Theory and Practice in Language Studies Contents - Academy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

960 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIESa one-way ANOVA was performed.TABLE IIANOVA FOR IMMEDIATE AND DELAYED POSTTEST SCORESTest Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.ImmediateposttestDelayedposttestBetween Groups 136.870 2 68.435 28.982 0.000Within Groups 158.205 67 2.361Total 295.075 69Between Groups 56.198 2 28.099 5.275 0.007Within Groups 356.887 67 5.327Total 413.086 69As reflected in Table 2, the results of the ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in the immediateposttest among the three groups, F (2, 67) = 28.982, p = .000 < .001. The results also showed that there was a significantdifference in the delayed posttests, F (2, 67) = 5.275, p = .007 < .05.As the F value was significant, Scheffé post hoc tests were conducted for the two posttests to locate the differences.From the results demonstrated in Table 3, we can see that there was a significant difference among Group 1, Group 2and Group 3 in the immediate posttest(p = .000 < .05, p = .000 < .05 and p= .021 < .05 respectively). While Scheffépost hoc tests for delayed posttest only showed significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 (p = .023 < .05) andbetween Group 2 and Group 3 (p = .026 < .05). No difference was revealed between Group 1 and Group 2 (p = .995>.05).TABLE III.SCHEFFÉ POST HOC MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR IMMEDIATE AND DELAYED POSTTESTSTest (I) Groups (J) Groups MeanStd. Error Sig. 95% Confidence IntervalDifference (I-J)Lower Bound Upper BoundImmediateposttestGroup 1 Group 2Group 3-2.15530*-3.42614*.45356.45356.000.000-3.2908-4.5616-1.0198-2.2906Group 2 Group 1Group 32.15530*-1.27083*.45356.44359.000.0211.0198-2.38143.2908-.1603Group 3 Group 1Group 23.42614*1.27083*.45356.44359.000.0212.2906.16034.56162.3814DelayedposttestGroup 1 Group 2Group 3-.06818-1.92235*.68122.68122.995.023-1.7736-3.62781.6373-.2169Group 2 Group 1Group 3-.06818-1.85417*.68122.66625.995.026-1.6373-3.52211.7736-.1862Group 3 Group 1Group 21.92235*1.85417*.68122.66625.023.026*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level..2169.18623.62783.5221V. DISCUSSIONThe results of immediate posttest strongly supported the Involvement Load hypothesis that greater involvement inprocessing resulted in better effects on initial learning of lexical bundles. Of the three tasks, the sentence writing wasthe most effective in vocabulary learning, followed by reading comprehension plus gap-filling and readingcomprehension tasks. While in the delayed posttest, Group 3 also produced the highest scores. This might result fromthe fact that sentence writing task which demands deeper cognitive effort contributed more to retention than noticing theglossary, answering comprehension questions and fill in the gaps. Compared with immediate posttest, the scores ofdelayed posttest showed decline in all the three groups. The decline might arise from the one-week interval between thetwo posttests, and that the students participating in the study were not exposed to the ten target bundles between the testinterval. Therefore, another factor--multiple exposures, which might facilitate the retention of lexical bundles, wasworth considering.As was shown by the experiment, the task of sentence writing produced best initial learning and retention, followedby the tasks of reading comprehension plus gap-filling and reading comprehension. In the current study, each task wassignificantly different from the other two tasks in initial learning. Students in Group 3 gained the highest scores in bothtests which showed that, among the three tasks, the sentence writing task was most beneficial in initial learning andretention of lexical bundles.A one-way ANOVA was performed to find out the relationship between the learning of lexical bundles and taskinvolvement load. ANOVA for immediate posttest scores showed that, with F (2, 67) = 28.892, p = .000, there weresignificant differences in the mean scores among the three groups. Similarly, ANOVA for delayed posttest scoresshowed, with F (2, 67) = 5.275, p = .007, significant differences among the three groups. The results implied that thedegree of involvement load did have influence on the learning and retention of the lexical bundles.Scheffé post hoc tests were conducted for the purpose of locating the differences. The results revealed significantdifferences among the three groups in the immediate posttest. While Scheffé post hoc tests for delayed posttest onlyshowed significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 (p = .023 < .05.) and between Group 2 and Group 3 (p© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 961= .026 < .05.). No difference was revealed between Group 1 and Group 2. Though the mean score of Group 2 washigher than that of Group 1 in delayed posttest, they did not show significant difference. This may be due to the fact thatalthough the task of reading comprehension plus gap-filling demanded moderate evaluation in completing the taskcompared with reading comprehension task, the involvement was not high enough to guarantee acquisition of lexicalbundles.Finally, based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that students benefit more from sentence writingtask which demands deeper cognitive effort than reading comprehension and reading comprehension plus gap-filling inthe acquisition of lexical bundles.VI. CONCLUSIONSThe present study was designed to examine the relationship between tasks with varying involvement loads onlearners learning of lexical bundles. Its aim was to find out how different involvement loads influence learning andretention of lexical bundles. The results of this study support the evidence of L2 vocabulary learning as a result oftask-induced involvement. The findings were partially in accordance with those of Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001), whichshowed that the task with a higher involvement elicited more effective words learning and retention. In addition, thecurrent study provided l evidence for acquisition of lexical bundles. As to the learning and retention of lexical bundles,output task (sentence writing task) was more effective than input tasks (reading comprehension and readingcomprehension plus gap-filling tasks).Therefore, it was concluded that the results of this research on learning of lexical bundles provided support for theinvolvement load hypothesis in second language vocabulary learning and proved that Involvement Load Hypothesis isapplicable to the acquisition of lexical bundles. To conclude, the addressing of the research question would facilitatefurther understanding of involvement load.VII. LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONSBased on the findings of the current study, L2 pedagogical implications can be drawn. Teachers should considerdesigning tasks with various involvement loads for different bundles to enhance the acquisition. As mentioned above,tasks with higher involvements were more beneficial for initial learning and retention of lexical bundles than those withlower involvements. The results of the current study provide L2 teachers with a theoretical basis, especially in theteaching of lexical bundles.The students in this study participated in each task only once. Therefore, in order to gain full understanding ofeffectiveness of each task on vocabulary learning, multiple tasks should be administered to the students.REFERENCES[1] Duan, Shiping, & Yan, Chensong. (2004). The effects of multiple annotations on incidental vocabulary acquisition. ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research (bimonthly), 36, 213-218.[2] Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign language. Applied LanguageLearning, 4, 55-63.[3] Folse, K. S. (2006). The Effect of Type of Written Exercise on L2 Vocabulary Retention TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293.[4] Gai, Shuhua. (2003). Empirical study on incidental vocabulary acquisition of English majors. Foreign Language Teaching andResearch (bimonthly), 35, 282-286.[5] Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition.Language Learning, 51, 539-558.[6] Javanbakht, Z. O. (2011). The Impact of Tasks on Male Iranian Elementary EFL Learners Incidental Vocabulary Learning.Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 28-42.[7] Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial.Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 365-386.[8] Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning,58(2), 285-325.[9] Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-inducedinvolvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.[10] Lu, J., & Huang, J. (2009). An empirical study of the involvement load hypothesis in incidental vocabulary acquisition in EFLlistening. Polyglossia, 16, 1-11.[11] Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign Language. System, 25, 9-102.[12] Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & R. C. Anderson. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20,233-253.[13] Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from con text during normal reading.American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.[14] Nassaji, Hossein, & Hu, Hsueh-chao Marcella. (2012). The relationship between task-induced involvement load and learningnew words from context. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(1), 69-86.[15] Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and the SLA. In N. C. Ellis (ED.),Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.165-210). London: Academic Press.© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
Page 3 and 4:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
Page 5 and 6:
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STU
Page 7:
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STU
Page 10 and 11:
872 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
عَ‏896 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN L
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49: ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
Page 50 and 51: 912 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
Page 92 and 93: Mean of strategy954 THEORY AND PRAC
Page 138 and 139: 1000 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
Page 148 and 149:
1010 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 219:
Call for Papers and Special Issue P
Page 222:
(Contents Continued from Back Cover
show all

Theory and Practice in Language Studies Contents - Academy ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?