EFL Vocabulary Learning through Reading BBC News: An Analysis Based on the Involvement Load Hypothesis

10.6294/EaGLE.2015.0102.03

Feng Teng

vocabulary learning ； Involvement Load Hypothesis ； incidental learning ； reading

English as a Global Language Education (EaGLE) Journal

1卷2期（2015 / 12 / 01）

63 - 90

英文

This study measured incidental vocabulary learning and supported the reliability of Hulstijn and Laufer's (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) among learners with different word levels by focusing on four tasks involving reading the BBC news. A vocabulary test designed by Nation (1983) was taken by the 180 participants, who were then placed into four word levels based on their test results: 40 learners at the 2,000 word level; 60 learners at the 3,000 word level; 48 learners at the 5,000 word level; and, 32 learners at the university word level. Participants at each level were divided into four groups, with each subgroup completing one of four vocabulary learning tasks that varied in the cognitive load required: reading comprehension (low effort), reading comprehension plus supplied target words (moderate effort), reading comprehension plus composition writing (strong effort), and reading comprehension plus dictionary look-up and composition writing (very strong effort). Findings revealed that, in line with the predictions of ILH, vocabulary learning was highest in the fourth task, and descended according to involvement load. This study also suggested that the applicability of incidental learning and ILH was affected by the participants' word levels, and that a critical lexical threshold appeared to exist for comprehending the BBC News.

1. Cobb, T. (n.d.). The Compleat Lexical Tutor [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.lextutor.ca/
2. Alderson, J. C.,Banerjee, J.(2002).Language testing and assessment (Part 2).Language Teaching,35,79-113.
3. Au, K. H.(1993).Literacy unstruction in multicultural settings.New York, NY:Harcourt Brace.
4. Bell, T.(2001).Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension.Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal,1(1),1-13.
5. Coady, J.(Ed.),Huckin, T.(Ed.)(1997).Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
6. Craik, F. I. M.,Lockhart, R. S.(1972).Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11,671-684.
7. Craik, F. I. M.,Tulving, E.(1975).Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104,268-294.
8. Day, R. R.,Bamford, J.(1998).Extensive reading in the second language classroom.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
9. Day, R. R.,Omura, C.,Hiramatsu, M.(1991).Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading.Reading in a Foreign Language,7,541-551.
10. Eckerth, J.,Tavakoli, P.(2012).The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading.Language Teaching Research,16,227-252.
11. Folse, K. S.(2006).The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention.TESOL Quarterly,40,273-293.
12. Gass, S.(Ed.),Madden, C.(Ed.)(1985).Input and second language acquisition.Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
13. Horst, M.(2005).Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study.Canadian Modern Language Review,61,355-382.
14. Hulstijn, J. H.,Laufer, B.(2001).Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition.Language Learning,51,539-558.
15. Keating, G. D.(2008).Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial.Language Teaching Research,12,365-386.
16. Krashen, S. D.(1985).The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.New York, NY:Longman.
17. Krashen, S. D.(1993).The power of reading: Insights from the research.Englewood, CO:Libraries Unlimited.
18. Krashen, S. D.(1982).Principles and practice in second language acquisition.Oxford, England:Pergamon Press.
19. Krashen, S. D.(2004).Free voluntary reading: New research, applications, and controversies.the 39th RELC International Seminar,Singapore:
20. Laufer, B.(2009).Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from form-focused activities.Language Teaching,42,341-354.
21. Laufer, B.(2013).Lexical thresholds for reading comprehension: What they are and how they can be used for teaching purposes.TESOL Quarterly,47,867-872.
22. Laufer, B.,Hulstijn, J.(2001).Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement.Applied Linguistics,22,1-26.
23. Laufer, B.,Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C.(2010).Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners' vocabulary size and reading comprehension.Reading in a Foreign Language,22(01),15-30.
24. Mackey, A.(2002).Beyond production: Learners' perceptions about interactional processes.International Journal of Educational Research,37,379-394.
25. Nagy, W. E.(1988).Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension.Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
26. Nagy, W. E.,Herman, P. A.,Anderson, R. C.(1985).Learning words from context.Reading Research Quarterly,20,233-253.
27. Nation, I. S. P.(2008).Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques.Boston, MA:Heinle.
28. Nation, I. S. P.(2007).The four strands.Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,1(1),2-13.
29. Nation, I. S. P.(1983).Testing and teaching vocabulary.Guidelines,5(1),12-25.
30. Nation, I. S. P.,Hwang, K.(1995).Where would general service vocabulary stop and special purposes vocabulary begin?.System,23(1),35-41.
31. Nation, I. S. P.,Yamamoto, A.(2012).Applying the four strands to language learning.International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research,1,167-181.
32. Paribakht, T. S.,Wesche, M.(1999).Reading and "incidental" L2 vocabulary acquisition.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,21,195-224.
33. Ramscar, M.,Dye, M.(2010).Learning language from the input: Why innate constraints can't explain noun compounding.Cognitive Psychology,62,1-40.
34. Richards, J. C.(Ed.),Renandya, W. A.(Ed.)(2002).Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
35. Robinson,P.(Ed.)(2001).Cognition and second language instruction.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
36. Schreuder, R.(Ed.),Weltens, B.(Ed.)(1993).The bilingual lexicon.Amsterdam, The Netherlands:John Benjamins.
37. Stahl, S. A.,Vancil, S. J.(1986).Discussion is what makes semantic maps work in vocabulary instruction.The Reading Teacher,40,62-69.
38. Teng, F.(2014).Incidental vocabulary learning by assessing frequency of word occurrence in a graded reader: Love or money.Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal,7(2),36-50.
39. Teng, F.(2014).Research Into practice: Strategies for teaching and learning vocabulary.Beyond Words,2(2),41-57.
40. Teng, F.(2014).Vocabulary growth for low-proficiency students through reading graded readers.the 1st TRI-ELE International Conference,Bangkok, Thailand:
41. Ward, C.(Ed.),Renandya, W.(Ed.)(1999).Language teaching: New insights for the language teacher.Singapore:SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
42. Waring, R.,Nation, I. S. P.(2004).Second language reading and incidental vocabulary learning.Angles on the English-Speaking World,4,11-23.
43. Waring, R.,Takaki, M.(2003).At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader?.Reading in a Foreign Language,15,130-163.
44. Webb, S.(2005).Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge.Studies in Second language Acquisition,27,33-52.
45. Webb, S.(2008).The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning.Reading in a Foreign Language,20,232-245.