Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition

Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionariesin incidental vocabulary acquisition

MONICA HILL AND BATIA LAUFER

IRAL 41 (2003), 87–106 0019042X/2003/041-087c©Walter de Gruyter

Abstract

A computer-based study compared the effect of three task types on incidental L2vocabulary learning, on task-induced amount of dictionary activity and time-on-task. Ninety-six Chinese ESL students read a text containing twelve unfamil-iar target items and performed one of the three tasks: a form-oriented produc-tion task, a form-oriented comprehension task or a meaning-oriented task. Thetext was presented on computer and the words could be looked up in electronicglosses. The results of immediate and delayed vocabulary tests showed thatthe two form-oriented tasks yielded better results than the meaning-orientedtask. There was no significant difference in time-on-task, but there was a sig-nificant difference in the amount of dictionary activity the tasks generated. Weconcluded, therefore, that an important factor determining task effectivenessfor vocabulary learning is the amount of word-related activity that the taskinduces.

1. Background

1.1. Vocabulary learning during reading

One of the contentious issues in second language vocabulary learning is the ex-tent to which the exposure to written language input is an effective and efficientmeans of learning vocabulary. Researchers of reading and L1 vocabulary haveshown that with an estimated vocabulary of 5,000 words on entry to primaryschool, native speakers quickly increase their word power by around 1,000words per year (Nagy 1997; Saragi et al. 1978). Since learners are delugedwith written texts, especially from high school onwards, increase in vocabu-lary has been attributed to extensive reading. By entry to university, Goulden etal. (1990) suggest that the vocabulary size of educated adults is around 20,000word families. Indeed such gains in vocabulary could not be accounted for bydirect vocabulary acquisition (Nagy et al. 1985; Nation and Coady 1988).

Brought to you by | University of HaifaAuthenticated | 132.74.95.21

Download Date | 4/29/14 10:57 AM

88 Monica Hill and Batia Laufer

In a second language, however, research on vocabulary growth and ulti-mate attainment presents a totally different picture. In many countries, theaverage vocabulary size of L2 learners, graduates of high school and univer-sity students of English as a Foreign Language, ranges between 1,500 and4,000 word families (Laufer 2000). Can we, in all certainty, claim that thisvocabulary has been acquired mainly through reading? Studies on vocabularyacquisition from reading (without any enhancement tasks) show that pick uprates of unfamiliar words range from 1–5 words in a text of over 1,000 words(Zahar et al. 2001; Luppescu and Day 1993; Hulstijn 1992; Knight 1994;Paribakht and Wesche 1993). Similar gains occur during reading books. InHorst et al.’s (1998) experiment, an average of five words were gained fromthe reading of a simplified version of The Mayor of Casterbridge, a text of21,000 words. Lahav (1996) conducted a study with students who read foursimplified readers, each one of about 20,000 words, and found an averagelearning rate of 3–4 words per book. At this rate of growth, a second lan-guage learner would have to read in excess of eight million words of texts,1

or about 420 novels to increase their vocabulary by 2,000 words. This wouldappear to be a daunting and time consuming means of vocabulary develop-ment. It is therefore reasonable that L2 learners acquire their vocabulary notonly from input, be it reading or listening, but also through word-focused ac-tivities.

1.2. Vocabulary learning during reading supplemented with word-focusedactivities

The simplest form of giving prominence to new words is by using graphic de-vices such as different font or color. Highlighted hyperlinks were shown to in-cite readers to click on these words in order to search their meanings. However,this increased clicking did not increase the vocabulary learned incidentally (DeRidder 2002).

One of the most common word-focused activities used during reading isconsulting a gloss or a dictionary. Glosses and dictionaries are used by learnersto facilitate comprehension, but their use can contribute to small incrementsin vocabulary learning as well (Chun and Plass 1996, 1997; Lyman-Hager andDavis 1996; Lyman-Hager et al. 1993; Watanabe 1997). For example, Lup-pescu and Day (1993) found that students using a dictionary during readinggained higher scores on a post test than those who did not, and Knight (1994)found that learners of Spanish using an electronic dictionary recalled signifi-cantly more words in both immediate and delayed recall and in a comprehen-sion activity than learners who had no access to a dictionary. If we compare thetwo, glosses and dictionary use, the latter is usually more effective (Hulstijn etal. 1996; Laufer 2000).



Incidental vocabulary acquisition 89

In addition to glosses and dictionaries (paper and electronic), a variety ofreading-related vocabulary tasks has been investigated in connection with vo-cabulary learning. Thus, Hulstijn (1992) added a multiple choice exercise re-quiring the student to select the appropriate meaning of the new word encoun-tered in a text. This task proved more efficient for retention of the practicedword than a traditional gloss for the same word or no gloss at all. Paribakhtand Wesche (1997) compared learners in the ‘reading only’ condition withlearners in the ‘reading plus’ condition. In the latter, the task consisted of read-ing a text and doing a range of vocabulary exercises based on the text. The‘reading plus’ group acquired significantly more words than the ‘reading only’group. Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) produced a gapped text, deleting ten wordsthat were unfamiliar to the subjects. The explanation of these words was pro-vided on a separate sheet. The subjects had to read the text and to insert thenew words into it. When tested unexpectedly on the recall of these words, thelearners attained higher scores than another group that read a non-gapped ver-sion of the text and had marginal glosses of the new words. Laufer (2001)compared three groups: a group which read a text and looked up new wordsin a dictionary, a group which read the same text and wrote sentences withthe target words, and a group that was given a list of the target words andwas asked to look them up and write sentences with them (without readingthe text). When tested on the retention of the target words, the reading groupwas significantly worse than the other two. Interestingly, the reading + sen-tence writing group was the best on the immediate test, but it was not dif-ferent from the ‘sentence only’ group on the delayed recall test, suggestingthat the additional value of reading a text did not make much difference toretention when sentences had been written with the new words. The implica-tion of this result is that a word-focused task, such as writing a sentence, ismore beneficial than a receptive awareness of these words induced by read-ing.

1.3. Task effectiveness and dictionary activity

All the studies cited in Section 1.2 show that words are retained better if, inaddition to reading, a word-focused task is performed. The reason for this isthe attention to the word which is required of the learner during a word-basedactivity. Psychologists and L2 vocabulary researchers believe that the moreindividuals pay careful attention to various aspects of words, and the more theyform rich and numerous associations with existing knowledge (e.g., in the formof establishing similarities and contrasts between old and new information),the higher the chances are that the new information will be retained (Anderson1995; Baddeley 1997). In the case of vocabulary, this means that if learnerspay careful attention to the word’s pronunciation, orthography, grammatical




category, meaning and semantic relations to other words, they are more likelyto retain the word than if they pay attention to only one or two of the aboveword properties. Such attention may not be necessary during a ‘reading only’task whose aim is global understanding of the text, but it is essential when thefocus of a task is vocabulary.

It is not difficult to conclude that reading together with vocabulary tasksis better for word learning than reading without vocabulary tasks. The ques-tion is whether some tasks are better than other tasks when they accompanyreading. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) point out that task superiority is justifiedby researchers in terms which defy a simple definition and operationalization:deep processing, elaboration, cognitive effort. They propose a motivational-cognitive construct of ‘involvement’ which can be operationalized into spe-cific tasks. The involvement load of a task depends on the presence or ab-sence of three components: need (whether the word is needed for the task),search (whether the meaning is given or searched by the learner), and evalu-ation (which entails a comparison of a given word with other words, or com-bining the word with other words in order to assess whether a word does ordoes not fit its context). If we want to predict task effectiveness, the higher theinvolvement load, the more effective the task.

We would like to follow a similar line of thought and claim that the moreoperations learners perform on a word, the better their retention will be. Wesuggest that, during reading, such operations may take the form of dictionaryactivity. Some evidence that the amount of dictionary activity is related to re-tention is found in Laufer and Hill (2000). They found that learners who usedL1 translations for new words together with L2 definitions during a readingtask, achieved the best scores on an unexpected vocabulary retention test. Wedefine dictionary activity as the number of all selections at all stages of reading.For example, a learner looks up a new word in her native language, then decidesto click on its definition in English. Two minutes later, she decides to return tothis word and clicks on its L1 translation again. The dictionary activity indexfor this word, as expressed in the number of clicks, is three. Another learnerlooks up the word in L1, then clicks on the ‘listen’ button to hear its sound,then looks up its L2 definition and never returns to the word. The student’sdictionary activity index for the word is three as well. Dictionary activity canbe observed and measured if specially designed computer programs are used.(We will describe such a program in Section 2.3.4.)

If the amount of dictionary activity is related to learning, then the more ac-tivity a task induces, the more effective it should be for word learning. Whetherthis is so is an empirical question which we will address in our study in Section2. Suffice it to say, at this stage, that the tasks we will describe in Section 2.3.3were intended to provoke a different amount of dictionary use.




1.4. Time-on-task or type of task?

An important question related to task effectiveness is whether it is the nature ofthe task that induces effective learning, or the time learners spend on it. A moredemanding task is usually more time consuming. For example, in Hulstijn andLaufer (2001), writing a composition using the target words took longer thanfilling in the target words in sentences. The composition tasks yielded betterretention scores, but the question is whether the better results were due to thetype of task, or time-on-task. The researchers claimed that the fact that the com-position took longer than the fill-in task does not necessarily mean that moretime was devoted to the target words. They distinguish between time-on-taskand time-on-target items. For example, a learner may have spent fifty minuteson the task of writing a composition, but only fifteen minutes on checkingthe use of the target words and incorporating them in the composition. Hence,time-on-task and time-on-target items are different.

Similarly, in Ellis (1995), interactionally modified input, i.e., input that in-cluded clarifications, resulted in more words that were learnt than pre-modifiedinput (input prepared on the basis of prior student interaction before the experi-mental task). In the latter case, however, more words were acquired per minute.The basic question of what leads to better learning – type of task, or time-on-task – has not been answered yet.

2. The study

2.1. Aim

The aim of the study was twofold. Our first aim was to explore the differenteffects that message-oriented and form-oriented tasks might have on the reten-tion of unfamiliar words which were encountered during reading. Our secondaim was to attempt to characterize each task in terms of the dictionary activ-ity it provoked, as well as the time required for its completion. Following thediscussion in section 1, we assumed that retention of new target words woulddepend on what was done with them, i.e., the type of dictionary activity. How-ever, we did not dismiss the possibility that different retention results couldbe contingent upon the different amount of time spent on each task. Our objec-tives were therefore to find out whether task type affected incidental vocabularyacquisition and, if it did, to explain why such effect occurred.

2.2. Subjects

Initially, 128 subjects took part in the experiment. All the subjects were en-rolled on English enhancement courses in the English Centre at the Universityof Hong Kong. They were all young adults about twenty years old, most ofwhom had been educated locally. All were second language learners of English




whose mother tongue is Cantonese or Mandarin. While the medium of instruc-tion at their secondary schools is officially English, few students speak Englishoutside of the classroom and so their use of L2 is slight and their vocabularyis relatively low. The minimum level of English for entry to the University ofHong Kong is grade D in the Use of English A level exam, roughly equivalentto a TOEFL score of about 550. The subjects were all of a similar proficiency,between grades C and D.

Of the original cohort, the data from thirty-two subjects were excluded for avariety of reasons, including knowledge of more than one of the target wordsand being absent for the post-test. The final sample size was ninety-six. All thesubjects were familiar with the use of a computer and a mouse as IT proficiencyis considered part of their academic study. Subjects were randomly assignedone of the investigated tasks.

2.3. Materials

2.3.1. Reading passage. In looking for the reading passage, it was consid-ered necessary to ensure that the text was of an appropriate level of difficultywith a lexical density that would allow general comprehension but encouragethe subjects to exploit the computer dictionary resources provided to help themfully understand the text. Finding a suitable text proved extremely difficult andso a short passage of 165 words was written for the purpose of the experiment.Since the text was presented on a computer screen, its text length was restrictedby the size of the computer screen and font size so that it would fit the screenwithout requiring the reader to scroll up and down.

As the purpose was to stimulate vocabulary retention following the use ofcomputer dictionary resources, careful consideration was given to the lengthand density of unknown vocabulary in the text. Laufer (1992) suggests that aminimum of 95 % of the words in a text need to be known for any reason-able chance of guessing the meaning of unknown words from context to occur.Hu and Nation (2000) suggest that the learner may reach an adequate com-prehension level of a text at a density of 98 % familiar vocabulary, but that inintensive reading of short passages, less than 95 % coverage may be suitablefor developing language and the use of reading strategies. The text used in thestudy (see Appendix), therefore included 93 % of words which we assumed(and later verified) were familiar to the learners. This density was regarded asbeing an appropriate level to enable the learners to be sufficiently challengedso as to want to use the computer dictionary resources.

2.3.2. Target words. The text contained twelve words, of which four werenouns, four adjectives and four verbs, that were unlikely to be familiar to thesubjects. This was verified in a pilot test in which twenty students of a similar




English proficiency who did not participate in the experiment were asked to un-derline any words in the passage whose meaning they did not know. The twelvetarget words were the only words that were underlined. They were: indigenous(adj), arduous (adj), affability (n), itinerary (n), saunter (v), boisterous (adj),squander (v), weave (v), stunning (adj), remuneration (n), dusk (n) and toil (v).They were highlighted in the text on the screen.

2.3.3. Tasks. We investigated three tasks. Each task required the subjects toattend to each of the twelve target words in a different manner. The tasks them-selves were presented on paper. The information necessary for the completionof the task was on the computer screen.

In Task 1, the learner was required to answer twelve yes/no comprehensionquestions, each question on a different portion of the text containing one targetword. Example (1) is an example of a Task 1 question and the sentence inwhich the answer is found.

(1) Have the villagers of Sofa moved there from nearby towns? (yes/no)The Nanu region is famous for its wonderful scenery, ancient templesand, above all, the indigenous people of Sofa.

The target word ‘indigenous’ had to be understood in order to answer the ques-tion correctly. But the task does not require the learner to do anything with theword. It draws the learner’s attention to the entire sentence. Hence, we refer tothis task as message-oriented.

In Task 2, the target word appeared on the screen and the learners had toselect its meaning from four options. The options were high frequency wordslikely to be familiar to the learners. Example (2) illustrates this task:

(2) Underline the correct answer:indigenous means in line 2a) quiet b) dependent on c) originating in d) shy

In this task, attention is drawn to the word itself, rather than to the contextsurrounding it. The word is provided by the researchers and the learner hasto demonstrate comprehension of it. Hence, we refer to this task as a form-oriented comprehension task.

In Task 3, a synonym or paraphrase of the practiced word was providedand the learners had to select its corresponding word form from four optionswhich consisted of the correct target word and three distractors selected fromthe twelve target words. Example (3) illustrates the task:

(3) Which word means ‘friendly nature’?a) indigenous b) toil c) affability d) remuneration




Figure 1. Selection of ‘affability’ and its English meaning

In Task 3, attention is drawn to the word itself. But, unlike in Task 2, the searchperformed by the learner is not for the meaning of a given word, but for theword itself. Hence, we refer to this task as a form-oriented production task.It may be claimed that since nothing is ‘produced’ (said or written) by thelearner, the term ‘production’ may be inadequate. Yet productive knowledgeis defined by Nation (2001: 359) as “that used in speaking and writing, and(which) involves going from the meaning to the word form”. Nation arguesthat productive knowledge can be checked by a recall task where the targetword has to be recalled, as in translating a word from L1 into L2, or by arecognition task where the target word has to be recognized and selected fromseveral options. Our Task 3 is, therefore, a productive recognition task.

2.3.4. Computer program. The study was made possible by a computer pro-gram designed specially for it. The text was reproduced in a program created inMacromedia’s Authorware. Each subject is logged in by name. At the side ofthe text are four buttons, each of which provides a source of information aboutthe target words. The line along the bottom of the screen is the timer. If thesubject selects affability and checks its meaning in English, the information inFigure 1 will appear.




Figure 2. Selection of ‘affability’ and its Chinese meaning

The translation is given when Chinese Meaning is selected (Figure 2).Extra dictionary information includes, as shown in Figure 3, the part of

speech, the preposition that follows a verb and an example of the use of theword in a new context.

Hear Word can be clicked on to hear the pronunciation of the word.When the subject has completed the task, he or she clicks on Done and the

timer notes the time taken to complete the task. The last, and perhaps the mostimportant, data appear in the results screen shown in Table 1. Each student’slook-up behavior is recorded by the computer. In the example in Table 1, thesubject has selected mainly the English meanings, but has also listened to thepronunciation of four items and checked extra information on squander. Thecolumn showing times selected shows the number of times the subject selectedinformation on the word. Chappelle (2001) notes that this use of IT in researchcan provide valuable data on language learning.

2.4. Research questions

The specific research questions were as follows:1. Do learners acquire different numbers of words following the completion of

different tasks:




Figure 3. Extra information on ‘squander’

a. as reflected in the results of an immediate test, andb. as reflected in the results of a delayed test?

2. Is there a difference between the tasks in the time learners spend on taskcompletion?

3. Is there a difference between the tasks in the dictionary activity they pro-voke:a. as reflected in the number of clicks on the target words, andb. as reflected in the type of dictionary information?

2.5. Procedure

The subjects were asked to come for individual tutorials of about fifteen min-utes. The study was conducted in five stages.1. Pre-test: A pre-test was administered in which the twelve words were listed

in alphabetical order and subjects were asked to give the meanings of anywords they knew in English or Chinese. The sheets were collected for sub-sequent analysis.

2. Reading for general meaning: Each subject was then asked to read the text(on paper) and try to understand the general meaning. All the target words




Table 1. Look-ups recorded in the computer log

Student Name: Chan, Mary Faculty: Arts

Word English Hear Word Chinese Extra Info TimesMeaning Meaning selected

indigenous 1 1 0 0 2arduous 0 1 0 0 1affability 1 0 1 0 2itinerary 0 1 1 0 2sauntered 1 0 0 0 1boisterous 1 1 0 0 1squander 1 0 0 1 1weave 1 0 0 0 1stunning 1 0 1 0 2remuneration 1 0 1 0 2dusk 1 0 0 0 1toil 1 0 0 0 1

appeared in text context and were in bold font. This stage was introducedinto the study in order to avoid too many look-ups for general comprehen-sion, during the task, as opposed to look-ups which were provoked by thetask.

3. Task performance: After a couple of minutes the subject was invited to sitat the computer where the same text was shown on the screen, together withinformation that would help the student complete their task. Subjects wererandomly assigned one of the three tasks and given the following instruc-tions:Information is available on the screen to help you complete the task. If youwould like to know more about any of the words, just select the word withthe mouse, then click on whichever information you want: English meaning,Chinese translation, pronunciation or extra information that you would findin a dictionary. You have ten minutes to complete the task.

4. Immediate post test: Once the task was completed, the sheet was collectedand the subject was asked unexpectedly to give the meaning of each wordeither in English or Chinese. Hence incidental acquisition of vocabulary isoperationalized in the study as the ability to recall the word’s meaning in L1or L2.

5. Delayed post-test: The test above was repeated a week later in class withoutany warning.




2.6. Data analysis

The sources of our data were the pre-test, the two post-tests and the students’personal log files.

Each word, whether translated, explained, or left unanswered on the pre- andpost-tests, was scored dichotomously. A score of 0 was given for an incorrect ornot attempted answer and a score of 1 was given for a correct answer. Spellingand minor grammatical errors were disregarded as the primary focus was on theability to recall the meaning of the word. For example for affability, the answerfriendly was accepted. However, for weave, the response making clothes wasnot accepted as it was not sufficiently close to the explanation provided in theprogram: to make threads into material, to twist or bind.

The function of the pre-test was twofold: to exclude students who knew morethan one target word and to adjust some scores for pre-knowledge of one word.The test scores of subjects who knew one word (most frequently remunerationin true Hong Kong style) were adjusted accordingly by converting their scoreout of 11 (instead of 12) to a percentage grade2.

The immediate and the delayed post-tests provided data on incidental learn-ing of the target words. The maximum raw score on each of the tests could betwelve, if all twelve target words had been retained.

The individual log files provided us with the following information: timespent on the task and dictionary activity. Dictionary activity included all thedictionary selections for each word.

All the data were arranged in two databases. One database contained thestudents’ ID, task type code, pre-test score, immediate post-test score, delayedpost-test score. The other database was arranged by student and showed infor-mation about every single word looked up: dictionary activity that the wordinduced and whether the word was retained or not on the two post tests. Thedatabase also included the student’s ID and task code he or she was assigned to.Example (4) shows a database for the target word affability. The other eleventarget words are listed with their various look-ups in a similar way.

(4)Subject Task IR DR Affability Affability Affability Affability TimeID type score score English Hear Chinese Extra on

Meaning Word Meaning Info task

The data collected allowed us to compare tasks on students’ word recall, onthe amount and type of dictionary activity, and on time-on-task.




3. Results

3.1. The first research question

Our first research question addressed the effect of each task on word learning,as reflected in the results of an immediate and delayed test.

Tables 2a and 2b present immediate and delayed recall scores in percentage.The difference between the tasks was measured by one way ANOVA.

Tables 2a and 2b show that Task 3 yielded the highest sores in both the im-mediate and delayed recall tests, followed by Task 2, while Task 1 yielded thelowest scores. The differences between the three tasks were significant in bothtests. A post hoc analysis (Tukey Kramer Multiple comparisons test) showedthat, in immediate recall, Task 1 was significantly less effective than Task 2(p < 0.01)and Task 3 (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference betweenthe means of Tasks 2 and 3. In delayed recall, Task 1 yielded significantly lowerscores than Task 3 (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between theother tasks.

3.2. The second research question

The second research question focused on whether there was a difference be-tween the time taken by the learners to complete the tasks.

The log noted how long each subject spent on completion of the task andthe mean was 5.5 minutes out of a maximum of ten minutes permitted. Table 3presents time-on-task results in minutes.

Table 2a. Task effect on immediate recall

Task Test score Mean (%) Test score S.D.

Task 1 (n=32) 42 22.7Task 2 (n=33) 62.2 24.3Task 3 (n=31) 71.9 22.3

Difference F (2,93) = 13.4 p < 0.001

Table 2b. Task effect on delayed recall

Task Test score Mean (%) Test score S.D.

Task 1 (n= 32) 29.4 20.4Task 2 (n=33) 37.9 21.1Task 3 (n=31) 45.3 24.3

Difference F (2,93) = 4.12 p < 0.05




Table 3. Time spent on each task

Task Minutes Mean S.D.

Task 1 (n=32) 5.23 1.71Task 2 (n=33) 5.62 1.89Task 3 (n=31) 5.62 1.92

Difference F (2,93) = 0.47, not significant

Table 4. Dictionary activity by task

Dictionary information Task 1 Task 2 Task 3n=32 n=33 n=31

English Meaning 7.1 11.9 6.9Hear Word 2 6.6 5.2Chinese Meaning 5.6 3.6 10.3Extra Info 0.9 0.4 0.6Mean total clicks 15.5 22.5 23

One way ANOVA comparing mean times (in minutes) spent on the tasksshowed that there was no significant difference between the time required forcompleting the tasks. Hence, the difference in the nature of the task did notresult in difference in time-on-task3.

3.3. The third research question

The third research question examined the amount of dictionary activity pro-voked by each task, as reflected in the number of clicks on the target words,and in the type of dictionary information sought.

Table 4 presents dictionary look-up activity by task. Each figure representsthe mean number of clicks per student on particular dictionary information,over all twelve words. The bottom row sums up the mean number of clicks perstudent. All the figures are higher than twelve, which is the number of targetwords. This means that, for some words, the learners looked up more than oneitem of dictionary information. Interestingly, out of the thirty-two learners whoknew one word on the pre-test, eleven learners looked up the ‘known’ wordanyway during the task.

Table 4 shows that Task 1 generated a lower number of clicks than Tasks 2and 3. We compared the three tasks on dictionary activity by ANOVA andfound that the difference between them was significant (F [2,93] = 3.45 p <0.05). A post hoc analysis (Dunn’s multiple comparisons test) showed that




there were significant differences between Task 1 and Task 2 (p < .05) andbetween Task 1 and Task 3 (p < .05). There was no significant difference be-tween Tasks 2 and 3.4

With regard to the type of information selected, we can see that in Task 3,the majority of look-ups were translation of the target word. In the two othertasks, students preferred to look up the English explanation of the words.

4. Discussion

In this article we examined incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading atext and performing a task which required some focus on unfamiliar words inthe text. (Acquisition was defined as recall of the word’s meaning.) In each task,learners had to look up unfamiliar target words in an electronic dictionary. Ourresults show that all three tasks led to some vocabulary learning. This finding isnot new. It is similar to the findings of other studies, which showed that learn-ers who read a text and perform a task which requires some operations on thenew words, including looking up the words in a dictionary, will consequentlyremember some of these words. To use Laufer and Hulstijn’s (2001) involve-ment model as an explanation of this finding, all three tasks were effectivesince they had the component of ‘search’ in them, one of the three componentsof involvement which are presumed to aid learning.

However, the aim of the paper was to go beyond mere demonstration ofacquisition. The question we raised was whether message-oriented and form-oriented tasks differed in their effectiveness on vocabulary acquisition. To thiseffect, we compared three tasks: a message-oriented task (Task 1), a form-oriented comprehension task (Task 2), and a form-oriented production task(Task 3). The two form-oriented tasks resulted in a higher number of acquiredwords. Task 1 (the meaning-oriented task) proved to be the least effective. Ityielded significantly lower vocabulary scores than Tasks 2 and 3 on the imme-diate recall test. On the delayed recall test, even though Task 1 was significantlydifferent from Task 3 but not Task 2, the higher scores on Task 2 suggest thatwith larger samples the difference between the two might have reached signif-icance.

The two form-oriented tasks were more effective, but why weren’t they dif-ferent from each other? A possible reason for the lack of significant differencebetween Task 2 and 3 may lie in the nature of our post-tests. In these tests werequired the learner to recall the meaning of the target word. Similarly, Task2 consisted of finding the meaning for each target word. Task 3, on the otherhand, was more demanding in that it required selecting the target word formfor a given meaning. A more demanding test which would ask the learner to re-call the target word for a given translation or paraphrase, might have producedlarger differences between the two tasks, showing Task 3 to be even better than




in our results. Even though we did not demonstrate this claim in our study, weshowed the superiority of form-oriented tasks.

How can we explain the difference in task effectiveness? Our initial assump-tion was that these differences could be accounted for by the different amountsof dictionary activity that each task induced. The amount of dictionary activitywas defined as the number of look-ups, or clicks, which a student performedduring the task and which were registered in the individual log files. Compari-son of the three tasks on the number of look-ups showed that there were indeeddifferences in dictionary activity. Task 1, which yielded the lowest acquisitionscores, induced the lowest dictionary activity. Tasks 2 and 3, the form-orientedtasks which proved more effective than Task 1, induced significantly more dic-tionary activity than Task 1, the message-oriented task. This supports Lauferand Hill’s (2000) study which found that students who looked up English tar-get words in English and in their L1 did better than those who looked themup in one language only. In other words, subjects who engaged in more dictio-nary activity did better. Furthermore, the increased dictionary activity includeda more frequent use of the Hear button, thereby providing auditory reinforce-ment. It is possible that this additional dimension of activity contributed to thesuperiority of Tasks 2 and 3.5

The weakness of Laufer and Hill (2000) was in the lack of control for theprecise time-on-task. Even though there was a time limit of ten minutes, manystudents finished earlier. It could be argued that what led to better learning wasnot the type of information looked up, or the amount of dictionary activity, butsimply the larger amount of time which the students with better vocabularylearning results spent on the target words. One aim of the present study was tocheck whether a different amount of time was required to complete the tasksunder investigation. We found that there was no significant difference in thetime spent on the three tasks. Therefore, the different acquisition scores whichwe found could not possibly be attributed to time-on-task. Hence, we concludethat the type of task, form-oriented rather than message-oriented, accounted forbetter acquisition results. The reason for this effectiveness probably lies in theincreased dictionary activity that they induce.

It may seem strange that learners with more dictionary look-ups completedthe task in the same amount of time as learners with fewer look-ups. We cannotknow for sure why this was so, but we can suggest a possible explanation.Task 1, the meaning-oriented task, consisted of comprehension questions andrequired the learner to focus not only on the target word, but on the sentence,or sentences in which the answer to the question could be found. Thus, part ofthe time-on-task was devoted to decoding the message of the sentences. Thetime spent on the target items was lower, as shown by the significantly lowerdictionary activity. Tasks 2 and 3 required more time than Task 1 for the actualtarget words. Therefore the three tasks were similar in the overall time required




to complete each task, but the time in Task 1 was distributed differently thanin Tasks 2 and 3. We do not contest the position that learning is related to theamount of time spent on what is being learnt. We contend, however, that thetime which contributes towards learning is not time spent on the task, but timespent on the target item.

Why did the tasks we assigned induce different amounts and types of dic-tionary activity? The answers to questions in Task 1 required understandingof the target words, but no direct questions were asked about their meaning.Therefore learners may have remained satisfied with superficial understandingof these words, reflected in one click on translation or explanation in L2, orthey may even have tried to guess some words without looking them up aslong as they felt they provided a correct answer to the comprehension ques-tions. In Task 2, the learners were specifically required to provide the correctmeaning of the target word selecting it from four options which consisted ofhigh frequency familiar words. It was only sensible to check the electronic dic-tionary for the meaning of the target word. Since the options were given inEnglish, most look-ups revealed a search for the English explanation of theword. In Task 3, the learners had to match a familiar word with a target wordwhich appeared together with three other target words. Since the four optionswere target words, i.e., new unfamiliar words, learners had to look up eachoption. Differentiating between four new words is more demanding than se-lecting the correct meaning for one new word (Task 2). This demanding natureof the task may account for the large number of L1 look-ups. Learners had tobe certain about the meaning of each new word and therefore resorted to themother tongue equivalent. The higher number of look-ups, auditory reinforce-ment and search for the precise meaning is probably what made Tasks 2 and 3more effective in learning the new words than Task 1.

5. Conclusion

The two objectives of the study were to find out whether task type affectedincidental vocabulary acquisition and, if it did, to explain why such effect oc-curred. Specifically, we compared three tasks: a message-oriented task, a form-oriented comprehension task and a form-oriented production task. The compar-isons were of the number of words learnt after the completion of each task, ofthe time that the tasks took to complete, and of the dictionary activity the tasksinduced. We found that the two form-oriented tasks were more effective for vo-cabulary learning than the meaning-oriented task. The production task yieldedthe best results. There was no significant difference in the time that was neces-sary to complete the tasks. Hence the different effectiveness of the tasks couldnot be attributed to time-on-task. The tasks were different in the amount of dic-tionary activity they provoked. The order in effectiveness (Task 1 – the worst,




Task 3 – the best) was the same as the order in the dictionary activity. Task 1provoked the lowest activity and Task 3 the highest. We conclude, therefore,that an important factor determining task effectiveness for vocabulary learningis the amount of word-related activity that the task induces.

University of Hong Kong�[email protected]�University of Haifa

�[email protected]�

Appendix

Text

The Nanu region is famous for its wonderful scenery, ancient temples and,above all, the indigenous people of Sofa. In their remote village, reached afteran arduous and dusty drive, live the Sofans, with their welcoming smiles andwarm affability. Few visitors, however, make this trip as it is not on the normalitinerary of most tour groups.

As I sauntered through the village, I stopped for a few moments on a bridgeto watch the boisterous children splashing each other with water. School hoursare short here and many of the teenagers seem to squander their daylight hoursriding around the square on noisy old motorcycles.

Groups of local women spend their days weaving coloured silk into stun-ning fabrics. Their remuneration is only a few dollars although they may haveworked for several days to create each one. As dusk approaches, the men re-turn from the fields where they have been toiling all day, hungry and ready fora quiet evening with their families.

Notes

1. A novel of simplified English of 20,000 words is a rather short novel, but foreignlanguage learners can hardly be expected to read long authentic novels, or nonfic-tion material before they have reached the vocabulary size of at least 5,000 wordfamilies, or 8,000 lexical items (Laufer 1992).

2. In Task 1, 8 out of 32 students knew one word. In Task 2, 8 out of 33 knew oneword, and in Task 3, 16 out of 31 knew one word.

3. The fact that some students knew one of the twelve target words did not affect theresults. We compared the mean time-on-task of all the students who knew one wordand those who did not know any of the words. The mean difference was 0.13 andwas found not to be significant: T (two tailed, df 94) = 0.33, p=0.74. Similarly, therewas no significant difference between the standard deviations of the two groups (F= 1.32, p=0.17).

4. The fact that some students knew one of the twelve target words did not affect theresults. We compared the mean number of clicks of all the students who knew one




word and those who did not know any of the words. The mean difference was 3.06and was found not to be significant: T (two tailed, df 94) = 1.19, p=0.24. Simi-larly, there was no significant difference between the standard deviations of the twogroups (F = 1.49, p=0.09).

5. Previous research on Chinese L2 learners has shown that hearing the pronunciationof an unfamiliar word on first presentation can help them to learn the word (Hill1999).

References

Anderson, John R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (Fourth edition). New York:Freeman.

Baddeley, Alan D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and Practice (Revised edition). Hove, UK:Psychology Press.

Chappelle, Carol (2001). The attraction of technology. Paper presented at the American Associa-tion of Applied Linguistics conference, Applied Linguistics for the 21st Century, 24 February2001, St Louis, Missouri, USA.

Chun, Dorothy M. and Jan L. Plass (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary ac-quisition. The Modern Language Journal 80: 183–198.

— (1997). Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learningand Technology 1: 60–81.

De Ridder, Isabelle (2002). Visible or invisible links: Does the highlighting of hyperlinks affect in-cidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language Learn-ing and Technology 6: 123–146.

Ellis, Rod (1995). Modified input and the acquisition of word meaning. Applied Linguistics 16:409–441.

Goulden, Robin, Paul Nation, and John Read (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be?Applied Linguistics 11: 341–363.

Hill, Monica (1999). English vocabulary learning by Chinese students: How can phonology help?Paper presented at the AILA Congress, August 1999, Tokyo.

Horst, Marlise, Tom Cobb, and Paul Meara (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring secondlanguage vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language 11: 207–223.

Hu, Marcella and Paul Nation (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading ina Foreign Language 13: 403–430.

Hulstijn, Jan H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidentalvocabulary learning. In Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, Pierre J. L. Arnaud and HenriBéjoint (eds.), 113–125. London: Macmillan.

Hulstijn, Jan H., Merel Hollander, and Tine Greidanus (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning byadvanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, andreoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal 80: 327–339.

Hulstijn, Jan H. and Batia Laufer (2001). Some empirical evidence for the Involvement LoadHypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning 51: 539–558.

Knight, Susan M. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vo-cabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal 78:285–299.

Lahav, Yehudit (1996). Vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading: ‘Incidental’ and con-trolled acquisition compared. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Haifa.

Laufer, Batia (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In Vocabularyand Applied Linguistics, Pierre J. L. Arnaud and Henri Béjoint (eds.), 126–132. London:Macmillan.




— (2000). Electronic dictionaries and incidental vocabulary acquisition: Does technology makea difference? In EURALEX, Ulrich Heid, Stefan Evert, Egbert Lehmann, and Christian Rohrer(eds.), 849–854. Stuttgart: Stuttgart University.

— (2001). Reading, word-focused activities and incidental vocabulary acquisition in a secondlanguage. Prospect 16 (3): 44–54.

Laufer, Batia and Monica Hill (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALLdictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning and Technology 3 (2):58–76.

Laufer, Batia and Jan H. Hulstijn (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language:The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics 22: 1–26.

Luppescu, Stuart and Richard R. Day (1993). Reading, dictionaries and vocabulary learning. Lan-guage Learning 43: 263–287.

Lyman-Hager, Mary-Ann and James Davis (1996). The case for computer-mediated reading: Unevie de boy. The French Review 69: 775–790.

Lyman-Hager, Mary-Ann, James Davis, Joanne Burnett, and R. Chennault (1993). Une vie deboy: Interactive reading in French. In Proceedings of the CALICO 1993 annual symposiumon ‘assessment’, F. L. Borchardt and E. M. T. Johnson (eds.), 93–97. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity.

Nagy, William E. (1997). On the role of context in first and second language vocabulary learning. InVocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Norbert Schmitt and Michael McCarthy(eds.), 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nagy, William E., Patricia A. Herman, and Richard C. Anderson (1985). Learning words fromcontext. Reading Research Quarterly 20: 233–253.

Nation, Paul (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Nation, Paul and James Coady (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In Vocabulary and LanguageTeaching, Ron Carter and Michael McCarthy (eds.), 97–110. London: Longman.

Paribakht, T. Sima and Marjorie Wesche (1993). Reading comprehension and second languagedevelopment in a comprehension-based ESL programme. TESL Canada Journal 11: 9–27.

— (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vo-cabulary acquisition. In Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. A rationale for Pedagogy,James Coady and Thomas Huckin (eds.), 174–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saragi, T., I. S. P. Nation, and G. F. Meister (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System 6:72–78.

Watanabe, Yuichi (1997). Input, intake and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidentallearning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 287–307.

Zahar, Rick, Tom Cobb, and Nina Spada (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects offrequency and contextual richness. Canadian Modern Language Review 57: 541–572.



Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition

Documents

Transcript of Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition