Effects of Input and Output-oriented Tasks with Different Involvement Loads on the Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge of Iranian EFL Learners  

Subject Areas : Research in English Language Pedagogy

Parviz  Maftoon ¹ (Professor, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch)
Marzieh  Sharif Haratmeh ² (Ph.D. candidate, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch)

Received: 2012-10-10 Accepted : 2013-02-10 Published : 2013-02-10

Keywords: Output-oriented tasks, involvement load, Input-oriented tasks, vocabulary learning, and Word-focused tasks, EFL,

Abstract :

Framed in a cognitive approach to task-supported L2 vocabulary learning, the present study used a pedagogical approach to investigate the relative effectiveness of tasks with different involvement loads on the vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. The goal was to investigate the way that the construct of involvement load is related to the Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) and the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1996) to see whether the involvement load or input/output-orientation of tasks is the determining factor in task effectiveness. A quasi-experimental design with a pretest-treatment-posttest sequence was used in this study. The participants were 127 university students from four General English classes at Islamic Azad University, Mobarakeh Branch, who were assigned to four instructional groups. Contrary to the predictions of the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), the results of the study indicated that involvement load is not the only determining factor in task effectiveness, but input/output-orientation of tasks is also a decisive parameter in task effectiveness. While Laufer and Hulstijn’s proposal is a valuable first step towards building a theory of vocabulary learning, the results of the study indicated that involvement index may well not function independently of the task type, i.e., input or output orientation of a word-focused task.

References:

Arey, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th ed.). Florida: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Inc.
Decarrico, J. S. (2001). Vocabulary learning and teaching (3rd ed.). In M. Celce. Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 285-299). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modifed input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 273-293.
Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisitions: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263-259.
Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors infuencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hipanic students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 371-392. Gass, S.
M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). NewYork: Routlege: Taylor & Francis Group.
Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defning a minimal receptive second language vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 145-163.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. J. Doughty & H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349-381). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51 (3), 539-558.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Jafarpur, A. (1992). A course in language testing. Tehran: Payame Noor University Press.
Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Second Language Research, 11, 149-158.
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.
Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2), 285-325. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. Arnaud &
H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp.126- 132). London: Macmillan.
Laufer, B. (1998). The knowledge of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 225-271. Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5, 223-250.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(10), 36-55.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.
Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth, and use. In R. Schreuder & Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 115-134). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997).
Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady T. Huckin (1997), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for ped- agogy (pp. 174-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, T. (1990). The role of conciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-59.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing are not enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50,(2), 158-164.
Swain, M. (1996). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook & B. Seidlhover (Eds.), For H. G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious refection. In C. Doughty J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom and second language acquisition (pp. 64-81).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning 56(2), 319-385. Webb, S. (2002). Investigating the effects of learning tasks on vocabulary knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.

Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing of word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33-52.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, S. (1998). The infuence of task in reading-based L2 Vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from introspective studies. In K. Haastrup A. Viebrege (Eds.), Perspectives on lexical acquisition in a second language. Lund: Lund University Press.