occurrences of the words were inserted either into the texts (in T+F condition), or into exercises (in T+Fs condition) according to their assigned ‘number of occurrence’ condition.2 Half of the target words were assigned to each task condition and 10 to each ‘number of encounters’ condition. The modified textbook, therefore, included the 60 target words, 10 words per one experi-mental condition: 2 task conditions and three ‘number of encounters’ conditions in each task condition.

The comprehension questions and summary completion exercises did not require the understanding of the target words. The vocabulary exercises designed for the T+Fs con-dition included decontextualized practice of the target words and practice in sentence context. Learners had to match the target words to their definitions, synonyms and anto-nyms, select the correct explanation of meaning from four options, and to incorporate the target words into sentences whose content was unrelated to the texts.

4 Measurement instruments

We used vocabulary tests and a retrospective questionnaire. The identical pre-tests and post-tests measured two aspects of knowledge of meaning of the same words: passive recall and passive recognition. In the former, learners demonstrated their understanding of the word by supplying its L1 translation. For example:

diminish __________________

In the latter, learners had to select the word’s meaning from four L1 options:

diminish

להרעיש, להציל, להביא, להקטין

In addition, at the end of the course, participants received a retrospective questionnaire in which they were asked whether they had been exposed to any of the target words out-side the classroom during the course, how effective they considered multiple exposures and vocabulary exercises for word retention, and what other techniques they would rec-ommend for reinforcing memorization of new words.

5 Procedure

After the pre-test, the participants embarked on a 13-week course during which they read the texts and did all the assignments at home. These were corrected by the teacher and returned to them. Sometimes they paid attention to the target words by looking them up in the dictionary, or asking the teacher for explanation following corrections. As men-tioned earlier, the course textbook was modified to include the target words with their assigned frequencies in texts or in vocabulary exercises forming three ‘number of encounters’ conditions. The same students were exposed to some words in T+F and to




different words in T+Fs. Hence the study had a two-way 2 × 3 within-participant design with task and number of encounters as independent variables and passive recall and pas-sive recognition scores as dependent variables. Each student was exposed to the six conditions built into the modified textbook as illustrated in Table 1. At the end of the course the participants received two unexpected tests (recall and recognition) of the 60 target words. Since these tests were not announced and learners did not try to commit the target words to memory to do well on the tests, the learning that occurred in the course was defined as incidental.3

6 Data analysis

Six sets of data were collected for each student for each of the two vocabulary post-tests. These represented the six conditions of the study. The answers were scored dichoto-mously. In the recognition test, the correct option received one point, no answer or a wrong option was given a zero. In the recall test, a semantically correct translation received one point, no answer or a wrong translation received a zero. The effects of task, number of encounters and interaction between them were measured by multivariate ANOVA with two within-participants factors for each test. Comparisons between pairs of conditions were performed by post-hoc least squares means procedure and Tukey tests.4 The answers to the questionnaire were analysed using percentages only without any inferential statistics.

III Results

1 Descriptive statistics

Tables 2 and 3 present the descriptive statistics for the passive recall and passive recogni-tion tests respectively. Figures 1 and 2 present the same results graphically. Within each ‘number of encounters’ condition, T+Fs yielded higher scores and within each task type condition, additional encounters with words led to higher scores.

Table 2 Vocabulary retention scores: Passive recall (mean values; SDs are given in parentheses)

Number of encounters

Passive recall (maximum 10 per cell)

T+F T+Fs Overall

2–3 1.30 (0.72) 1.55 (1.34) 1.43 (1.08)4–5 1.40 (1.13) 2.55 (1.83) 1.98 (1.61)6–7 1.80 (1.22) 3.40 (1.85) 2.60 (1.75)Overall 1.50 (1.06) 2.50 (1.84)




Table 3 Vocabulary retention score: Passive recognition (mean values; SDs are given in parentheses)

Number of encounters Passive recall

T+F (maximum 10) T+Fs (maximum 10) Overall

2–3 3.30 (1.02) 3.90 (2.00) 3.60 (1.60)4–5 3.80 (1.80) 5.25 (1.97) 4.53 (2.01)6–7 4.10 (1.66) 6.35 (1.64) 5.23 (1.99)Overall 3.73 (1.55) 5.17 (2.12)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Mea

n co

rrec

t ans

wer

s

2–3 �mes 4–5 �mes 6–7 �mesNumber of encounters

T+F

T+Fs

Figure 1 Vocabulary retention scores: Passive recall (maximum score = 10)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mea

n co

rrec

t ans

wer

s

2–3 �mes 4–5 �mes 6–7 �mesNumber of encounters

T+F

T+Fs

Figure 2 Vocabulary retention score: Passive recognition (maximum score = 10)




Table 4 includes the questionnaire. It shows that no students were exposed to the tar-get words outside the classroom (question 1). It also shows the percentage of students per each answer option in questions 2, 3 and 4. These tapped the learners’ perceived value of the experimental tasks and repeated word occurrences. Question 5 asked for further sug-gestions to enhance memorization of new words. Six students answered it. Two students made suggestion #1, 1 student made suggestion #2, 1 student suggested #3, and 2 stu-dents suggested #4.

The answers to question 2 of the questionnaire revealed that repeated encounters with the new words during reading were appreciated by 60% of the students (those who chose the options ‘helped me very much’ and ‘helped me’). According to the answers to ques-tion 3, vocabulary exercises were considered effective by 70%. The answers to question 4 revealed that 60% of the students perceived the combination of the two factors (repeated encounters and post-reading word-focused activities) to be the most efficient way for retaining new vocabulary.

The students who answered question 5 were unanimous in regarding a writing activity as the most efficient tool for long-term retention. They suggested that new words be practised in writing tasks rather than in recognition activities.

Table 4 Questionnaire (n = 20)

1. Have you been exposed to the words in the test outside the framework of the course?

Have not been exposed to none of them

100%

2. Did meeting new words repeatedly while reading the texts help you remember them?

Helped me very muchHelped meHelped me remember only a small amount of the wordsDid not help me at all

25%35%30%

10%3. Did the exercises in the

Vocabulary Section in the book help you remember the words?

Helped me very muchHelped meHelped me remember only a small amount of the wordsDid not help me at all

10%60%30%

0%4. What would help you

remember new words?Meeting new words repeatedly while reading the textsPost-reading exercisesThe combination of the two aboveNone of them

10%

30%60%0%

5. What other methods, in

your opinion, would help you remember new words?

6 students answered1. to be more engaged in writing

new words2. to write answers to

comprehension questions rather than circle the correct answer

3. to write original sentences4. to have more quizzes which

require writing new words

2 students

1 student

1 student2 students




2 Inferential statistics

Multivariate ANOVA for passive recall showed main effects for task type (F(1,19) = 24.43, p < .0001), the number of encounters (F(2,38) = 13.24, p < .0001) and an interac-tion between them (F(2,38) = 9.34, p < 0.001). Multivariate ANOVA for passive recogni-tion showed main effects for task type (F(1,19) = 103.02, p < .0001) and the number of encounters (F(2,38) = 9.72, p = 0.0004), but no interaction between them (F(2,38) = 3.03, p = 0.06 n.s.).

Research question 1 asked whether there was a significant difference between the tasks (T+F and T+Fs) in the number of retained words when the number of encounters with the words was identical in the two. We compared the tasks in each of ‘number of encounters’ conditions by the least squares means procedure. Tables 5 and 6 show that T+Fs yielded significantly better results than T+F in two of the three ‘number of encoun-ters’ conditions, in recall and recognition tests. This means that if learners met new words 2–3 times, it did not matter whether they met them in text context only, or in text and form-focused activities. However, when they practised the words in at least 3 activities (in addition to meeting them once in a text), they benefited more than from an identical number of encounters with these words in texts.

Research question 2 asked whether there was a significant difference in the number of retained words between the three ‘number of encounters’ conditions: 2–3, 4–5, 6–7 within each task. To this effect, we performed four one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA’s (two for each task, one for each test) followed by the least means post-hoc procedure. The former compared the three conditions, the latter compared different pairs of conditions. Table 7 presents the ANOVA results. The F values reveal that when learn-ers met the target words in texts (T+F), it did not matter whether they met them 2–3, 4–5, 6–7 times. But when they met them in form-focused activities, an increase in the number

Table 5 Task effect per ‘number of encounters’ condition: Passive recall (mean values; SDs are given in parentheses)

T+F (maximum 10) T+Fs (maximum 10) F-value

2–3 times 1.30 (0.72) 1.55 (1.34) 1.24*4–5 times 1.40 (1.13) 2.55 (1.83) 26.15**6–7 times 1.80 (1.22) 3.40 (1.85) 50.62**

Notes: * p = 0.27, n.s., ** p < 0.0001

Table 6 Task effect per ‘number of encounters’ condition: passive recognition (mean values; SDs are given in parentheses)

T+F (maximum 10) T+Fs (maximum 10) F-value

2–3 times 3.30 (1.02) 3.90 (2.00) 1.60*4–5 times 3.80 (1.80) 5.25 (1.97) 9.36**6–7 times 4.10 (1.66) 6.35 (1.64) 22.53***

Notes: * p = 0.21, n.s., ** p < 0.005, *** p < 0.0001




of encounters led to a significant increase in retention. The same pattern occurred in the recall and recognition tests.

Following the significant differences in T+Fs, we performed the least squares means procedure to find out where these differences occurred. The results are in Table 8 and 9. Table 8 shows that all three ‘number of encounters’ groups were different from each other in the recall test, which means that small increases in word occurrences in vocabu-lary exercises contributed to better recall of these words. Table 9 shows that in the recog-nition test, a significant difference occurred only between 2–3 and 6–7 word occurrences. Apparently, recognition is less affected than recall by small increases in word occurrences.

Research question 3 asked how all six conditions, i.e. all the different combinations of ‘number of encounters’ and task type would compare to each other. These comparisons were performed by the post-hoc Tukey tests. Tables 10 and 11 show the mean differences between all the possible pairs of conditions. (For means in each condition, see Table 2 and Table 3.) Table 10 (passive recall) shows that meeting words in texts (T+F condition) 2–3, 4–5, and even 6–7 times was no more effective (not significantly different) than meeting them 2–3 times in T+Fs condition, i.e. once in a text and once or twice in word

Table 7 Number of encounters effect per task: Repeated measures ANOVA results: F-value

Passive recall Passive recognition

T+F: 2–3, 4–5, 6–7 2.77 (2,38)* 1.45 (2,38)**T+Fs: 2–3, 4–5, 6–7 33.91 (2.38)*** 13.40 (2.38)***

Notes: * p = 0.8, n.s., ** p = 0.25, n.s., *** p < 0.0001

Table 8 Number of encounters effect (T+Fs condition): Passive recall: Post-hoc least squares means comparisons

T+Fs 2–3 T+Fs 4–5 T+Fs 6–7

T+Fs 2–3 1* 1.85**T+Fs 4–5 1* 0.85*T+Fs 6–7 1.85** 0.85*

Notes: ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Table 9 Number of encounters effect (T+Fs condition): Passive recognition: Post-hoc least squares means comparisons

T+Fs 2–3 T+Fs 4–5 T+Fs 6–7

T+Fs 2–3 1.35 2.45*T+Fs 4–5 1.35 1.10T+Fs 6–7 2.45* 1.10

Note: * p < .001




Table 10 Post-hoc Tukey mean comparisons of task and ‘number of encounters’ combinations: Passive recall

Passive recall T+F 2–3 T+F 4–5 T+F 6–7 T+Fs 2–3 T+Fs 4–5 T+Fs 6–7

T+F 2–3 0.10 0.50 0.25 1.25*** 2.10***T+F 4–5 0.10 0.40 0.15 1.15*** 2.00***T+F 6–7 0.50 0.40 0.25 0.75* 1.60***T+Fs 2–3 0.25 0.25 1.00** 1.85***T+Fs 4–5 1.25*** 1.15*** 0.75* 1.00** 0.85**T+Fs 6–7 2.10*** 2.00*** 1.60*** 1.85*** 0.85**

Notes: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

exercises. The combination of 4–5 encounters and T+Fs, on the other hand, was more effective than the 4 combinations above. The combination of 6–7 encounters and T+Fs yielded the best results, which were significantly better than the results of all the other five combinations. The picture is slightly different for passive recognition (Table 11). Similarly to recall, four combinations are not different from each other: T+F (2–3, 4–5, 6–7) and T+Fs (2–3). But T+F (6–7), T+Fs (2–3), T+Fs (4–5) are also not different from one another. T+Fs (4–5) and T+Fs (6–7) are not different either. These different result patterns suggest that recall is more affected by small increases in word occurrences and by word focused instruction than recognition.

Figures 3 and 4 provide a graphic summary of the results. We can clearly see that T+Fs fares better than T+F, particularly as the numbers of encounters with words increase. Similarly, research question 1 results showed that, both for recall and for recog-nition, T+Fs was significantly better than T+F with 4–5 and 6–7 word encounters. The graphs also show that an increase in the number of word encounters improves recall and recognition when words are practised in T+Fs. The effect is hardly noticeable in T+F. Similarly, research question 2 results showed that this increase led to significantly higher scores in T+Fs condition, but not in T+F. We can also see that four combinations, all combinations in T+F and T+Fs 2–3 yielded relatively similar results. A noticeable

Table 11 Post-hoc Tukey mean comparisons of task and ‘number of encounters’ combinations: Passive recognition

Passive recognition

T+F 2–3 T+F 4–5 T+F 6–7 T+Fs 2–3 T+Fs 4–5 T+Fs 6–7

T+F 2–3 0.50 0.80 0.6 1.95* 3.05***T+F 4–5 0.50 0.30 0.10 1.45* 2.55***T+F 6–7 0.80 0.30 0.20 1.15 2.25**T+Fs 2–3 0.6 0.10 0.20 1.35 2.45**T+Fs 4–5 1.95* 1.45* 1.15 1.35 1.1T+Fs 6–7 3.05*** 2.55*** 2.25** 2.45** 1.1

Notes: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001




difference occurred when learners met the words at least 4 times, once in text and 3 times in form focused exercises, particularly in the case of recall. This observation is borne out by the results to research question 3.

IV Discussion

The study investigated how well new words were remembered as a result of two factors and their various combinations: two task types and three word occurrence clusters. In

T+F

T+Fs

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2–3 times 4–5 times 6–7 timesNumber of encounters

Mea

n co

rrec

t ans

wer

s

_ _ _

____ T+Fs

T+F

Figure 3 The effect of task type and number of encounters: Passive recall

T+F

T+Fs

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2–3 times 4–5 times 6–7 timesNumber of encounters

Mea

n co

rrec

t ans

wer

s

_ _ _

____

T+F

T+Fs

Figure 4 The effect of task type and number of encounters: Passive recognition




addition, we elicited learners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of these factors for vocab-ulary learning. Altogether we investigated six combinations (2 tasks × 3 number of encounters). Learners encountered 60 target words, 10 in each combination, during a 13-week course of study, and were subsequently tested on them by two unannounced tests: passive recall and passive recognition.

Of the two tasks, T+Fs, was more effective than T+F, except when the words were met 2–3 times. This means that in the case of 2–3 exposures, it does not matter whether learners attend to words by using dictionaries, teacher explanation (as in T+F), or specifi-cally designed word exercises (as in T+Fs).

These results are different from Laufer’s (2006), where practising new words in two word focused activities (FonFs) led to better results than meeting them in a text and look-ing them up in a dictionary (FonF). However, in this study, students were tested immedi-ately after task completion, i.e. on short-term retention of the new vocabulary. In the present study, the tests were administered at the end of a 13-week course. Thus, learners met some of the target words long before they took the tests. Our results suggest that, for long-term retention, the effect of FonFs commences after three activities for recall as T+Fs 4–5 meant that a word appeared once in a text and 3–4 times in exercises. This combination is more effective than meeting the word 6–7 times in a text (T+F 6–7 condi-tion). The latter condition is, in turn, just as effective (or ineffective) as one exercise after a text (T+Fs 2–3). If meeting words in texts 6 or 7 times is worse than meeting them once in a text and then in three exercises, this suggests that the effect of task type is superior to that of frequency of word occurrence.

For recognition, 3–4 exercises were not significantly more effective than 6–7 encoun-ters in texts, although the scores in the former condition were higher (5.25 as opposed to 4.10, out of 10). However, 5–6 exercises (T+Fs 6–7) yielded significantly higher scores. Thus, in the case of recognition, we cannot state that task type is superior to the number of word occurrences, but that T+Fs is superior to T+F when the number of encounters is equal. Even though we acknowledge the importance of partial knowledge of words reflected in passive recognition, we attach more importance to the recall results and sug-gest that teaching methods should ultimately facilitate recall. In real life, when learners need to comprehend spoken or written texts, they are not presented with options of meanings to choose from, but have to recall the specific meanings of words. Since FonFs appears to be particularly effective for recall, we suggest that the non-communicative, partly decontextualized activities characteristic of FonFs are crucial for learners’ future performance of authentic language tasks.

As for the effect of word occurrences, it did not make any difference whether the target words were encountered 2 or 7 times in texts and occasionally looked up in a dic-tionary, i.e. in T+F condition. The lack of difference was observed both in recall and in recognition tests. We cannot say, from this study, how a higher number of encounters would affect learning. But according to Brown et al. (2008), 10–13 word appearances did not lead to higher scores than 6–7 appearances in our study. In their study, 2.86 out of 7 (i.e. 41%) were recognized and 1.39 (i.e. 19%) were recalled. In our study, 4.10 out of 10 (i.e. 41%) were recognized and 1.80 (i.e. 18%) were recalled. Of words that were met 15–20 times in Brown et al., 4.29 out of 7 (i.e. 61%) were recognized and 1.9 (i.e. 27%) were recalled. Although the two studies are not identical in design, they were




conducted with foreign learners not too different in language proficiency. Results of both studies and other studies surveyed in the Background section show that, without a rein-forcement of vocabulary in the form of specifically designed exercises, smaller increases in word appearances may not be very effective for learning.

This is not the case when words appear in additional word focused exercises. Our results show that all the three ‘number of encounters’ conditions were different from each other in the recall test. In the recognition test, an increase from 1–2 to 3–4 exercises (from T+Fs 2–3 to T+Fs 4–5) did not produce a significant difference. An additional increase to 5–6 exercises (to T+Fs 6–7) yielded a higher score, significantly different from T+Fs 2–3, but not significantly different from T+Fs 4–5. Our recognition result in T+Fs 6–7 was 63%, which is close to 61% in Brown et al. (2008) for words that appeared in texts 15–20 times. Our recall result in T+Fs 4–5 was 25.5%, which is close to 27% in Brown et al. for words that appeared 15–20 times in texts.

On the basis of the above results, it seems that the cumulative effect of repeated encounters with new words occurs much earlier in FonFs than in reading + FonF. The value of word focused activities was perceived by students as well. When asked whether these activities helped them to remember new words, 70% chose the options ‘helped me’ and ‘helped me very much’. When asked what helped them remember new words, 60% opted for a combination of exercises and repeated appearances of words, 30% chose exercises, and only 10% chose ‘meeting words repeatedly’. Of the six students who offered opinion on additional vocabulary activities, all recommended writing exercises, which indicates that they intuitively perceive the value of pushed output and a high degree of involvement.

Finally, we would like to suggest a realistic combination of task and number of word encounters in the classroom. As mentioned earlier, a statistically significant effect of word repetitions occurred when words were practised in 3–4 exercises (T+Fs 4–5). The result was an average of 2.55 correctly recalled words out of 10. This may seem too little. However, the result is quite encouraging bearing in mind that learning was incidental, that the tests were given weeks after exposure to the words, and that in Brown et al. (2008) similar vocabulary gains occurred when learners met the words 15–20 times in a text. We believe that any type of reinforcement soon after T+F 4–5 (rather than weeks later) and some intentional learning could improve the result considerably and we invite teachers to experiment with our suggestion.

Notes

1 These were the results for the reading mode only, which is of interest here. The article also investigated word acquisition in listening and reading + listening modes.

2 Target words that appeared two or three times only were inserted later on in the book, together with the third or fourth occurrence of the target words that appeared six or seven times. This was done so that the effect of low number of encounters will not be confounded with the distance from post tests.

3 We adopt Hulstijn’s (2001, 2003) distinction between incidental and intentional learning. Incidental learning is any learning (focused or unfocused) which does not involve the learn-er’s deliberate intention to commit words to memory.




4 Due to a relatively small number of participants (20), prior to the choice of statistics, we performed two tests on the same set of data: the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the parametric dependent t-test. We compared the difference between the two task types in one identical ‘number of encounters’ condition. The results of both tests showed a similar level of significance in the difference between the means. Hence, we chose to use parametric tests.

References

Anderson, J.R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications. 4th edition. New York: Freeman.Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove: Psychology Press.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, 136–63.Cho, K.S. & Krashen, S.D. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids series:

Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37, 662–67.Day, R.R., Omura, K., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading.

Reading in a Foreign Language, 7, 541–51.De la Fuente, J.M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The role of input

and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.

Dupuy, B. & Krashen, S. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 4, 55–63.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.

Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second language acquisition, 21, 285–301.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994) Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–91.

Eysenck, M.W. (1982). Attention and arousal, cognition and performance. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Folse, S.K. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 273–93.

Griffin, G. & Harley, T.A. (1996). List learning of second language vocabulary. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 443–60.

Herman, P.A., Anderson, R.C., Pearson, P.D., & Nagy, W.E. (1987). Incidental acquisition of word meaning from expositions with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 263–84

Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 355–82.

Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207–23.

Huckin, T. & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: A review. Studies in Second Language acquisition, 21, 181–93.

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. 113–25). London: Macmillan.

Hulstijn, J.H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reap-praisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Hulstijn, J.H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–81), Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hulstijn, J.H. & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–58.

Hulstijn, J.H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–39.

Jenkins, J.R., Stein, M.L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 767–87

Keating, G.D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involve-ment load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12, 365–86.

Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 341–70.

Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 285–325.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabu-lary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 285–99.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–64.

Krashen, S. (2008). Language education: Past, present and future. RELC Journal, 39, 178–87.Lahav, Y. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading: ‘Incidental’ and controlled

acquisition compared. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Haifa, Israel.Laufer, B. (1990). Words you know: how they affect the words you learn. In J. Fisiak (Ed.),

Further insights into contrastive linguistics (pp. 573–93). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy? Intralexical factors affecting

the difficulty of vocabulary acquisition. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laufer, B. (2001). Reading, word-focused activities and incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Prospect, 16, 44–54.

Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 567–87.

Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In S.H. Foster-Cohen, M. Garcia-Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook: Volume 5 (pp. 223–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second-language vocabulary learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 149–66.

Laufer B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The con-struct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.

Laufer, B. & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal, 28, 89–108.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Gisbert, & S. Kramsh, (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross- cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Luppescu, S. & Day, R.R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 263–87.

Mason, B. & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25, 91–102.




Mason, B. & Krashen, S. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary instruction worthwhile? RELC Journal, 35, 179–85.

Mondria, J. (2003). The effects of inferring, verifying, and memorizing on the retention of L2 word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 437–99.

Mondria, J. & Wiersma, B. (2004). Receptive, productive and receptive + productive L2 vocabu-lary learning: what difference does it make? In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Nagy, W.E., Herman, P.A., & Anderson R.C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233–53.

Nation, P. & Wang Ming-Tzu, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12, 355–80.

Paribakht, T.S. & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for mean-ing in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second lan-guage vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 20–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, E.N. (2006). Learning second language vocabulary through reading: Three empirical studies into the effect of enhancement. Unpublished dissertation, The Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

Peters, E., Hulstijn, J.H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59, 113–51.

Pigada, M. & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18, 1–28.

Pitts, M., White, H. & Krashen, S. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading: A replication of the clockwork orange study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign language, 5, 271–75.

Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 478–93.

Qian, D.D. (1996). ESL vocabulary acquisition: Contextualization and decontextualization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 120–42.

Saragi, T., Nation, I.S.P., & Meister, G.F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System, 6, 72–8.Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied lin-

guistics. AILA Review, 11(special issue), 11–26.Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and com-

prehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Waring, R. (1997). A study of receptive and productive learning from word cards. Studies in Foreign Languages and Literature, 21, 94–114. Retrieved from: http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/wordcard.html (May 2011).

Waring R. and Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130–60.

Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.

Webb, S. (2007a). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28, 46–65.Webb, S. (2007b). Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: the effects of a single context on

vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 11, 63–81.Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of fre-

quency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 541–72.



Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: the effects of Task Type, Word Occurrence and Their Combination

Documents

Transcript of Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: the effects of Task Type, Word Occurrence and Their Combination