Effects of Graded Texts on EFL College Students' Incidental ...

measurement tool for its function <strong>of</strong> being able to track early word developments.
Ten target words identified in pretest as completely unknown to all 38 learners were
assigned into five groups according to their amount <strong>of</strong> exposure within the sixteen
texts used in the online extensive reading syllabus.
In the current study, learners’ word gains were observed in all five groups,
including words in group one, the ones which appeared once or twice. This is in
accordance to the findings from Nagy’s (1985; 1987) and Rott’s (1999) studies that
though the improvements were minor, merely one or two exposure <strong>of</strong> target word
could still contribute to learners’ initial word knowledge. This contribution <strong>of</strong> one or
two encounters, <strong>of</strong> course, was not adequate for successful word acquisition <strong>of</strong> more
in-depth knowledge. In fact, the results from our study demonstrated that with
scoring below 3 points on the VKS scale, learners were unable to successfully recall
the Chinese meanings <strong>of</strong> target words even with words in group five, which contains
words with exposure amount from 9 up to 15 times. Moreover, very few learners
have attempted trying to make sentences using target words in the posttest. It seems
that exposure amount <strong>of</strong> up to 15 times was unable to guarantee receptive exposure,
let along more complex and pr<strong>of</strong>ound productive knowledge.
The limited word acquisition found in our study adds yet another piece <strong>of</strong>
evidence supported by already plentiful research that incidental vocabulary
acquisition while reading could take place; however, its gains could be superficial and
fragile (Wesche & Paribakht, 2000; Hulstijn, 1993; Huckin & Coady, 1999). Given
our various endeavors to foster a vocabulary inducing reading environment, learners’
performance seems unsatisfactory at first glance compared to some previous L2
studies assessing learners’ receptive and productive knowledge gain through reading.
Four possible factors might have contributed to this difference—namely, the use <strong>of</strong>
authentic material, learners’ depth <strong>of</strong> processing, target word difficulty, and individual
76