The effect of three consecutive context sentences on EFL vocabulary-learning.
Baleghizadeh, Sasan ; Shahry, Mohammad Naseh Nasrollahy
Introduction
In recent years we have witnessed the publication of a substantial
number of books devoted to vocabulary-learning research (Bogaards &
Laufer, 2004; Carter & McCarthy, 1988; Coady & Huckin, 1997;
Lewis, 1993, 1997; Nation, 2001; Singleton, 1999). As Singleton
remarked, this reevaluation of the role of vocabulary in second-language
acquisition (SLA) is a reflection of a similar shift toward recognition
of the great potential of vocabulary in linguistics. This reinvented
conception of the role of vocabulary is driven by the realization that a
great deal of the difficulty experienced by second-language learners
relates to lack of vocabulary.
Intuitively, the context in which learners encounter words would
seem to play a significant role in their subsequent learning.
Surprisingly, relatively few studies have sought to investigate the role
of context in learning vocabulary. From the standpoint of depth of
vocabulary knowledge, the surroundings of a word carry a great deal of
pertinent information. This study is an attempt to uncover the effect of
context--operationalized in terms of three consecutive sample sentences
in which target vocabulary items appear--on vocabulary learning.
Vocabulary has been studied in two distinct strands of research in
SLA, namely, the incidental and intentional modes. In order to locate
this article in the framework of vocabulary learning research, these two
lines of research are explored in the literature review that follows.
Literature Review
Hulstijn (2003) set out several interpretations of incidental and
intentional learning. The simplest definition, which is also the most
common among vocabulary-acquisition researchers, is that incidental
vocabulary-learning refers to a setting where learners do not make a
deliberate attempt to commit words to memory. Thus any effort to
sensitize learners to being tested on a given set of words would
constitute a context for intentional vocabulary-learning (see, e.g.,
Laufer & Girsai, 2008, for incidental; Webb, 2005, for intentional
vocabulary learning).
A commonly held view as to the genesis of incidental
vocabulary-learning is that the bulk of vocabulary acquisition occurs
through extensive reading (Krashen, 1989). This assumption fails to
stand up to close scrutiny. In fact many students fall short of the 98%
text coverage--amounting to knowledge of 8,000-9,000 word families
(Nation, 2006)--that is a prerequisite for successful comprehension
(Keating, 2008). Investigations pitting the two kinds of
vocabulary-learning against each other have revealed that intentional
learning in general is more successful than incidental
vocabulary-learning (Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, 1987). Having
learners guess the meaning of words from context has been found an
unreliable approach to vocabulary-learning in that learners tend not to
have a good sense of the accuracy of their guesses (Kaivanpanah &
Alavi, 2008). However, Nation (2001) voiced a view now common among
vocabulary researchers when he pointed out that both intentional and
incidental vocabulary-learning are commonly employed learners'
strategies and that the two are complementary in the sense that learners
learn words both by studying specific words and by learning them after
encountering them in context. Therefore, this claim, coupled with the
testimony of many language-learners and teachers, points to the
importance of incidental vocabulary-learning as a supplement to overall
acquisition of vocabulary.
Thus it is important for a study of the role of context in
vocabulary-learning to include a definition of context. A number
researchers have attempted to define context in the framework of
vocabulary-learning. Engelbart and Theuerkauf (1999) broke context down
into two categories: verbal and nonverbal. Accordingly, context has two
dimensions, each consisting of a few aspects. Verbal context includes
both the grammatical and semantic contexts. Morphological and
syntactical clues make up the grammatical context, and word associations
such as collocations, synonyms, and antonyms constitute the semantic
context. The nonverbal context includes the situative context, which
refers to the location, speaker, time, acting person, and matter that
surrounds the word; the descriptive context, which refers to the
sentence that partly explains the meaning of the unknown word; the
subject context, which refers to the information a person already has
about a given subject; and the global context, which refers to a
person's general knowledge that extends beyond the subject of the
material, that is, his or her knowledge of the world.
Vocabulary tasks with no context have proven very effective (Webb,
1962; Griffin, 1992). On the other hand, contextualized tasks like
reading texts with new words embedded in them have been found to yield
extremely poor results in terms of learning words (Swanborn & de
Glopper, 1999). A few studies have suggested that decontextualized
vocabulary tasks work as well as, if not better than, contextualized
activities (Laufer & Shmueli, 1997; Prince, 1996). However, as Webb
(2007a) pointed out, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions on the
basis of these studies because many of them compare incidental learning
from context with intentional learning through a decontextualized task,
making it hard to evaluate the effects of context accurately. Seen in
another light, in these comparisons the two learning conditions were not
on the same footing inasmuch as the learners in the intentional
condition had access to the word definitions and would not have to make
an extra effort to guess their meanings, whereas the learners in the
incidental condition had to guess the meaning of the words without any
guarantee that the inferred meaning would be correct. As this suggests,
this set of studies allows another factor to enter the picture, namely,
the capacity to guess.
Fortunately, however, a number of studies have controlled for these
variables. These studies have compared the effect of vocabulary-learning
in context with list-learning to shed light on the role of context in
isolation from confounding variables. Laufer and Shmueli (1997), for
example, set out to compare the relationship between memorization of new
words (short-term and long-term) and four modes of vocabulary
presentation and diverse languages of vocabulary glossing. The four
modes they studied were words presented (a) in isolation; (b) in
"minimal context," that is, in one meaningful sentence; (c) in
text context; and (d) in "elaborated" text context, that is,
in the original text supplemented by clarifying phrases and sentences.
In each mode of presentation, half of the words were translated into the
learners' L1 and half were explained in English. In addition,
another group, who were asked to learn the words for a quiz by
themselves, served as a control. All learners were tested on their
short-term and long-term retention of the given words. The results of
the study revealed that L1 glossing was more conducive to learning than
L2 glossing and that words presented in lists and sentences were
retained better than words presented in either type of texts. Thus it
was concluded that mental elaboration may not necessarily emerge when
words are presented in texts. This study was one of the first attempts
to make a distinction between vocabulary-learning in a minimal context
(where the target word appears in a single sample sentence) and in a
text context (where the target word appears in a piece of discourse,
say, a paragraph).
Another study that investigated the effect of a single-context
sentence on vocabulary-learning was Webb (2007a), which compared two
groups of learners: one participating in a task involving learning words
in glossed sentences, and the other completing a learning word-pairs
task. Webb wished to determine if a single-sentence context had an
effect on vocabulary-learning. This study was similar in design to
Laufer and Shmueli's (1997), the major difference being that he
examined vocabulary learning in five dimensions: orthography, meaning
and form, syntagmatic associations, paradigmatic associations, and
grammatical functions. This study falls into the category of intentional
learning in that the learners were informed that after the experiment,
they would be tested on the vocabulary items. Not unlike the result of
other studies in this line of research, presenting vocabulary in the
context of one meaningful sentence did not yield much benefit. There was
a modest difference in the various tests, suggesting that diverse types
of knowledge are affected to almost the same degree. There was even a
trend toward the word-list group outperforming the single-sentence
context group, although no statistically significant difference was
found. Similarly, other studies designed to compare word-learning in
isolation and in context failed to show either to be superior. For
example, Griffin (1992) pointed out that contextualized vocabulary tasks
might be more effective for intermediate and advanced learners and less
so for beginners on the basis of the intuitive belief that certain
qualities of vocabulary presented in context might prove helpful for
advanced learners who have no difficulty with the other words in the
sentences.
In contrast to such studies that show little difference between the
two conditions, others have yielded mixed results (Grace, 1998; Prince,
1996; Qian, 1996; Seibert, 1930). As Hulstijn (2003) and Nation (1982)
rightly pointed out, the confusion may have arisen because context is a
multifaceted construct.
An effective way to break down the challenge facing a
language-learner who is learning a vocabulary item is to distinguish
between knowing a word and using a word (Gu, 2003). If one is to use a
word communicatively, one must know the word and be able to use it in a
sentence. In studies of context, it is critical to assess the
differential effects of word-list learning and vocabulary-learning in
context on both the capacity of learners to use the word and their
knowledge of it. It is important to distinguish these two dimensions
given that a key aspect of vocabulary-learning in context purports to be
of benefit in terms of providing learners with a sample context where
the word is used naturally. Such learning might form the basis of the
learner's subsequent accurate use of the word in a sentence in a
communicative situation. Moreover, a common criticism leveled at
word-pair learning has long been its failure to provide learners with
the means to use the word. Therefore, in any study of the effects of
context, it would be worth investigating how context affects a
learner's ability to use the word.
Another point worth noting is that in most of the cited studies,
more than one group of learners was assigned to varied conditions
(Laufer & Shmueli, 1997). Although not inherently a design flaw,
this type of design with diverse groups does not readily accommodate the
possibility that individual differences might play a role. Individual
differences in vocabulary-learning strategies have been investigated on
several occasions (Boyle, 1987; Sanaoui, 1995). These individual
differences aside, the mere fact that diverse learners undertake varied
tasks to some extent confounds the individual difference factor with the
overall design.
More recently, repetition and frequency have come to the forefront
in the field of SLA (Ellis, 2002). These have been perceived as a key
variable in determining word retention in vocabulary research (Rott,
1999; Webb, 2007b; Zahar, Cobb, & Spada, 2001). Webb and Rott found,
among others, an accumulative effect of repetition of the unknown word
in either a sentence or a text. It is now widely accepted that the more
a vocabulary item is encountered, the better are the chances of
remembering it. Thus the difference between this study and earlier
studies is that the latter were conducted in the context of incidental
vocabulary-learning research. It may well be that repetition and
frequency of occurrence of vocabulary items could carry over to
intentional vocabulary-learning.
The Present Study
Research Questions
As the above discussion demonstrates, a few issues in the
literature on vocabulary-learning in and out of context warrant further
investigation. In particular, three issues stand out in the context of
our study.
The number of repetitions of every word has been shown to play a
positive role (Rott, 1999; Webb, 2007b). It remains to be seen in view
of frequency effects in incidental vocabulary-learning whether this
frequency effect carries over to intentional vocabulary-learning. To
pursue this goal, the learners in this study were provided with three
consecutive context sentences.
Methodologically, considering that there is no means of ensuring
that two separate groups will fare the same as far as memory is
concerned, it would be worthwhile to use one group to undertake both
conditions so as to minimize as far as possible the effect of individual
differences.
Noteworthy in this context is how the vocabulary knowledge scale
(VKS) test (Paribakht & Wesche, 1997) can potentially add another
insightful dimension to this study. The test requires learners to put
the given words into sentences after demonstrating their knowledge of
the meaning of the words. Of both theoretical and practical interest
would be how the two vocabulary learning conditions differentially
affect vocabulary knowledge. In particular, the study seeks to examine
the extent to which the three consecutive context sentences may affect
the ability to compose new sentences in addition to knowledge of the
meaning of the words.
In the light of the above discussion, in this study we intended to
explore the following research questions.
1. Do learners learn vocabulary items presented in three
consecutive context sentences plus their L1 equivalents (Condition 1)
better than words simply presented with their L1 equivalents (Condition
2)?
2. Can learners make new sentences with words presented in
Condition 1 better than with words presented in Condition 2?
Participants
The participants in this study were 40 adult students (18 men and
22 women) with an average age of 22 who were studying English as a
foreign language in a private language institute in Mashhad, Iran. The
participants, mostly university students, were members of three intact
classes whose scores on the TOEFL varied from 450 to 560. The first
class consisted of 13 students (4 men and 9 women), the second 13
students (6 men and 7 women), and the third 14 students (8 men and 6
women). Questionnaires distributed before the experiment revealed that
the participants had been studying English in private language
institutes for five years on average. Consultation with their respective
teachers and an examination of the books they had studied provided
corroborating evidence that the participants would not know the words
used in the context sentences.
Pilot Study
Before the main study, we deemed it appropriate to conduct the
experiment with a similar group in terms of their English background to
find out how long it would take the participants to follow the
instructions and learn the 20 target words. At the end of this pilot
study, the learners reported no serious difficulty with the target
words. In addition, it was found that on average they would need a
maximum of 10 minutes to learn the words.
Design
The experiment was conducted in the participants' regular
class time and followed a within-subjects design. Therefore, all the
participants encountered the same words in the same order under two
conditions. Ten words were presented in three consecutive context
sentences plus their L1 equivalents in Farsi (Condition 1), and the
other 10 words appeared only with their L1 equivalents and no context
sentences (Condition 2). The list of words and the context sentences and
their Farsi equivalents appear in Appendix A.
The participants were told that they would be tested on the words,
but were not told about the nature of the test. For the purpose of this
study, a modified version of the vocabulary knowledge scale (VKS) was
used. The modified scale, unlike the original with five levels of
knowledge, assigns three levels of knowledge and control of a given
word. Hence it requires learners to provide a definition either in their
L1 or in English, which earns them one point. The next level requires
participants to use the given word in an English sentence, which earns
them an extra point. So there are three possible scores for every word:
0 if the learner does not know the meaning of the word, 1 if the learner
writes the word's meaning, and 2 if the learner makes a correct
English sentence with the given word in addition to writing its meaning.
The modified VKS contained all the words selected for the experiment, so
both the pretest and the post-tests contained all 20 target words.
A potential complication was how to score the sentences on the
immediate and delayed post-tests. The second part of the VKS requires
learners to compose a sentence with a given word. The difficulty lay in
establishing fair criteria for how to score the sentences as most
sentences composed by learners are often either semantically or
syntactically ill formed. Because composing a sentence following
one's first encounter with a word is a demanding task because
learning a word is said to be a long-term enterprise (Bogaards &
Laufer, 2004), we decided to mark as correct all sentences that did not
contain global grammatical errors and would make sense semantically.
This implied that heavily flawed sentences composed by some of the
participants would be unscored.
Target Words
An issue of paramount importance in vocabulary studies is that the
words selected be unknown to the participants. To this end, in certain
studies, nonsense words are also used. However, considering that in
addition to being part of a research project, this study was intended as
an educational experience for the learners, we did not adopt this
option. Thus to ensure that the learners had not encountered the words
before the experiment, we examined an issue of the New Yorker to search
for a number of difficult words that we assumed would be unfamiliar to
the learners. We also checked the selected words with the classroom
teachers, who verified that they were beyond the learners'
knowledge. A pretest (the VKS) was also administered, which determined
that most of the learners did not know the target words.
Another important issue regarding the selection of words is their
part of speech. Barcroft (2004), for example, limited the vocabulary in
his experiment to concrete nouns, and Folse (2006) restricted his
research to verbs. In contrast, Webb (2007a, 2008) used a 6:4 ratio of
nouns to verbs so as to be more representative. Following Webb, we
decided to stick to the 6:4 ratio of nouns to verbs on the assumption
that this came closest to their frequency of occurrence in natural texts
(Kucera & Francis, 1967).
Procedure
Before the experiment, the second researcher informed the
participants of the purpose of the study, and all volunteered to take
part in the research project. After filling in a questionnaire that
mostly asked for the participants' educational background and
experience in learning English, they were given the pretest, which
revealed that the target words were unknown to most of them. To avoid
carry-over of words from the pretest to the treatment, the participants
were engaged in their normal classroom activities for 45 minutes. They
were then presented with the 20 target words in written form and asked
to learn them in no more than 10 minutes. Next they were given the
immediate post-test, which they completed in 10 minutes. A week later,
we returned to administer the delayed post-test, which resembled the
immediate post-test. As mentioned above, the study followed a
within-subject design, and the scores on both conditions were related to
each other. Therefore, a paired sample t-test was used to compare the
effects of both conditions.
Results
Based on the results of the pretest, seven students knew at least
one of the target words, so their scores on the post-tests were
excluded. As mentioned above, the data were analyzed by using a paired
sample t-test because it was a within-subjects comparison and the scores
on both learning conditions were related. Tables 1 and 2 show the
descriptive statistics for both groups of words, that is, those that
appeared in three consecutive context sentences in addition to their L1
equivalents (Condition 1) and those that were presented with merely L1
equivalents (Condition 2) on the first part of both posttests, in which
the participants were required to write the meaning of the words. The
results of the immediate post-test indicated that the mean score of the
participants in Condition 1 was significantly higher than their mean
scores in Condition 2: t(64)=-5.45, p=.001.The same held true for the
delayed post-test, that is, the participants' performance on words
that had appeared in context sentences plus their L1 equivalents was
significantly better than their performance on words paired only with
their L1 equivalents: t(64)=-5.06, p=.001.
Tables 3 and 4 show the descriptive statistics for both groups of
words on the second part of both post-tests. The participants'
sentence-making performance in Condition 1 proved to be better than
their performance on words that they had encountered apart from context
sentences on both immediate and delayed post-tests with a moderate
effect size: t(64)=-5.75, p=.001, and t(64)=-4.70, p=.001, respectively.
Discussion
The answer to both research questions was affirmative. Learners
exposed to context sentences did better in terms retaining words, and
they were also able to compose more correct sentences with them.
However, a word of caution is in order. The learners who were exposed to
context sentences had three sentences on which to draw as models, and it
is plausible that part of their better sentence-making scores could be
accounted for by their exposure to these sentences. Nevertheless, it is
worth observing that the study was primarily concerned with the
retention rates of the words, and so the fact that learners consistently
performed better on both delayed post-tests in one condition provides
evidence of better retention in the context-sentences condition. This
study can be viewed as a follow-up to earlier studies that sought to
explore the usefulness of context in vocabulary-learning (Laufer &
Shmueli, 1997; Prince, 1996, Webb, 2007b). In most of the earlier
studies, the learners encountered the target words only once either in a
single sentence or in a text. This study departs from earlier ones in
its use of three consecutive context sentences instead of one. We
decided to use three sentences instead of one because of the surge of
interest in the effect of frequency backed by empirical evidence in the
field of SLA in general (Ellis, 2002) and vocabulary-learning in
particular (Folse, 2007). The results of our study seem to indicate that
the three context sentences were effective in terms of leaving a more
durable imprint on the minds of the learners as reflected in the
results.
Frequency seems to have been favorable for vocabulary-learning, as
it was in several other studies (Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998; Webb,
2007b). However, it remains unclear whether the superior effect of
vocabulary-learning in the consecutive context condition arose from the
presence of context and the ensuing elaboration of meaning or the mere
frequency of words. We cannot favor one over the other in the light of
the present findings, but we venture to suggest that the frequency of
the encounter had a significant role in the effects observed on the
grounds that frequency of repetition is a significant determiner in
vocabulary-learning. It seems, therefore, safe to propose that a single
context was not sufficient in the earlier studies and that more frequent
contexts are required to ensure a positive effect.
An important issue worth examining here is what is meant by
knowledge of a word. Haastrup and Henriksen (2000) argued that lexical
competence has three dimensions: (a) partial-precise, which they define
as referring to diverse levels of comprehension of the same lexical
item; (b) receptive-productive, which as the name suggests, relates to
whether one's knowledge of a given word is receptive or productive;
and (c) depth of knowledge, which is a word's paradigmatic
(antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy, etc.) and syntagmatic relations
(collocational restrictions). Regarding the partial-precise dimension,
both frequency and context are critical factors. Apparently, the first
time a word is encountered, it is not the word but a fragment of it that
is acquired. Therefore, it takes many encounters to ensure that a word
is learned in its precise form. It is well known that using a word
productively is more difficult than using it receptively (Webb, 2008).
From the perspective of the receptive-productive dimension, again if a
word is seen only once, competence does not become productive. It is
only when a word has been encountered many times or in several contexts
that it can reach the stage of productive knowledge. Depth of knowledge,
a frequently neglected area in vocabulary research, cannot be gained on
one encounter given the limited input that EFL learners receive.
Similarly, it requires many encounters in various contexts to develop a
sound knowledge of syntagmatic relations. It is precisely here that
context may be believed to have the greatest potential. Learners may be
able to memorize a word by repeating it so many times that the form
becomes second nature to them, but it is only through facing the
challenge of interpreting what a word in a sentence means that learners
gain control of how to use a word in terms of collocational
restrictions.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that frequency and context have an important
place in vocabulary-learning. Although learning new words through
context-free activities such as working on word pairs might be a
powerful tool to enhance one's breadth of vocabulary knowledge,
this study provides strong evidence that adding a minimum of three
contextually appropriate sentences to L1 glosses results in a
significant improvement in vocabulary-learning. Moreover, as attested by
the results of the delayed post-test, consecutive-context sentences pave
the way for long-term learning.
The study offers a number of practical implications. Pedagogically,
it indicates the need to furnish learners with more sample sentences
when it comes to presenting vocabulary. This is significant in that
earlier research has demonstrated that one sentence including the given
word benefits learning very little. On the other hand, authors of
textbooks seem to have a propensity for presenting isolated words either
in designated boxes or in the context of a passage, which essentially
provides only one context for the given word. It appears that students
would be in a better position to learn and retain new words if they were
provided with repeated contexts through exposure to more sample
sentences. Given the scanty attention given to sufficient context
sentences in textbooks, at present it is up to teachers to supply them
to learners.
This study reveals a positive role for context in intentional
vocabulary research. However, an important issue needs further
exploration. It is still not clear whether the superior performance of
the participants with respect to learning the new words in Condition 1
should be attributed to the role of context or of frequency of
encounters. In other words, is it the elaborative nature of the context,
or is it the frequency of occurrence that promotes better vocabulary
learning? Future research is warranted to unravel this issue.
Appendix A
Target Words with Their Farsi Equivalents and Sample Sentences
Scourge:
International terror has become a scourge of our civilized society
Inflation was the scourge of the fifties.
Life was easier before the scourge of war.
Menage:
Smattering:
I heard smatterings of laughter.
It's not enough to have a smattering of a language.
He only has a smattering of Portuguese.
Mendacity:
Marshal:
You have to marshal your arguments before you speak.
He didn't marshal his thoughts. Therefore, he couldn't
speak well.
The candidate is trying to marshal support.
Efface:
Revamp:
BBC plans to revamp the show before next season.
The room needs to be revamped.
The house has recently been revamped.
Retract:
Rile:
The class riled me up.
Do not let the interviewer rile you.
he decision riled a lot of people in the country.
Souse:
Luster:
There will be a celebrity guest to add luster to the occasion
Autumn had given the trees an extra golden luster.
he luster of the celebration was the fireworks.
Melee:
Grunge:
I was disgusted by the grunge of the room.
What's that grunge there?
The desk was covered with grunge.
Grunt:
Morph:
The river had morphed into a giant sea.
Computers are morphing into a new thing.
The team had morphed into six teams.
Lynch:
Innuendo:
She found her innuendoes irritating
This campaign is based on innuendo and gossip.
His writing is full of innuendoes.
Adversity:
Scout:
I am scouting for a place to live
The police are scouting for the body of the victim.
She is scouting for a job opportunity.
Scowl:
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the anonymous TESL Canada Journal reviewers for
their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
References
Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in second language
lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 20, 303-334.
Bogaards, P., & Laufer, B. (Eds.). (2004). Vocabulary in a
second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Boyle, J.P. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary.
Language Learning, 37, 273-284.
Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical
relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, P. (Eds.). (1988). Vocabulary and
language teaching. London: Longman.
Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives.
London: Routledge.
Coady, J., & Huckin, T, (Eds.). (1997). Second language
vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A
review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.
Engelbart, S.M., & Theuerkauf, B. (1999). Defining context
within vocabulary acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 3, 57-69.
Folse, K.S. (2006). The effects of type of written exercise on L2
vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 273-293.
Grace, C.A. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from
context and sentence- level translations: Implications for the design of
beginning-level CALL software. Modern Language Journal, 82, 533-544.
Griffin, G.F. (1992). Aspects of the psychology of second language
vocabulary learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Warwick, UK.
Gu, P. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person,
task, context and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7, 2.
Haastrup, K., & Henriksen, B. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition:
Acquiring depth of knowledge through network building. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221-240.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork
orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in
a Foreign Language, 11, 207-223.
Hulstijn, J.H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language
vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and
automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 258-286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J.H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C.J.
Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 349-381). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
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.
Kaivanpanah, S., & Alavi, M. (2008). Deriving unknown word
meaning from context: Is it reliable? RELC Journal, 39, 77-95.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading:
Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal,
73, 440-464.
Ku era, H., & Francis, W.N. (1967). A computational analysis of
present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in
second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and
translation. Applied Linguistics, 29, 694-716.
Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K, (1997). Memorizing new words: Does
teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal, 28, 89-108.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way
forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory
into practice. Hove, UK: Language Teaching.
Nation, I.S.P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A
review of the research. RELC Journal, 13, 14-136.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading
and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59-82.
Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement
activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary
acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language
vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174-200).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & McDaniel, M.A. (1987).
Remembering versus inferring what a word means: Mnemonic and contextual
approaches. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of
vocabulary acquisition (pp. 107-128). Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of
context versus translations as a function of proficiency. Modern
Language Journal, 80, 478-493.
Qian, D. (1996). ESL vocabulary acquisition: Contextualization and
decontextualization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 120-42.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate
language learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention
through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 589-619.
Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners' approaches to learning
vocabulary in second languages. Modern Language Journal, 79, 15-28.
Seibert, L.C. (1930). An experiment on the relative efficiency of
studying French vocabulary in associated pairs versus studying French
vocabulary in context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 297-314.
Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swanborn, M.S.L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word
learning while reading: A meta analysis. Review of Educational Research,
69, 261-85.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The
effects of reading and writing on vocabulary knowledge. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33-52.
Webb, S. (2007a). Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: The
effects of a single context on vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching
Research, 11, 63-81.
Webb, S. (2007b). The effects of repetition on vocabulary
knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28, 46-65.
Webb, S. (2008). The effect of context on incidental vocabulary
learning. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20, 232-245.
Webb, W.B. (1962). The effects of prolonged learning on learning.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 173-82.
Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary
through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 57, 541-572.
Sasan Baleghizadeh is an assistant professor of TEFL at Shahid
Beheshti University, G.C. of Iran, where he teaches applied linguistics,
syllabus design, and materials development. He is the author of Tales
from Rumi, Tales from Men of Wisdom, and a number of other simplified
readers, all published by the Iran Language Institute. His recent
publications have appeared in TESL Reporter, ELT Journal, and The
Teacher Trainer.
Mohammad Naseh Nasrollahy Shahry is currently a doctoral candidate
in TEFL at Shahid Beheshti University, G.C. of Iran. His main research
area is teaching vocabulary in EFL contexts.
Table 1
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and f-Value for Both Groups
of Words on the Immediate Post-test (Meaning Recognition)
Groups n M SD df t sig
Condition 1 33 6.6 2.23 64 -5.45 .001
Condition 2 33 5.03 2.24
p<.05.
Table 2
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and f-value for Both Groups
of Words on the Delayed Post-test (Meaning Recognition)
Groups n M SD df t sig
Condition 1 33 5.58 2.17 64 -5.06 .001
Condition 2 33 4.24 2.15
p<.05.
Table 3
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and f-Value for Both Groups
of Words on the Immediate Post-test (Sentence-Making)
Groups n M SD df t sig
Condition 1 33 11.45 4.47 64 -5.75 .001
Condition 2 33 7.69 4.64
p<.05.
Table 4
Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and f-Value for Both Groups
of Words on the Delayed Post-test (Sentence-Making)
Groups n M SD df t sig
Condition 1 33 9.63 4.18 64 -4.70 .001
Condition 2 33 6.81 4.32
p<.05.
