an experimental study of task-based l2 lexical learning by chinese efl learners zhou weijing school...
TRANSCRIPT
An Experimental study of Task-based
L2 lexical Learning
by Chinese EFL learners
Zhou Weijing
School of Foreign Languages
Jiangsu University
An Experimental Study of Task-based L2 Lexical Learning by An Experimental Study of Task-based L2 Lexical Learning by Chinese EFL LearnersChinese EFL Learners
Outline Introduction Literature review Methodology Major findings and discussions Contributions & Limitations
IntroductionIntroduction
Motivation of the study
Need for the study
Orientation of the study
IntroductionIntroduction
1. Motivation
Vocabulary plays a central role in L2 learning and teaching, however, L2 teachers are often unsure about how best to incorporate L2 vocabulary into their daily teaching.
pedagogical requirements for efficient L2 teaching
Pedagogical vexation results from theoretical inadequacy. (Read,2004). Although there’s been a boom in L2 vocabulary studies since 1990s, the mechanism of L2 lexical learning remains one of the most intriguing puzzles in SLA (Reed, 2004).
theoretical urge for sound understanding of L2 lexical learning Personally, being an L2 teacher and researcher, I have been impelled to do
research on L2 lexical learning. personal experience of L2 lexical learning and teaching
IntroductionIntroduction
2. Need for the study
Despite increasing interest and efforts in L2 vocabulary in the past 10 years, basic issues remain unsolved. How do L2 learners acquire L2 lexicon?
How do L2 learners acquire new vocabulary via learning tasks?
What factors affect L2 lexical learning in or outside classroom?
How to tract L2 learners’ incremental lexical learning?
Consequently, our knowledge of L2 lexical learning has mainly been built upon fragmental studies and there isn’t an overall theory of how L2 vocabulary is acquired (Schimitt, 1998, Read, 2004).
Crying need to explore L2 lexical learning, theoretically, pedagogically, and methodologically.
IntroductionIntroduction
3. Orientation of the study
Handicaps hindering the studies up to date :
No consistent or inclusive definition of the basic unit of L2 vocabulary, which makes the research domain a tricky and muddy area to explore.
No solid evidence for an efficient way to enhance L2 learners’ lexical knowledge, in addition to controversies over incidental and intentional L2 approaches.
Task-based L2 lexical learning seems to be an optimal area to investigate L2 lexical learning. Nevertheless, there is far from sufficient understanding of task-based L2 lexical learning according to the literature to date.
Lopsided focus of present-day research on L2 lexical vocabulary learning.
Inadequate support, either theoretically or empirically, for the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001), the newly-born theoretical construct targeting at L2 lexical learning.
Besides word-based factors, few studies explored learner-related factors
Literature reviewLiterature review
Key terms
Theoretical framework
Previous empirical findings
Literature reviewLiterature review
Key terms
---To get rid of problems of ‘word’ and ‘word familiar’, the present study adopted lexical unit (LU) as the basic unit of L2 vocabulary covering single words and multi-word chunks and idioms.
Literature reviewLiterature review
Theoretical framework
Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985,1989) Output Hypothesis (Swain,1985, 1995) Nation’s (2001) construct of L2 lexical knowledge
3 aspects: form, meaning, usage
2 levels: receptive & productive Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )
---the latest and sole theoretical construct
---targeting at L2 lexical learning.
What is involved in knowing a word
Form Spoken R What does the word sound like? P How is the word pronounced? Written R What does the word look like? P How is the word written and spelled? word parts R What parts are recognizable in this word? P How word parts are needed to express the meaning? Meaning Form & meaning R What meaning does this word form signal? P What word form can be used to express this meaning? Concept & referents R What is included in the concept? P What items can the concept refer to? Associations R What other words does the word occur? P What other words could we use instead of this one? Use Grammatical functions R In what patterns does the word occur? P In what patterns must we use this word? Collocations R What words or types of words occur with this one? P What words or types of words must we use with this one? Constraints on use R Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this word? P Where, when, and how often can we use this word?
Its basic contention :
--- The retention of unfamiliar words is, generally, conditional upon the degree of involvement in processing these words.
Involvement Load HypothesisInvolvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )
Its 3 assumptions : Retention of words, when processed incidentally, is
conditional upon the following factors in a task: need, search and evaluation.
Other factors being equal, words which are processed with higher involvement load will be retained better than words which are processed with lower involvement load.
Other factors being equal, teacher/researcher-designed tasks with higher involvement load will be more effective for vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower involvement load.
Task-induced involvement does not have much to do with whether it is an input or output task.
Involvement Load HypothesisInvolvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )
Motivational-cognitive construct of involvement: need, search & evaluation.
L2 lexical learning is conditional upon task-induced involvement.
The higher involvement, the better acquisition and longer retention of
unknown words.
Involvement Load HypothesisInvolvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )
Literature reviewLiterature review
Empirical findings
Majority: looking for evidence for task-based L2 lexical learning A few: on effects of task type. Few: on effects of task frequency, word and learner factors
indicating: task type, task frequency, word and text factors as well as learner factors affect L2 lexical learning
Reading-based complex tasks : the most facilitative for L2 lexical learning.
Involvement Load Hypothesis: only partially supported.
1) Motivational-cognitive construct : problematic. 2) Involvement Load Hypothesis : needs further rectification.
MethodologyMethodology
Based on previous studies, an experimental
study of task-based L2 lexical learning was
designed and conducted.
MethodologyMethodology
Research Questions
How do Chinese EFL learners acquire L2 vocabulary through learning tasks?
1. Effects of task type on L2 lexical learning?- Overall effects - Modify effects - Role of task-induced involvement
2. Effects of task frequency on L2 lexical learning? - Overall effects - Modified effects - Optimal task frequency
3. Effects of lexical presentation on L2 lexical learning? - Overall effects - Modified effects - Most or least acquired LUs? Why?
TASK-BASED FACTORS Task type
Task frequency
Lexical presentation……
LEARNER-BASED FACTORS
English proficiency
Prior lexical knowledge……
Task-basedL2 Lexical learning
Read silently + comprehensionRead aloud + comprehensionRead silently + reproductionRead aloud + reproduction
First exposureSecond exposureThird exposure
Lexical formationContextual elaboration
Design
Pretest-posttest experimental design
Notes: refers to the effects of independent variable on dependent variable
refers to the effects of moderator variable on dependent variable
MethodologyMethodology
Subjects
4 EGs: 119 English majors (EG 1/2/3: 30; EG 4: 29)
Homogenous in age, learning background, motivation.
Pretests: No significant differences between 4 EGs in 1. English proficiency
2. vocabulary size, and
3. baseline knowledge of target LUs.
MethodologyMethodology
Material
A treatment text
Length: 411 words
No of target LUs: 21
Coverage of known LU: 95%
MethodologyMethodology
Instruments
Pretest Experiment Posttest4 weeks before 1 afternoon After the experiment
1. TEM-4
2. V size test
3. Spelling test of target LUs
4 tasks
EG1: (RS+C) ×3
EG2: (RA+C) ×3
EG3: (RS+R) ×3
EG4: (RA+R) ×3
1.V acquisition test×3
2. Spelling test of
target LUs
3. Interviews
Data collection and analysisData collection and analysis
Data collection: in a language lab
Data analysis:
1. Revised 9-scale scoring of VKS (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996: 5-scale scoring)
2. Statistic software: SPSS
MethodologyMethodology
III. III. VKS & its 5-point scoringVKS & its 5-point scoring
VKS elicitation scale (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996)
Self-report categories
I. I don’t remember having seen this word just now. II. I have seen this word just now, but I don’t know what it means. III. I have seen this word just now, and I think it means____________
(synonym or translation). IV. I know this word. It means _______________ (synonym or translation). V. I can use this word in a sentence: _____________________________ ( If you do this section, please do section VI).
VKS Scoring VKS Scoring (Wesche & Paribakht, 1993),(Wesche & Paribakht, 1993),
Self-report possible
Categories scores Meaning of scores I. 1 This word is not familiar at all. II. 2 The word is familiar but the meaning is not
known. III. 3 A correct synonym or translation is given. IV. 4 The word is used with semantic appropriate
in a sentence. V. 5 The word is used with semantic appropriateness
and grammatical accuracy in sentence
A 9-point scoring of VKSA 9-point scoring of VKS
stage scoring scheme
F 1 0 Not familiar at all
2 1 Familiar with the form + no /wrong meaning is given
3 1.5 Familiar with the form + no /wrong meaning + copy of the original sentence
M 4 2 Similar sense
5 2.5 Similar sense + original /creative sentence
6 3 Right sense
7 3-0.5 Right sense + grammatical error in semantic presentation
U 8 4 Right sense + copy of the original sentence/creative sentence with grammatical error
9 5 Right sense + correct creative sentence
Major findings & discussionsMajor findings & discussions
Effects of task type
Effects of task frequency
Effects of lexical presentations
Effects of task typeEffects of task typeFindings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Conclusions 1. The facilitative power of each task varied significantly from one another.2. RS+R was the most facilitative and RA+R was the least helpful. Task type significantly affects L2 lexical learning.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
RS+C RA+C RS+R RA+R
PretestPostt1Postt1-3mean
Modified effects of task typeModified effects of task type
Learning outcomes Learning outcomes after the 1st exposureafter the 1st exposure
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Conclusion
Englishproficiency Level
Subgroups N Mean SD
Mini Max
Between-subgroup (Kruskal-Wallis)
Chi-square Asymp.Sig.
HL EG1(RS+C) 10 41.10 9.60 29.50 59.50
1.303 .728
EG2(RA+C) 10 45.10 7.16 34.50 56.00
EG3(RS+R) 10 45.25 16.28 24.00 71.00
EG4(RA+R) 10 40.70 9.54 29.00 54.50
Total 40 43.04 10.95 24.00 71.00
ML EG1(RS+C) 10 30.50 5.88 18.00 36.50
16.390 .001
EG2(RA+C) 10 43.90 9.28 27.50 59.50
EG3(RS+R) 10 47.85 10.15 31.00 65.50
EG4(RA+R) 9 37.45 9.32 22.00 50.50
Total 39 39.92 10.78 18.00 65.50
LL EG1(RS+C) 10 28.45 6.01 19.00 36.50
9.760 .021
EG2(RA+C) 10 37.85 6.30 28.50 51.00
EG3(RS+R) 10 39.95 10.15 26.00 60.00
EG4(RA+R) 10 36.50 4.45 30.00 46.00
Total 40 35.67 8.15 19.00 60.00
Modified effects of task typeModified effects of task typeAverage learning outcomes Average learning outcomes after 3 exposuresafter 3 exposures
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Englishproficiency Level
Subgroups N Mean SD
Mini Max
Between-subgroup (Kruskal-Wallis)
Chi-square Asymp.Sig.
HL EG1(RS+C) 10 54.10 9.25 36.83 70.67
.579 .901
EG2(RA+C) 10 55.23 16.20 25.83 75.50
EG3(RS+R) 10 57.25 8.41 42.83 68.83
EG4(RA+R) 10 55.01 8.44 42.17 66.83
Total 40 55.39 10.69 25.83 75.50
ML EG1(RS+C) 10 37.63 7.99 26.00 46.83
19.023 .000
EG2(RA+C) 10 54.30 10.36 39.50 72.17
EG3(RS+R) 10 61.46 9.27 43.67 75.67
EG4(RA+R) 9 45.94 8.84 33.67 58.17
Total 39 49.94 12.69 26.00 75.67
LL EG1(RS+C) 10 37.16 9.39 22.50 48.83
4.768 .190
EG2(RA+C) 10 46.16 10.30 38.00 67.67
EG3(RS+R) 10 49.18 12.81 34.00 73.00
EG4(RA+R) 10 42.91 6.68 34.67 53.67
Total 40 43.85 10.65 22.50 73.00
Modified effects of task typeModified effects of task type
To conclude, the overall effects of task type were generally To conclude, the overall effects of task type were generally modified by English proficiency in the 4 EGs’ lexical learning. modified by English proficiency in the 4 EGs’ lexical learning.
To be specific, To be specific, HLHL : achieved similar lexical progress, regardless of the significant different : achieved similar lexical progress, regardless of the significant different effects of task type; effects of task type;
MLML : abided by the effects of task type to the letter; and : abided by the effects of task type to the letter; and
LLLL : being unable to make full use of the effects of task type, keeping their : being unable to make full use of the effects of task type, keeping their lexical learning at a similar low rate.lexical learning at a similar low rate.
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Effects of task typeEffects of task type
2. Modified effects
Each EG: 3 subgroups according to their English proficiency (HL, ML, LL).
Significant correlations between English proficiency and L2 lexical learning
outcomes. ( 1st: r=.352***; Average 1-3: r=.456***)
Overall effects of task type :
---- totally rejected by HL,
----strictly followed by ML
---- abided by at the first trial and refuted at the later trials by LL.
ConclusionOverall effects of task type were generally modified by English proficiency.
.
Conclusion:
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Role of task-induced involvementRole of task-induced involvement
Involvement loads of the 4 tasks according to motivational-cognitive Involvement loads of the 4 tasks according to motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement (Laufer & Hulstijn,2001)construct of task-induced involvement (Laufer & Hulstijn,2001)
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Prediction: No significant differences between EG1 and EG2 / between EG1 and EG2
Significant differences between EG(1+2) and EG(3+4)
Subjects Tasks Involvement load Involvement Index
Rank orderof learning outcomes
Need Search Evaluation
EG1 RS+C + + _ 2 4th
EG2 RA+C + + _ 2 2nd
EG3 RS+R + + ++ 4 1st
EG4 RA+R + + ++ 4 3rd
Role of task-induced involvementRole of task-induced involvement
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Predicted rank order of learning outcomes Actual rank order of learning outcomes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
RS+C RA+C RS+R RA+R
Lexi cal gai ns i nvol vement
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
RS+C RA+C RS+R RA+R
Lexi cal gai ns i nvol vement
Effects of task typeEffects of task type
3. Roles of task-induced involvement
Motivational-cognitive construct of involvement :
theoretically invalid task-based construct
Involvement Load Hypothesis : partially supported.
Optimal involvement Load Hypothesis
1) Tasks vary in their involvement: under-involving, optimal, and over-involving
2) Productive tasks are usually more involving than receptive ones.
3) Tasks with balanced integration of input and output are endowed with optimal involvement, resulting best learning outcomes.
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Findings & discussionsFindings & discussions
1. Which task most facilitates L2VA?
RS+R >/≈RA+C > RA+R > RS+C
1. Both input and output are essential to L2VA.
2. Neither mere input nor overproduction facilitates high gains in L2VA.
3. Optimal involvement is required for L2VA.
Optimal involved Over- involved Under-involved
Role of task-induced involvementRole of task-induced involvementFindings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Indications
1. Involvement load Hypothesis: partially supported, partially rejected.
2. Motivation-cognitive construct: problematic
equal value for need, search, evaluation
exclusion of input-output dimension
Results of Independent Samples T-Tests
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
EG1-EG2 .001 .974 -4.02 58 .000
EG3-EG4 6.16 .016 2.19 57 .032
EG ( 1+2 ) - EG ( 3+4) 1.46 .22 -1.87 117 .063
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
Subjects Tasks Involvement load Involvement Index
Need Search Evaluation
EG1 RS+C +n ++s +e 4
EG2 RA+C +n + ++ + +s +e 7
EG3 RS+R +n + + + + +s ++e 8
EG4 RA+R +n + ++ + + + +s ++e 10
Task-based construct of involvement Motivational-cognitive Input-output
Effects of task frequencyEffects of task frequency
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
1. Overall effects Task frequency significantly affected the 4 EGs’ lexical learning and the
third trial led to the most progress.
Task frequency had the power to reduce involvement load and the gaps caused by the effects of task type, but the modifying effects can not override the effects of task type
Task frequency interacted with task type.
Effects of task frequencyEffects of task frequency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
RS+CRS+RRA+RRA+C
Effects of task frequencyEffects of task frequency
Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts in regards to HL, ML and LL’s lexical learning outcomes after each exposure
Subgroup
SourceTask frequency
Type III Sum of Squares df
Mean Square F Sig.
HL Task frequency
Run 1 vs. Run 2
7581.76 17581.76
118.09
.000
Run 2 vs. Run 3
5017.60 15017.60
104.65
.000
ML Task frequency
Run 1 vs. Run 2
4995.22 14995.22
146.28
.000
Run 2 vs. Run 3
2480.62 12480.62
52.14 .000
LL Task frequency
Run 1 vs. Run 2
2600.15 12600.15
33.59 .000
Run 2 vs. Run 3
1939.05 11939.05
50.57 .000
Modified effects of task frequencyModified effects of task frequency
01020304050607080
HLMLLL
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BSL Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
RS+R RA+C
RS+C RA+R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BSL Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
RS+R RA+C
RS+C RA+R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
BSL Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
RS+R RA+C
RS+C RA+R
HL
ML
LL
Effects of task frequencyEffects of task frequency
Findings &discussionsFindings &discussions
2. Modified effects HL: no variation between subgroups: fully enjoying the overall effects
ML: variations enlarged at the 2nd trial but narrowed at the third trial.
LL: variations revealed at the 2nd trial but vanished at the third trial.
3. Optimal task frequency The 3rd exposure.
Effects of lexical presentationEffects of lexical presentationFindings &discussionsFindings &discussions
1. Overall effects Lexical formation and contextual elaborations significantly affected
4 EGs’ lexical learning. 1) Multi-word LUs were better learnt than single-word LUs. 2) Both implicit and explicit elaborated LUs were better learned than no elaborated ones.
Lexical formation and contextual elaborations not only interwove with each other, but also interrelated with, or controlled by learners’
prior lexical knowledge
Effects of lexical presentationEffects of lexical presentationFindings &discussionsFindings &discussions
2. Modified effects HL had the greatest achievements than ML and LL in the 2 types
of presented LUs.
HL and ML achieved more gains in implicitly elaborated LUs, whereas LL had more progress in explicitly elaborated LU.
3. Most and least acquired LUs
Familiarity with the LU form and implicit/explicit elaborations led to the most acquired LUs, and vice versa.
Ignorance of word parts, high density of target LUs and mutual antonyms of LUs also lead to least acquired LUs.
1.1. ContributionsContributionsTheoreticalTheoretical Modifying the motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement Modifying the motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement
and Involvement Load Hypothesisand Involvement Load Hypothesis Clarifying the role of input and output in task-based L2 lexical learning. Clarifying the role of input and output in task-based L2 lexical learning. Revealing the Revealing the complexity of task-based L2 lexical learning.L2 lexical learning.
MethodologicalMethodological Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in L2 lexical Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in L2 lexical
research.research. Devising more valid scoring of VKSDevising more valid scoring of VKS
PedagogicallyPedagogically Applying the effects of task type, task frequency, word and text Applying the effects of task type, task frequency, word and text
factors as well as learner factors in L2 lexical teaching.factors as well as learner factors in L2 lexical teaching.
Contributions & limitationsContributions & limitations
Task-based L2 learning
Task type
Task frequency
Learner factors English proficiencyPrior lexical knowledge
Lexical presentation formation elaboration
2. Limitations2. LimitationsThree trials of tasks may not enough for the effects of task Three trials of tasks may not enough for the effects of task frequency.frequency.
The effects of vocabulary acquisition tests should be teased The effects of vocabulary acquisition tests should be teased out from the effects of task frequency.out from the effects of task frequency.
Contributions & limitationsContributions & limitations
Questions and suggestions!
Thanks You!