آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 45 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,365 |
| تعداد مقالات | 16,784 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 54,113,066 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 16,825,974 |
On the Effectiveness of Involvement Load Components on L2 Vocabulary Learning | ||
| Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning | ||
| مقاله 20، دوره 16، شماره 33، شهریور 2024، صفحه 373-390 اصل مقاله (734.16 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/elt.2024.59756.2594 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Zahra Memarnia؛ Abbas Ali Zarei* | ||
| Department of English, Imam Khomeini International University, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Objective: The involvement load hypothesis posits that the higher the involvement load of a task, the more effective it will be in improving students’ lexical learning. It does not differentiate between the different components of involvement load (need, search, and evaluation). Nor does it assume that the type of words to be learnt has any role in the effectiveness of tasks with different involvement load indices. This study compared the effect of the components of task involvement load on the comprehension, production, and retention of concrete and abstract words. Methods: Sixty upper-intermediate students were assigned to two groups. One group received a task in which the search component was dominant, the other group received a task (with the same overall involvement index) in which search was not present, and the evaluation component was the determining factor of task difficulty. A pretest, posttest, control group design (quasi-experimental method of research) was used to address the research questions. Results: One-way MANOVA results on the immediate posttest were in line with ILH predictions, showing no significant differences between tasks with equal involvement indices. On the other hand, the delayed posttest results showed that in case of receptive knowledge, there was a meaningful difference between abstract and concrete vocabulary, and the search group outperformed the evaluation group. However, the results of the productive posttest showed that the evaluation group outperformed the search group in abstract words. Conclusions: The findings can have significant implications for language learners, teachers, materials designers, and researchers. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| abstract words؛ concrete words؛ involvement load؛ vocabulary learning | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ansarin, A. A. & Kazemipour Khabbazi, S. (2021). Task-induced involvement load and working memory: Effects on active and passive vocabulary knowledge of EFL learners in a multimedia learning environment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7 (1), 277-302. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911288 Azadegan Dehkordi Z & Aghajanzadeh Kiasi, G. (2023). Task-induced involvement loads and Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ knowledge of collocations and level of motivation. International Journal of Research in English Education, 8(1), 29-47. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.25384015.2023.8.1.3.9 Baleghizadeh, S., & Abbasi, M. (2013). The effect of four different types of involvement indices on vocabulary learning and retention of EFL learners. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 5 (2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2013.1521 Bao, G. (2015). Task type effects on English as a Foreign Language learners' acquisition of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. System, 53, 84-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.006 Chen, Y. (2012). Dictionary use and vocabulary learning in the context of reading. International Journal of Lexicography, 25(2), 216-247. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecr031 Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268-294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268 Dellantonio, S., Mulatti, C., Pastore, L., & Job, R. (2014). Measuring inconsistencies can lead you forward: Imageability and the x-ception theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 708-715. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00708 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(2), 227-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811431377 Ehsani, M., Karami, H., & Mallahi, O. (2023). The effect of task type and word type on vocabulary learning: A comparison based on involvement load hypothesis and technique feature analysis. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 15(1), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.22111/IJALS.2023.45695.2355 Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 34(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003368820303400105 Hazrat, M. & Read, J. (2021). Enhancing the involvement load hypothesis as a tool for classroom vocabulary research. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3051 Hill, M., B., & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 87-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.007 Hu, H. M. & Nassaji, H. (2016). Effective vocabulary learning tasks: Involvement Load Hypothesis versus Technique Feature Analysis. System, 56, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.11.001 Huang, S., Willson, V., & Eslami, Z. (2012). The effects of task involvement load on L2 incidental vocabulary learning: A meta-analytic study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 544–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01394.x Karami, H. & Esrafili, M. (2021). The impact of task type and involvement load index on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning and retention. Journal of Language Horizons, 5(1). 251-266. https://doi.org/10.22051/lghor.2020.31501.1311 Kim Y. J. (2011). The role of task‐induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 100-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00644.x Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.1 Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2011). Incidental vocabulary acquisition: the effects of task type, word occurrence and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 391-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412019 Liu, S., & Reynolds, B.L. (2022). Empirical support for the involvement load hypothesis (ILH): A systematic review. Behavioural Sciences, 12, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ bs12100354 Ma, J. H., & Cheon, H. J. (2018). An experimental study of dictionary use on vocabulary learning and reading comprehension in different task conditions. International Journal of Lexicography, 31(1), 29-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecw037 Mousavi, M., Zarei, A. A., & Ahanghari, S. (2021). The effects of task focus and involvement load on idioms recognition. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies 8(4), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.30479/JMRELS.2021.15357.1893 Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press. Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education. Taheri, S., & Rezaie Golandouz, G. (2021). The effect of task type on EFL learners’ acquisition and retention of vocabulary: an evaluation of the involvement load hypothesis. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1915226. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1915226 Taylor, R.S., Francis, W.S., Borunda-Vazquez, L., & Carbajal, J. (2019). Mechanisms of word concreteness effects in explicit memory: Does context availability play a role? Memory and Cognition, 47(7), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017730596 Tang, C., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2016). Assessing incidental vocabulary learning by Chinese EFL learners: A test of the involvement load hypothesis. In G. Yu & Y. Jin (Eds.), Assessing Chinese learners of English (pp. 121–149). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449788_7 Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language teaching: From theory to practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667282 Webb, S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press. Yanagisawa, A. & Webb, S. (2021). To What Extent Does the Involvement Load Hypothesis Predict Incidental L2 Vocabulary Learning? A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 71(2), 487-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12444 Yang, Y., Shintani, N., Li, S., & Zhang, Y. (2017). The effectiveness of post-reading word-focused activities and their associations with working memory. System, 70, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.012 Zou, D. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition through cloze exercises, sentence-writing and composition- writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816652418 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 373 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 216 |
||