Min’s (2008) study

In response to the aforementioned limitations in Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) study, Min (2008) conducted a study extending from Paribakht and Wesche’s, with a similar purpose to compare the effectiveness of reading plus vocabulary-enhancing activities (RV) and narrow reading (NR) on vocabulary acquisition and retention among EFL secondary school students. Twenty-five students with intermediate-level English proficiency participated in each of the RV group and NR group two hours per

week for a span of five weeks. The RV group read selected main texts and practiced various vocabulary exercises on the target words appearing in the main texts, whereas the NR group read thematically related supplementary materials after the selected main texts. A Chinese version (in participants’ native language) of the modified Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht and Wesche, 1993) was employed to assess students’ knowledge of target words. The results echoes with Paribakht and Wesche’s findings and reinforces the value of post-reading word-focused activities in that the RV group demonstrated significantly more knowledge on both receptive and productive level of the target words than the NR group, not only on the acquisition but also on the retention test.

However, some concerns could be raised in Min’s study. First, the same as in Paribakht and Wesche’s study, Min also left the exposure frequency of target words uncontrolled, with target words appearing in the RV group four to five times but only three to four times in the NR group. In addition, for the thematically-related supplementary materials in NR group, Min deliberately avoided asking comprehension questions, in order to avoid the potential effect that the inclusion of comprehension questions might involve attending to certain target words and

“inadvertently impressed the students with the meaning and functions of those words and turned the NR treatment more similar to the RV group” (p. 85). This way,

however, failed to ensure that learners would make an attempt to read and understand text meaning as required. Since the RV group would have to finish all the vocabulary exercises and check answers whereas the NR group was left with no further instrument to ensure their practice of reading, one could argue that the RV group outperformed the NR group not because of its better treatment, but because subjects in the NR group might not even finish their task of supplementary reading while the RV group has to finish their task of vocabulary exercises. In other words, the deliberate exclusion of comprehension questions for the supplementary reading in NR group could lead to incomplete implementation of its treatment and thus undermines the generalization. Finally, the instrument also entails some uncertainty. As Paribakht and Wesche used their Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) in their study, the modified Chinese version of VKS was also employed in Min’s study. This instrument was used by Paribakht & Wesche and Min in an attempt to provide a more detailed account of word knowledge, ranging from “I have never seen this word” to “I can use this word in a sentence.” However, as Rott (2004) has pointed out, since it’s learners that rate their own knowledge, the instrument is not objective. Besides, the part that both Paribakht & Wesche and Min claimed to signify learners’ productive word knowledge (“I can use this word in a sentence”) ask learners to write the target word in a sentence, with the target word itself already provided. This way, it assesses only syntactical

knowledge, not productive ability, of the target word (Rott, 2004).

The discussions of the above empirical studies on vocabulary learning through reading plus word-related activities are summarized in Table 2.1.

In view of the limitations in previous studies, the present study extends from those of Paribakht & Wesche’s (1997) and Min’s (2008), wishing to reexamine the superior effectiveness of reading in enhanced condition, i.e., reading followed by post-reading word-focused activities, and add to the line of research.

TABLE 2.1

Summary of Three Empirical Studies on Vocabulary Learning through Reading Plus Word-related Activities

Author / Paper Title

Purpose To explore if, or to what extent, generation influences vocabulary learning.

Design 1. Read-and-retell without access to the text during the retelling and with generative training.

2. Read-and-retell with access to the text during the retelling and without generative training.

3. No reading and retelling (control group).

Findings 1. Read-and-retell task increase vocabulary acquisition.

2. Greater level of generative processing leads to greater vocabulary gains.

TABLE 2.1 (Continued)

Purpose To explore the role of various

reading-based vocabulary exercises in vocabulary learning.

Design 1. Reading texts and practicing various vocabulary exercises (RP condition).

2. Reading texts and doing supplementary reading (RO

Findings Students acquire more words when they are in RP condition than when they are in RO condition.

Purpose To compare the effectiveness of reading plus vocabulary-enhancing activities and narrow reading on vocabulary acquisition and retention.

Design: 1. Reading main texts and practicing various vocabulary exercises (RV

Findings Students in RV group acquire and retain more words than those in NR group, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD

The present study intends to investigate the effect of post-reading word-focused activities on vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. The participants, the materials, the instruments, the experimental procedures, and finally the adopted statistical tools and data analysis are described respectively as follows.