讀後單字增強活動對字彙習得與記憶之效益研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系. 碩士論文 M. A. Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 讀後單字增強活動對字彙習得與記憶之效益研究 The Effect of Post-reading Vocabulary-enhancing Activities on EFL Vocabulary Acquisition and Retention. 指導教授：林至誠博士 Advisor: Dr. Chih-cheng Lin 研究生：賴亦歆 Yi-hsin Lai. 中華民國九十八年六月 June, 2009.

(2) 中文摘要本研究比較輔以單字增強活動的閱讀情境、以及純粹閱讀的情境，藉此探討讀後單字增強活動(post-reading vocabulary-enhancing activities)對於字彙習得 (acquisition)與記憶(retention)之效益影響。另外，單字增強活動的效益是否與學習者的程度高低有相互影響，亦在本研究中有所探討。受試者為台灣某高中的兩班高一學生；其中英文資優班學生代表程度較高的學生 (higher-proficiency group) ，而普通班學生則代表程度較低的學生 (lower-proficiency group)，兩班各自再進一步分成單字增強組(reading-plus group) 以及純粹閱讀組(reading-only group)。實驗開始前，研究者以一單字檢核表進行前測，以確認受試者不認識實驗中的主要單字(target words)。實驗中，單字增強組的受試者閱讀一篇含五個主要單字的選文，回答閱讀理解問題，接著完成一系列針對該五個主要單字的增強活動；而在純粹閱讀組中，受試者閱讀同樣一篇選文，回答同樣的閱讀理解問題，接著閱讀另一篇含同樣該五個主要單字的補充文章，再完成該文章的閱讀理解問題；之後，兩組受試者隨即接受後測(immediate posttest)，以得知兩組主要單字的習得狀況——這樣的程序在兩週內重複進行了四次，每次五個主要單字，共測驗了二十個主要單字。兩週後，受試者再次接受包含所有二十個主要單字的後測(delayed posttest)，以得知單字的記憶情形。研究結果顯示，就量而言，不論是對程度較高的學生而言、抑或是對程度較低的學生而言，單字增強組都習得更多主要單字的知識並保留更多的記憶；而就質而言，不論是辨識字彙的能力(receptive vocabulary knowledge)，或是應用字彙的能力(productive vocabulary knowledge)，單字增強組亦較純粹閱讀組更有收穫。因此，本研究認為，對於以英語為外語(EFL)的高中學生而言，讀後單字增強活動對於字彙的習得與記憶較純粹閱讀更有效益。至於單字增強活動與學習者程度兩者效益的相互影響，本研究發現，受試者程度所造成的效益，會依單字增強活動的施行與否有所不同——透過單字增強活動的施行，較高程度的學生在立即性後測(immediate posttest)的成績上沒有顯著高於較低程度的學生。對此，本研究推論，就短期字彙習得而言，讀後單字增強活動對於較低程度的學生之幫助大於對較高程度的學生；因此，對於中低程度的班級，讀後單字活動特別建議施行。. i.

(3) ABSTRACT The current study investigated the effect of post-reading vocabulary-enhancing activities on vocabulary acquisition and retention, comparing the effect of this practice with that of supplementary reading. Whether or not the role of vocabulary-enhancing activities interacted with learners’ proficiency level was also explored. Participants were students from two tenth-grade classes in a senior high school in Taiwan, with the English gifted class representing higher-proficiency group and a regular class representing lower-proficiency group; both were further divided into reading-plus group and reading-only group. Prior to the treatment, a checklist vocabulary pretest was employed to validate that students had no prior knowledge of the target words. As the treatment began, the reading-plus group read a main text embedded with five target words, answered multiple-choice comprehension questions, and completed vocabulary-enhancing exercises, whereas the reading-only group read the same main text, answered the same comprehension questions, and did supplementary reading with comprehension check. The same procedures repeated four rounds for two weeks, that is, a set of five target words in each round and twenty target words in total. To assess students’ knowledge of target word items, posttests were employed, with immediate posttests administered immediately after four rounds of treatments as acquisition tests, and a delayed posttest administered two weeks later as the retention test. Each posttest included one recognition test, in which students chose correct Chinese translations of the target words from a multiple-choice test, and one production test, in which students complete sentences using target words. The results show that the reading-plus group demonstrated significantly more vocabulary gain than the reading-only group in both acquisition and retention tests for both higher- and lower-proficiency groups. The quality of the vocabulary gain is also better for reading-plus group in that the reading-plus group demonstrated both receptive and productive knowledge of more target words. It is thus concluded that reading plus post-reading vocabulary-enhancing exercises possesses superior effectiveness than reading-only instruction in enhancing vocabulary acquisition and retention among EFL senior high students. As for the interaction effect, the influence of proficiency on vocabulary acquisition was shown to be interfered by the employment of vocabulary-enhancing exercises, rendering the difference in acquisition scores between higher- and lower-proficiency groups insignificant. It is interpreted that for short-term vocabulary acquisition, the effectiveness of post-reading vocabulary enhancing exercises is more pronounced for lower-proficiency students than for higher-proficiency ones. Thus, for ii.

(4) classes of intermediate-low or lower levels, post-reading vocabulary-enhancing activities are especially recommended.. iii.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Praise to the Lord, that I actually manage to complete this thesis! But it takes more than my own effort to make this happen. I owe a great deal to many people for the birth of the thesis. So with gratitude and pleasure, here I would like to acknowledge their assistance and support. First of all, I am deeply indebted to my thesis advisor, Dr. Chih-cheng Lin, for everything from the research process to the development and the actual writing of the thesis. He carved some time out of his busy schedule, offered me expert guidance, and gave me constant encouragement. He allowed enough independence for me to carry out my own thesis work, but steered me to the right path when I needed it. Without him, this thesis couldn’t have been possible. Also, my sincere gratitude is extended to my thesis committee members, Dr. Wen-ta Tseng and Dr. Chin-cheng Huang. Dr. Tseng generously offered me insightful advice on statistical analyses; without his valuable suggestions, the quantitative analyses of the study could not have moved on smoothly. Dr. Huang did meticulous reading of the entire work; his thorough scrutiny and detailed comments played a significant role in improving the quality of the thesis. Furthermore, I’m also grateful for the willing help from my high school colleagues, and for the full cooperation of my lovely students as the experimental subjects. Their support not only accelerated the data collection process, but also warmed my heart during the painful process of thesis writing. Last, but most certainly not the least, I would like to thank my beloved family: my parents, who have been devoting their whole heart and soul to me and whose love has never faded with time; my brother, who is pursuing his own academic study but is always ready for help; and above all, my newlywed husband. Special thanks go to my husband, for his unconditional love and unwavering support. He even tolerated the increasingly difficult person that I had gradually become when I struggled to juggle between my career as a high school teacher and my studies as a graduate student. With his loving care and his full backup, I could concentrate on my thesis, surmount the obstacles that I was confronted with, and ultimately finish the course. From him I have experienced an unreserved true love. I am who I am, I accomplish what I accomplish, all because of my dear husband. To him, I dedicate the thesis.. iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT(Chinese) ....................................................................................................i ABSTRACT(English)....................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................iv CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1 1.1 Background and Motivation ..................................................................3 1.2 Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................5 1.3 Research Questions................................................................................6 1.4 Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................8 2.1 Vocabulary Learning Through Reading.................................................8 2.2 Vocabulary Learning Through Reading Plus Word-focused Activities13 2.2.1 Theoretical Framework for Establishment of Vocabulary Knowledge ...................................................................................15 2.2.2 The Hierarchy of Reading-related Vocabulary Exercises Types..19 2.2.2.1 Exercises for Selective Attention ..........................................21 2.2.2.2 Recognition Exercises...........................................................22 2.2.2.3 Manipulation Exercises.........................................................23 2.2.2.4 Interpretation Exercises ........................................................24 2.2.2.5 Production Exercises.............................................................26 2.3 Previous Empirical Studies on Vocabulary Learning through Reading Plus Word-related Activities ................................................................27 2.3.1 Joe’s (1998) study ........................................................................27 2.3.2 Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) study ..........................................29 2.3.3 Min’s (2008) study.......................................................................31 CHAPTER THREE METHOD ................................................................................36 3.1 Participants...........................................................................................36 3.2 Materials ..............................................................................................37 3.2.1 Main Texts....................................................................................37 3.2.2 Target Words ................................................................................38 3.2.3 Vocabulary-enhancing Exercises .................................................39 3.2.4 Thematically-related Texts...........................................................40 3.3 Test Instruments ...................................................................................41 3.3.1 Vocabulary Pretest .......................................................................41 3.3.2 Vocabulary Posttests ....................................................................41 3.4 Procedures............................................................................................43.

(7) 3.5. Data Analysis .......................................................................................46 3.5.1 Scoring .........................................................................................46 3.5.2 Statistical Procedures ...................................................................46 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..............................................48 4.1 Results..................................................................................................48 4.1.1 Participants’ Proficiency and Baseline Knowledge of the Target Words ...........................................................................................50 4.1.2 The Effectiveness of Treatments..................................................52 4.1.3 Effectiveness of Treatments on Quantity of Vocabulary Knowledge ...................................................................................54 4.1.4 Effectiveness of Treatments on Quality of Vocabulary Knowledge… ...............................................................................63 4.1.5 Relationship of Proficiency and Treatment..................................68 4.2 Discussions ..........................................................................................71 4.2.1 Superior Effectiveness of RP Approach on Quantity of Vocabulary Gain..............................................................................................71 4.2.2 Superior Effectiveness of RP Approach on Quality of Vocabulary Gain..............................................................................................74 4.2.2.1 Effect of the RO Approach on Formal Knowledge ..............75 4.2.3 Interaction of Instructional Treatment and Reading Proficiency.79 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION............................................................................82 5.1 Summary of the Findings.....................................................................82 5.2 Pedagogical Implications .....................................................................84 5.3 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................87 5.4 Suggestions for Future Research .........................................................88 References....................................................................................................................89 Appendices...................................................................................................................94 Appendix A. The Pretest ......................................................................................94 Appendix B. Main texts .......................................................................................96 Appendix C. Vocabulary exercises ....................................................................101 Appendix D. Supplementary readings ...............................................................106 Appendix E. Vocabulary posttests ..................................................................... 111.

(8) LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 Summary of Three Empirical Studies on Vocabulary Learning through Reading Plus Word-related Activities ..................................................................34 TABLE 3.1 Design of the Study ..................................................................................45 TABLE 4.1 Comparisons of Participants’ Proficiency Prior to the Treatment ............51 TABLE 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Acquisition and Retention Scores for RP and RO Groups..................................................................................................................53 TABLE 4.3 Three-way ANOVA for Effects of Time (T), Instructional Treatment (IT), and Proficiency (P) on Vocabulary Development................................................55 TABLE 4.4 Two-way ANOVAs for the Simple Interaction Effects of Time (T), Proficiency (P), and Instructional Treatment (IT)................................................57 TABLE 4.5 Two-way ANOVA for the Simple Interaction Effect of Instructional Treatment (IT) and Time (T) for Higher-proficiency Students (HP) ...................59 TABLE 4.6 Two-way ANOVA for the Simple Interaction Effect of Instructional Treatment (IT) and Proficiency (P) in Vocabulary Retention Test ......................60 TABLE 4.7 Simple-simple Main Effect of Instructional Treatment (IT) at the Time of Acquisition and Retention (T) for Lower-proficiency Students (LP)..................61 TABLE 4.8 Simple-simple Main Effect of Instructional Treatment (IT) for Students of Each Level of Proficiency (P) in Vocabulary Acquisition Test............................62 TABLE 4.9 Breakdown of Responses over Three Levels of Vocabulary Knowledge 64 TABLE 4.10 Two-way ANOVAs for the Simple Interaction Effect of Instructional Treatment (IT) and Proficiency (P) in Acquisition and Retention Tests..............69 TABLE 4.11 Simple-simple Main Effect of One Factor at Each Level of the Other Factor of Proficiency (P) and Instructional Treatment (IT) in Vocabulary Acquisition Test ...................................................................................................70 TABLE 4.12 Make-up of the RO Responses with Both Receptive and Productive Knowledge ...........................................................................................................79.

(9) LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 4.1 The Process of Effects-decomposition for the Treatment Factor ...........50 FIGURE 4.2 Response Patterns of the RP and RO Groups in Acquisition Test..........67 FIGURE 4.3 Response Patterns of the RP and RO Groups in Retention Test.............67.

(10) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Vocabulary knowledge has long been regarded as a determinant influencing ESL/EFL learners’ overall competence. Judd (1978) asserts that control over vocabulary knowledge is one major factor that leads to fluency in a language. In studies that intend to determine the threshold as the boundary between not having and having enough language knowledge for successful language use, it is suggested that the most pressing need of the foreign language learners is vocabulary (Laufer & Sim, 1985), and the minimum for the comprehension of unsimplified text is shown to be 3,000 word family level (Laufer, 1997). Research on second language learners of school-age also concludes that vocabulary knowledge is the most important predictor of their academic achievement (Saville-Troike, 1984). All of the above shows that the primary importance of vocabulary cannot be ignored and it deserves the optimal attention of language learners and researchers. Researchers have been searching for effective ways to enhance learners’ vocabulary learning, and many techniques of direct vocabulary instruction are thus examined. However, since there are too many words to teach and it takes too long a time to effectively teach a word (Nagy, 1997), other ways of increasing learners’ vocabulary size that require less teaching effort and less classroom time need to be. 1.

(11) recognized and encouraged. As Nagy, Anderson, and Herman (1987) claimed, only a small proportion of vocabulary growth can be attributed to direct vocabulary instruction. Thus some vocabulary learning needs to occur outside the classroom, and a more feasible way is for learners to acquire vocabulary knowledge through their individual extensive reading. Despite the general consensus among researchers (Brown, 2000; Coady, 1997; Grabe & Stoller, 1997; Krashen, 1993; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1987; Nation, 1990; Nation & Coady, 1988) that reading is one source for acquiring vocabulary, some inadequacies have been identified in incidental vocabulary acquisition through normal, independent, unenhanced reading schemes. First, many unknown words are simply ignored by readers (Bensoussan & Laufer, 1984; Fraser, 1999; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999). Second, attempts to infer the meaning of unknown words oftentimes elicit wrong guesses, which might be related to limit of learners’ L2 proficiency or inadequacy of contextual cues (Bensoussan & Laufer, 1984; Hulstijn, 1992). Furthermore, even if correct meaning is successfully inferred, it doesn’t always lead to acquisition or retention of the target word if, after immediate comprehension is achieved, learners take no further mental processing of the word (Laufer, 2003; Nation & Coady, 1988; Paribakht & Wesche, 2000). Therefore, while recognizing reading as one major source for vocabulary growth,. 2.

(12) it appears that some intervention still needs to be implemented for vocabulary acquisition through reading to take place more efficiently and effectively. As Rott (1999) pointed out, a pedagogically successful vocabulary instruction should involve ESL/EFL learners not only in reading for meaning but also doing so under an enhanced condition. 1.1 Background and Motivation Some experiments (Knight, 1994; Luppescu & Day, 1993; Min, 2008; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997) have been conducted to compare vocabulary learning under a normal, unenhanced reading condition and that under a reading condition enhanced with word-focused tasks. The results showed a superior effectiveness of the latter condition over the former one; in other words, reading plus vocabulary-enhancing activities was reported to elicit more word gain than reading only. However, some limitations could be noted in previous studies, including the failure to equalize the amount of time spent on target words in different treatments (Knight, 1994; Luppescu & Day, 1993) and the lack of uniformity in exposure frequency of the target words in different treatments (Min, 2008; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997), leaving the reading-plus group privileged with more repetitions of target words. Since allocating more time in a certain treatment might allow more effort and consequently contribute to a better result, and since exposure frequency is already deemed to be one of the decisive. 3.

(13) factors in acquiring vocabulary from context (Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998; Knight, 1994; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985), it might possibly be illuminating to conduct another study to reexamine the enhancement of post-reading word-focused activities. Besides, previous research mostly probed into only one level of proficiency and didn’t explore whether the factor of proficiency level would increase or reduce the dependence on vocabulary-enhancing activities. Stanovich (1986) has reported a reciprocal relationship between reading ability and vocabulary size for native language literacy, but questions are still invited as to whether the reciprocal relationship also exists between L2 learners’ reading proficiency and their vocabulary acquisition, i.e., whether students with higher proficiency can pick up more words from reading than students with lower proficiency. It is assumed that for a new word to be acquired, sufficient attention must be allocated to make the form-meaning connection (Ellis, 1995). However, learners of all proficiency level occasionally avoid unfamiliar words especially when the gist is easily understood and attention to target words is thus considered less necessary (Pulido, 2003). For readers with superior proficiency in the condition of reading for comprehension, it’s even more likely to understand the context well without having to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words. This lack of adequate attention to the new words may result in their failure to induce superior vocabulary gain, which goes against the assumption that higher. 4.

(14) proficiency level will contribute to more word gains and makes them in no less need of vocabulary-enhancing activities to enhance their vocabulary acquisition from reading. Considering the limitations of previous related studies and the absence of different proficiency levels involved in their experiments for cross-sectional generalization, the facilitative effect of vocabulary-enhancing activities on vocabulary learning might still deserve some research effort. Thus, the present study is to be conducted to reexamine vocabulary acquisition under the conditions of reading only and reading plus vocabulary-enhancing activities for learners of different proficiency levels. 1.2 Purpose of the Study The present study is conducted, first, to investigate the effect of post-reading vocabulary-enhancing activities on vocabulary acquisition and retention for EFL learners of different proficiency levels, and second, to examine the interaction between the role of vocabulary-enhancing activities and language proficiency, if there is any. The study wishes to add more empirical evidence to the extant research literature on the superior effectiveness of reading plus vocabulary-enhancing activities over unenhanced reading condition. The aim of this line of research is to establish and prompt the conditions contributive to increasing vocabulary growth through reading.. 5.

(15) 1.3 Research Questions The present study poses the following two research questions: 1.. Do post-reading vocabulary-enhancing activities influence EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and retention quantitatively?. 2.. Do post-reading vocabulary-enhancing activities influence EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and retention qualitatively? The first question investigates whether vocabulary-enhancing activities elicit. more vocabulary gains immediately after the treatment and 2 weeks afterward. The second question analyzes whether vocabulary-enhancing activities enhance learners’ vocabulary knowledge from either the receptive or productive scale to both the receptive and productive scale. Receptive vocabulary knowledge in this study refers to learners’ ability to select correct Chinese equivalents of target words from the multiple-choice test, whereas productive vocabulary knowledge refers to their ability to correctly produce target words in the provided sentential contexts. 1.4 Definition of Key Terms Vocabulary Acquisition: Vocabulary acquisition, a term used interchangeably with “vocabulary learning” in this study, refers to the fact that learners acquire new words when they are engaged in a reading process. In this study, vocabulary acquisition is obtained from the sum scores of four immediate posttests.. 6.

(16) Vocabulary Retention: Vocabulary retention refers to the fact that learners can recall words encountered during reading after a certain period of time. In this study, vocabulary retention is obtained from the scores of a two-week-delayed post-test. Vocabulary-enhancing. Activities:. Vocabulary-enhancing. activities,. or. “word-focused activities” used more frequently in chapter two, refer to the tasks on the target words of the texts learners are required to read. In this study, the vocabulary-enhancing activities are post-reading activities that learners will be engaged in after their first encounter of the target words in the reading of the main text. Proficiency Level: In the present study, learners’ proficiency level is determined by the classes they are placed in and confirmed by their performance on the reading section of an intermediate-level General English Proficiency Test (GEPT). Participants in the English Gifted Class, who obtained higher scores, were classified as learners of higher proficiency level, whereas participants in a regular class, who received lower scores, were labeled as learners of lower proficiency level.. 7.

(17) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW The chapter reviews previous studies on learners’ lexical development through reading and through reading plus word-focused activities. In section 2.1, there are discussions on reading as a means for vocabulary gain to occur incidentally, including the positive effect it shows on L1 development and the dubious value it presents for L2 learners. Section 2.2 discusses enhanced reading condition for vocabulary acquisition, presenting post-reading word-focused activities as a factor facilitating vocabulary learning from context. In the section, the theoretical frameworks for establishment of vocabulary knowledge are first described, followed by classifications of reading-related word-focused activities and the discussions on how each category of word-focused activities can help to better consolidate the vocabulary learning. And finally, in section 2.3, the chapter ends with the review of some empirical studies on vocabulary learning through enhanced reading condition, i.e., reading plus vocabulary-enhancing activities, to discuss the facilitative effect the activities show on vocabulary learning. 2.1 Vocabulary Learning Through Reading The value of reading as a way to develop vocabulary is well-recognized in L1 development. Nagy, Herman, and Anderson (1985) conducted a research on how. 8.

(18) children learn vocabulary in their native language. They involved elementary school students as subjects, used passages from school textbooks as texts, and concluded from their data that when children see unfamiliar words in print, a small but statistically significant increase of word knowledge typically occurs. Thus it is proposed that for L1 learners the vast majority of vocabulary words are learned gradually through repeated exposures in various discourse contexts, in other words, that most native speakers’ vocabulary learning occurs through reading and inferring from context. To increase vocabulary growth, the most effective way, hence, is to engage children in lots of reading. This assumption that sees reading as the major vehicle for continued vocabulary acquisition, which might hold true for L1 learners, however, might not be equally well applied to L2 learners. Krashen, a leading proponent of extensive reading, has aroused some suspicion and doubt on his allegation. He drew on the Input Hypothesis that more comprehensible input results in more language acquisition, and then proposed that more reading involved is associated with greater competence in vocabulary (Krashen, 1989). He even claimed that for L2 learners reading alone is a powerful means and a principle source of developing vocabulary, and he advocated maximized quantities of reading instead of any direct instruction (Krashen, 1993). In spite of Krashen’s vigorous advocacy of reading for L2 vocabulary acquisition, Coady (1997). 9.

(19) pointed out that among the 144 studies Krashen (1989) analyzed in the attempt to provide evidence for the superiority of the Input Hypothesis, an overwhelming majority of them involved actually native speakers rather than L2 learners. In those few studies that actually involved L2 learners (Pitts, White, and Krashen, 1989; Day, Omura, and Hiramatsu, 1991; Dupuy and Krashen, 1993), the control groups were not given any exposure to the target words prior to the test; it is thus hardly surprising that the experimental groups demonstrated better vocabulary knowledge of the target words. As Coady (1997) mentioned, “research that positively supports Krashen’s claims with regards to L2 vocabulary acquisition is still very limited” (p, 226). Judging from the abovementioned comment of Coady, the value of reading for L2 vocabulary growth to occur incidentally still remains uncertain. It seems a normal, unenhanced reading scheme for L2 vocabulary acquisition still has some limitations. The first challenge is on its efficiency (how many exposures are required to ensure successful vocabulary acquisition and retention) (Min, 2008), especially in the drastic different EFL learning environments where exposures to target vocabulary are often more limited. As Laufer (2003) pointed out, experiments (Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu, 1991; Hulstijn, 1992; Knight, 1994; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Pitt, White, & Krashen, 1992) all report a very small amount of L2 incidental lexical growth through reading practice, only 1-5 words per text of up to 7,000 words. Paribakht and Wesche. 10.

(20) (1997) also indicated that the progress of L2 vocabulary gain through the increasing of L2 reading practice is “slow” and “laborious” (p. 175). Hulstijn (1992) stated in an even more explicit way: “we would like to draw the reader’s attention to a plain but important fact: the retention of word meanings in a true incidental learning task is very low indeed” (p. 122). He considered it very unlikely that the meaning of a word can be learned fully upon only few occurrences. Since the chance is very small that L2 learners remember the meaning of a word occurring only once in a text being read for its content, the whole vocabulary gain through reading practice depends critically on repeated exposures. And in fact, for the effect of repeated exposures to take place, or in other words, for the cumulative effect to take place, what really matters is not just to encounter a new word again, but to encounter it before it is forgotten (Laufer, 2003). In a normal reading condition, learners sometimes do not keep meeting words that they have just learned in the following context with an ideal interval. In such case, the small amount of learning of a new word cannot be reinforced soon by another meeting, and then “that learning will be lost”, making the L2 vocabulary acquisition “very fragile” (Nation, 2001, p. 155), which cast more doubt on the efficiency of normal reading condition for vocabulary acquisition. Besides the efficiency issue mentioned above, there are other concerns regarding the effectiveness (whether learners can correctly infer the meaning of an unknown. 11.

(21) word and retain it) (Min, 2008). Laufer (2003) questioned the assumption that, on encountering and noticing an unfamiliar word, learners will use contextual clues to successfully infer its meaning. According to Laufer, not all contexts provide clues for unknown words; and when they do, clues are sometimes ignored when learners think the message is already understood, when the correct meaning contradicts with learners’ world knowledge, or when the clues themselves are unknown words and therefore unusable to the learner. Even when the clues are used and the word is correctly inferred, it doesn’t necessarily lead to retention of the word. Words that can be successfully guessed quickly and easily, Laufer argued, demand less processing effort, which work against their retention. Lyster (1990) also challenged the effectiveness of incidental lexical growth through a normal reading-for-meaning scheme, especially when the goal is for an accurate productive use of vocabulary to take place. He discussed on Krashen’s (1982) SLA “theory” that acquisition doesn’t come from conscious learning but takes place only when learners are exposed to comprehensible input and focus on meaning, and contended that the theory is untenable. Lyster concluded that exclusive meaning-based language-use activities are “not a sufficient condition” (p. 168) for successful L2 learning, and neither is it enough for the internalization of the intricacy of all the lexico-semantic-syntactical features that rule and underlie accurate. 12.

(22) production of L2 vocabulary. In addition to efficiency and effectiveness issues, pedagogically, the normal unenhanced reading scheme for L2 learners’ vocabulary development to occur incidentally also causes some uncertainty. Lexical growth from this reading scheme is usually described as a “by-product” of reading, or as the accidentally learned information without learners’ deliberate intention to learn that information. In so saying, it is implicated that vocabulary gain through reading is an unpredictable process, and the unpredictability can make the learning process difficult to be influenced either through teachers’ instruction and selection of materials or through learners’ approach to the reading task (Rott, 1999). In consideration of the above limitations, the normal unenhanced reading scheme for vocabulary acquisition, though likely accounting for a large proportion of L1 vocabulary development, may not be as applicable for L2 learners. As Paribakht and Wesche (1997) indicated, “if systematic development of L2 vocabulary is desired, it cannot be left to the students themselves. They cannot be expected to ‘pick up’ substantial or specific vocabulary knowledge through reading exposure without guidance” (p. 177). Thus, it seems some intervention needs to be implemented to accompany reading for better vocabulary acquisition to take place. 2.2 Vocabulary Learning Through Reading Plus Word-focused Activities. 13.

(23) In response to the abovementioned constraints of vocabulary learning through normal unenhanced reading condition, the present study contends that second language or foreign language learners should not depend solely on incidental learning from context, and that some instructional intervention needs to be employed to supplement incidental vocabulary learning through reading. As Stoller and Grabe (1993) argued, reading-related instructional intervention would make vocabulary learning more predictable and efficient. As Nation (2001) also suggested, in addition to large quantity of reading, EFL learners should be complemented with more deliberate. vocabulary-focused. practice. to. draw. reasonable. attention. to. decontextualized learning. To compensate for the inadequacies perceived in L2 incidental vocabulary acquisition and to enhance vocabulary acquisition through reading with instructional intervention, the “reading-plus approach” — reading plus some post-reading word-focused activities to enhance vocabulary acquisition — is advocated in this study. This approach recognizes the value of reading as a vehicle to bring learners into meaningful contacts with new words and as one of few ways for more advanced learners to acquire less frequently occurring words (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996). The aim of this approach is to enhance vocabulary acquisition from reading practice for L2 learners through the application of a variety of text-related vocabulary exercises.. 14.

(24) These activities create the need for learners to make an effort to analyze and use target words in several different ways (guessing a word in an unenhanced reading condition, on the other hand, may not require a similar effort), and thus help to extend and consolidate learners’ knowledge of the target words, making them more accessible for later use. The following theoretical framework could further explain the facilitative effect of theses vocabulary exercises. 2.2.1. Theoretical Framework for Establishment of Vocabulary Knowledge Studies have found that processing information at greater depth increases the. likelihood of that information being recalled (Craik & Tulving, 1975). To define depth and to apply it to vocabulary learning tasks, Stahl (1985, 1986) suggested a three-point scale describing three different depth of processing for vocabulary learning, and they are associative processing, comprehension processing, and generative processing. The first level, associative processing, is that from a given definition or context learners learn the connection between the form and the meaning of a new word. The second level, comprehension processing, involves learners to demonstrate their understanding of the learned form-meaning association by giving definitional information such as finding an antonym or placing a word in the correct sentence blank. The third level, generative processing, is demonstrated when learners use the comprehended form-meaning association and produce a novel response to the. 15.

(25) word, such as by giving a restatement of definition in their own words or by formulating an original sentence that clearly demonstrates the word meaning. In these three successive levels of processing, Stahl (1985) reviewed method-comparison studies in vocabulary instruction and showed that the comprehension processing will lead to larger effect on vocabulary learning than associative processing, and generation processing, being a more active process and involving more of learners’ mental resources (Slamecka & Graf, 1978), will lead to the largest effect on vocabulary learning. Nation (2001) also suggested that learners undergo three conditions, which roughly correspond to Stahl’s three levels of processing, for vocabulary knowledge to be well-established: noticing, retrieval, and generative use. The three conditions can be viewed as three steps needed for a word to be remembered, “with the later steps including the earlier steps” (p. 63). The first step, noticing, according to Nation, can be triggered through “formal instruction, negotiation, the need to comprehend or produce, and awareness of inefficiencies” (p. 63). When learners “notice” a lexical item, they are consciously aware of the presence of a certain word, give attention to it, and see it as a useful language item to be comprehended or learned (Schmidt, 1990; Nation, 2001). Noticing can be affected by several factors, including “the salience of a word, previous contacts learners have had with the word, or learners’ realization that. 16.

(26) the word fills in the gap of their knowledge of the language” (Nation, 2001, p.63); other factors like learners’ motivation and their interests are also enabling conditions for noticing (Nation, 2001, pp. 63-4). The second step for a word to be remembered is retrieval. If a word, after being noticed and comprehended, can be subsequently retrieved during a task, then memory of the word will be strengthened (Nation, 2001, p. 67). According to Nation, there are two kinds of retrieval: receptive and productive. Receptive retrieval involves seeing or hearing a word and having to retrieve its meaning when reading or listening, whereas productive retrieval involves having to produce the spoken or written form of a word when intending to communicate in speaking or writing. The third step that can lead to a word being remembered is generation, or generative use of the target word. This occurs when the word is met or used in a different way from the previous meeting, such as with inflections through different grammatical context or with different reference or meaning (Nation, 2001, p. 68). Generation can also be receptive or productive. Receptive generation involves seeing or hearing a word used in a new way or in a new context in listening or reading, while productive generation involves producing new ways of using the target word in a new context (Wittrock, 1974, cited in Nation, 2001). There are also degrees of generation. Generation is low if the new context of the word to be learned is only slightly. 17.

(27) different from the previous one, and generation is high if the word is used in a substantially different way, which may indicate that the word is being integrated into the learners’ internal language system. In any case, generation leads to a form of “mental elaboration” (Baddeley, 1990) by encouraging learners to reconceptualize their knowledge of the word, and hence deepens the level of processing and enhance the learning of the word. The post-reading word-focused activities advocated in the present study help to create the abovementioned conditions for the establishment of vocabulary knowledge. First, as practices of target words, post-reading word-focused activities increase the salience of the target words and prompt learners to “notice” the words to be learned. Unlike its counterpart where learners sometimes overestimate their understanding of overall messages and then leave target words unnoticed (Laufer, 2003), post-reading word-focused activities make learners modify their subjective view and draw their attention to words to be learned. Besides, with the tasks to complete, learners’ motivation in learning may be increased. In other words, post-reading word-focused activities add factors that help to trigger noticing and thus can be contributive to the establishment of vocabulary knowledge. Second, in the post-reading word-focused activities, learners retrieve ideas of the target words just learned from their previous meetings in the text. As Baddeley (1990). 18.

(28) once suggested, it really matters that learners have repeated opportunities to retrieve forms or meanings of target words, which is also why studies have shown the importance of repeated exposures in vocabulary acquisition (Nagy, Herman, and Anderson, 1985; Rott, 1999). Compared with the authentic reading practice where a target word might not be repeated until a long time later, which makes the recurrence of target words practically not a repetition but more like a first encounter, the practice of retrieving a target word in the immediate post-reading word-focused activities strengthens the link between its form and its meaning and thus is more helpful for vocabulary growth. Finally, in the post-reading word-focused activities, learners practice target words in novel contexts different from their original ones in the text. Since the previous met target words in the text are subsequently met or used in a different way in the post-reading vocabulary exercises, the generative processing occurs (Nation, 2001, p. 68); these post-reading word-focused activities, therefore, can enhance the learning of the target words. 2.2.2. The Hierarchy of Reading-related Vocabulary Exercises Types Attempts to categorize vocabulary tasks and exercises have used quite different. criteria. Among them, Paribakht and Wesche (1996) proposed a classification scheme for reading-related vocabulary exercises, which could be associated with Gass’s (1988). 19.

(29) information processing framework (Nation, 2001). In an attempt to explain how surrounding language data are gradually integrated and stored as learners’ mental knowledge and eventually become manifested in later performance, Gass proposed the information processing framework, describing five stages in the selection and internalization of ambient language data, or input. They are: 1) apperceived input, 2) comprehended input, 3) intake, 4) integration, and 5) output. Gass’s framework was originally proposed for language acquisition, particularly grammatical development, from speech data; in spite of this, Paribakht and Wesche (1996) found the account useful as well for vocabulary acquisition from written text. To classify word-focused activities that accompany reading texts, Paribakht and Wesche echoed with Gass’s information processing framework and proposed a hierarchy of degree and type of mental processing involved in doing various kinds of post-reading vocabulary exercises. They are: 1) selective attention, 2) recognition, 3) manipulation, 4) interpretation, and 5) production. Paribakht and Wesche used them to categorize reading-related vocabulary exercises, grouping the exercises into 1) those that prompt learners’ attention to certain selected target words i.e. exercises for selective attention, 2) recognition exercises, 3) manipulation exercises, 4) interpretation exercises, and 5) production exercises, respectively. This classifying scheme regard vocabulary acquisition as a “multistage, iterative process” (Paribakht. 20.

(30) and Wesche, 1996, p. 155) that requires repeated exposures to new words in meaningful contexts, and the vocabulary exercises nominated in any of their five categories as instructional intervention that can trigger ongoing iterations of the sequence for learners to gradually integrate new words into their mental lexicon and ultimately make them available for later receptive or productive communication. 2.2.2.1 Exercises for Selective Attention This exercise category uses techniques to draw learners’ attention to the target words. Its aim is to ensure that learners do “notice” or “apperceive” the words to be learned, in accordance with the preliminary psychological condition “noticing” for the establishment of vocabulary knowledge and also corresponding to the first stage in Gass’s (1988) information processing framework “apperceived input”. The importance of this category of exercises lies in the fact that even if a learner is exposed to a significant body of second language data, not all of the data would be utilized by the learner; some language data pass through to the learner while some others do not (Gass, 1988, p. 201). The factors that determine whether the language data might be noticed or utilized for learning, or in this case, the factors that serve as ambient lexical item filter, include salience of the words, learners’ affect, learners’ association or prior knowledge, etc (Gass, 1988, pp. 202-3). Among them, what could be more easily influenced or mediated (and thus pedagogy) is the physical salience of. 21.

(31) the words. This category of vocabulary exercises, therefore, intends to raise learners’ consciousness and draw learners’ attention to the target words mostly by increasing the salience of the words. Vocabulary exercises include: providing a list of target words in the beginning of a text and asking students to read the list and notice where the words appear in the text, or having students highlight the target words in the text by underlining, boldfacing, italicizing, circling, coloring, or attaching asterisks and other visual signal to the target words (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, p. 163). 2.2.2.2 Recognition Exercises Recognition exercises require learners to recognize the target words and identify their meanings. In other words, learners associate the written form of a target word with at least one of its meaning, which demands only partial knowledge of the word to be learned. This category of exercises is a step towards receptive retrieval (Nation, 2001, p. 159). And since learners move from apperception to at least some level of comprehension of the input when they are striving to identify the meanings of target words in the recognition tasks, the exercises prompts learner to further process the target lexical items, making them “comprehended input” at the second stage of Gass’s (1988) information processing framework. Vocabulary exercises include: matching the target word with a definition or. 22.

(32) synonym, in which usually more definitions or synonyms than target words are provided, recognizing the meaning of the target word from a multiple choice of meanings, choosing the correct picture that represents the target word, choosing a right target word to label a picture, or giving the L1 equivalent of a target word (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, p. 164). 2.2.2.3 Manipulation Exercises Manipulation exercises involve rearranging and organizing the given word parts of target lexical items to make new words or phrases, i.e., making derivations of target words. This requires learners’ to do structural analysis of target words and thus draws on learners’ morphological knowledge and understanding of grammatical category of the words (Paribakht and Wesche, 1996, p. 164). In other words, the derivation that learners construct is a representation of their internal second language morphological knowledge and grammatical understanding, and the utilization of this existing knowledge and understanding as they strive to transform a target word into its derivation is a demonstration that the target word is in a way connected with learners’ internal second language system. Nation (2001, p. 159) as a result, associates Paribakht and Wesche’s manipulation with the third stage of Gass’s (1988) information processing framework “intake”, a term which was first used by Corder’s (1967, cited in Gass, 1988) and defined as “what goes in and not what is available to. 23.

(33) go in” (Gass, 1988, p. 206). The intent of distinguishing intake from input, according to Gass, is to show that learners are not passive recipients of surrounding language information but in fact mentally interact with the ambient language material during acquisition. Gass refers to intake as a process that mediates between target language input and the learner’s internal system, “a process of assimilating linguistic material” (p. 206). The manipulation exercises, thus, aims to trigger the process of attempted integration of lexical information. These exercises also prompts the condition of “generation” for vocabulary knowledge to be established, since according to Nation (2001, p. 69) the “generation” or “generative use” of a word can apply to a range of variations “from inflection through collocation and grammatical context to reference and meaning”. Vocabulary exercises include: giving derivations of words, or using stems and affixes to construct words (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, p. 164). 2.2.2.4 Interpretation Exercises Paribakht and Wesche’s interpretation exercises demands more precise semantic and syntactic understanding of target words, mostly a command of the relationship of target words with other words in a given context, e.g., the collocations. The collocational practices in this category of exercises lead to the condition of “generation” that facilitates the establishment of vocabulary knowledge. The analysis. 24.

(34) involved during the completion of the tasks, as Nation (2001, p. 159) points out, reflects the fourth stage of Gass’s information processing framework “integration”. Unlike the previous stage of “intake” that, through the application of existing rules in making derivations, shows what comes in and is stored in learners’ second language system, this stage of “integration” results in a change or a development of learners’ second language system (Gass, 1988, p. 207). The target word that is learned, in other words, is not just a static stored information that just came in, but instead, by attaching new aspects of knowledge to the target word through the building of collocations, the new lexical item in a way reorganize the learner’s lexical network. This connection of new information with existing information enriches new items with what is already known, and thus leads to improved acquisition (Joe, 1998). Vocabulary exercises include: finding the inappropriate word in a series of collocationally related words, classifying words according to their discourse functions, such as classifying discourse connectives into cause and effect, contrast, and addition, guessing the meaning of target words in collocational contexts, or multiple choice cloze exercises (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, pp. 164-5). The aim of this type of exercises is to provide learners with a chance to recognize and reinforce the collocational properties or constraints of target words with an attempt to develop and evolve their second language lexical network.. 25.

(35) 2.2.2.5 Production Exercises The production exercises reflects the final stage of Gass’s information processing framework “output”, which requires recall and reconstruction. In other words, learners have to recall the form of a target word and produce it in an appropriate novel context, which prompts the final condition, generation. In order to do this, learners need to have control over orthographic, semantic, syntactic, or even functional aspects of the target word; this category of exercises, thus, is labeled as the most demanding type by Paribakht and Wesche (1996, p. 165). Demanding, though, Swain (1985) regarded production, specifically the production of “comprehensible output”, as a necessary phase for successful acquisition to take place. The output, as she claimed, requires more sophisticated analysis and thus pushes second language development. Vocabulary exercises include: open cloze exercises, labeling pictures, answering a question requiring the target word, seeing or hearing the L1 equivalent or an L2 synonym in a new context and providing the target word (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, p. 165). The aim of the exercises is to provide an opportunity for learners to have a contextualized and meaningful use of target words and to test their hypothesis about the target word, so that learners can be pushed from a pure semantic or syntactic analysis to an actual use of target words with greater analytical refinement (Gass, 1988, p.210).. 26.

(36) 2.3 Previous Empirical Studies on Vocabulary Learning through Reading Plus Word-related Activities Studies have shown effectiveness of reading enhanced with another word-related activity on vocabulary gain (Joe, 1998; Knight, 1994; Luppescu & Day, 1993; Min, 1998; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). For example, reading with electronic (Knight, 1994) or paperback (Luppescu & Day, 1993) dictionary use leads to more vocabulary gains on the immediate (Knight, 1994; Luppescu & Day, 1993) and the delayed tests (Knight, 1994). The following discussion of the study excludes the practice of while-reading word-related tasks such as dictionary use, which an abundance of past research are rooted in (Bensoussan, Sim, & Weiss, 1984; Eeds & Ward, 1985; Hulstijn, 1993; Knight, 1994; Laufer, 2000; Nist & Olejnik, 1995; Luppescu & Day, 1993; Nation, 1989), but centers on the effect of post-reading word-related activities. The following review, thus, contains the empirical studies that examine the facilitative effect post-reading word-related activities show on vocabulary learning, specifically the studies of Joe (1998), of Paribakht and Wesche (1997), and of Min (2008). 2.3.1. Joe’s (1998) study Joe (1998) examined the effect of post-reading text-based tasks and background. knowledge, which was operationalized as learners’ existing vocabulary knowledge and a disposition to use generating learning tactics when tackling new lexical item, on. 27.

(37) vocabulary acquisition. Forty-eight adult ESL learners were randomly assigned into one of the three conditions: 1) experimental group—reading and retelling a text without access to the text during recall and yet with explicit generative training, 2) comparison group—reading and retelling a text with access to the text during recall and yet without explicit generative training, and 3) control group—no treatment of either reading or retelling a text but just proceeding their regular class program. The post-reading retelling tasks, in which students retell the key concepts of the passage, give learners opportunities for generative processing of vocabulary. All participants went through 1) a pre-test consisting of learners’ self-report interview (adopting Paribakht and Wesche’s Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, 1993) and a read-and-retell task, and 2) a post-test consisting of the same self-report interview, one easy version of multiple choice test, and one difficult version of multiple choice test, designed to detect partial vocabulary knowledge gains. Besides the interview and multiple choices, which measure the product of learning, a generative scale was also implemented, which diagnoses the possible cause of vocabulary gains made in the process of learning. Results show that the employment of read-and-retell task promotes vocabulary acquisition, and that greater level of generative processing leads to greater vocabulary gains. Joe’s finding suggested that engaging learners in a post-reading text-based task can facilitate vocabulary acquisition from reading, especially when the. 28.

(38) task elicits generative processing of vocabulary. However, in Joe’s study, the control group only performed the pre-test and post-test without receiving any reading in between that gives exposure of the target vocabulary. Hence, the contribution of reading a text (without a post-reading task) to vocabulary gain is less clear in this study. 2.3.2. Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) study To make further investigation, different from Joe’s (1998) study that focused. only on the effectiveness of reading followed by another task on vocabulary acquisition and left the effect of the unenhanced reading condition untouched, Paribakht and Wesche (1997), on the other hand, made a comparison between the reading-plus. approach,. i.e.,. reading. texts. supplemented. with. post-reading. word-focused activities, and reading-only approach. Paribakht and Wesche examined the effect of a hierarchy of post-reading word-focused exercises, comparing reading plus these exercises with reading-only condition on vocabulary growth. ESL college students in an authentic comprehension-based program participated in the study. Students were firstly exposed to the Reading Plus (RP) treatment and then to the Reading Only (RO) treatment. In the RP treatment, students read selected texts embedded with target words, answered the comprehension questions, and did a series of vocabulary exercises on the target words. In the RO treatment, students likewise. 29.

(39) read selected texts and answered the comprehension questions, but instead of doing vocabulary exercises, they read a supplementary text composed to present the same target words again. With the instrument of the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht & Wesche, 1993), Paribakht and Wesche found that both RP and RO conditions led to vocabulary gains; however, the RP condition led to greater gains in L2 vocabulary knowledge than reading for comprehension only. This finding provides EFL teachers with a pedagogical impetus: it’s empirically tested that with post-reading word-focused activities in the reading-plus approach, students can be engaged in extensive reading on their own after school to increase their vocabulary size. In spite of the pedagogical contribution that an approach for vocabulary acquisition to take place outside the classroom is provided, some limitations could be recognized in Paribakht and Wesche’s study. First, as Min (2008) has pointed out, “they left the issue of long-term vocabulary retention unaddressed” (p. 80), which is in fact of great importance to EFL teachers since they do not want to see the effects of vocabulary-enhancing activities on students’ vocabulary development soon diminish to nothing. Neither did Paribakht and Wesche further analyze students’ qualitative vocabulary gains (Min, 2008, p. 80), so specific change of students’ depth of vocabulary knowledge such as the actual change from unknown to receptive level or. 30.

(40) productive level of knowledge is unclear. In addition, in their research design, subjects served as their own controls, so the same group of subjects was exposed to two different instrumental treatments successively. Because of this, Paribakht and Wesche had to use different sets of reading materials and target words in different treatments. It can hardly be determined whether the superior effectiveness was a result of a better treatment or a result of a more comprehensible reading passage and easier target words. Finally, Paribakht and Wesche managed to equalize the time taken for the two treatments but failed to equalize the exposure frequency in the two conditions. Since the reading-plus treatment favor the subjects with more encounters of the target words in the post-reading vocabulary exercises, it might undermine the contention that its better result came from the facilitation of word-focused activities in the treatment, not from the more exposures obtained in the treatment. 2.3.3. 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. 31.

(41) 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,. 32.

(42) 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. 33.

(43) 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 Joe (1998) What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition?. 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.. 34.

(44) TABLE 2.1 (Continued) Paribakht & Wesche (1997) Purpose Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language Design vocabulary development.. Min (2008) EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading.. To explore the role of various reading-based vocabulary exercises in vocabulary learning. 1. Reading texts and practicing various vocabulary exercises (RP condition). 2. Reading texts and doing supplementary reading (RO condition).. 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 condition). 2. Reading main texts and thematically related texts (NR condition).. Findings. Students in RV group acquire and retain more words than those in NR group, both qualitatively and quantitatively.. 35.

(45) 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. 3.1 Participants Participants were 68 students from two tenth-grade classes in a senior high school in Taipei. One of the classes was the English gifted class, inclusive of 27 participants, 2 males and 25 females, assigned as the higher-proficiency (HP) group; the other one was a regular class consisting of 41 students, 21 males and 20 females, assigned as the lower-proficiency (LP) group. Participants were assigned to either HP or LP by class because it is not very likely to assign students individually in a high school setting that doesn’t have many chances for merged classes. In spite of this, an intermediate-level General English Proficiency Test (GEPT)1 was administered prior to the research, the scores on the reading section of which was analyzed with an independent samples t-test to ensure the difference between higher- and 1. The GEPT is a test developed by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC) and supported by the Ministry of Education to provide a fair, valid, and reliable gauge for each level of English ability. It is divided into 5 levels, namely, the elementary, the intermediate, the high-intermediate, the advanced, and the superior level. Each level incorporates all the listening, reading, speaking, and writing components. The intermediate-level GEPT, which was administered in the present study, indicates an English proficiency of a senior high graduate, according to the LTTC. 36.

(46) lower-proficiency groups. In both HP and LP groups, participants were further divided into two subgroups—with and without post-reading vocabulary-enhancing exercise, respectively, i.e., reading-plus groups and reading-only groups. 3.2 Materials 3.2.1. Main Texts There were four main texts (see Appendix B) for both the reading-plus group and. reading-only group. Drawing on students’ interest and pedagogical appropriateness, the researcher selected four articles on four different themes from authentic materials on the market. The themes in the four selected articles were: procrastination, gender attraction, shopping, and celebrity, respectively. The purpose for using multiple themes was to control for topic familiarity as an intervening variable in the experiment as well as to control for comprehension floor and/or ceiling effects for a certain topic. Then, the researcher adapted the four selected articles into four main texts for the study. The four main texts had similar length and similar linguistic difficulty: each main text was around 350-word long, and the ratio of new words in each main text was below 5%, for participants to maintain an enough amount of cognitive space to attend to the message so that they could read with a high level of text coverage and text comprehension (Laufer, 1989, cited in Nation, 2001, p. 145). The readability of. 37.

(47) the four main texts was also analyzed using the Automated Readibility Index2, which indicated the U.S. grade level of 8 or 9 needed to understand the main texts. At the end of each main text, multiple-choice comprehension questions were appended to ensure the completion of reading. 3.2.2. Target Words. There were five target words for each main text, twenty target words in total for all the four main texts. The target words embedded in the main texts were not marked in any way, and appeared only once. All of the target words were content words that fit into the contexts of reading materials. Target words were selected based on the criterion that none of them should be familiar to the students prior to the study. To confirm this, several measures for selection of target words were considered. First, Nation’s (1984) vocabulary list was consulted to determine the difficulty level of words in the texts; all the words in the main texts beyond the first 2,000 word list were considered for candidate target words. Second, experienced EFL teachers were consulted to pick up from the candidate words those that have high level of difficulty and high information value to be target words. Third, all the selected target words and the other candidate words as some of the distracters were put onto a checklist; the. 2. The Automated Readability Index (ARI) is a readability test designed to gauge the understandability of a text. Its result suggests a U.S. grade level needed to comprehend a text. For example, the result of “8” indicates the typical reading ability of U.S. eighth-grade students, usually 13-year-old children, to understand the analyzed text. According to the ARI, the readability levels for the four main texts of the study were 8, 9, 9, and 8, respectively. 38.

(48) checklist was used in a vocabulary pretest for the researcher to verify that the selected target words were indeed unfamiliar to the participants prior to the study. Candidate words in the texts that were shown to be unfamiliar in the vocabulary pretest and yet were not selected as target words were replaced with more familiar words or phrases so that learners were allowed to process known information more effortlessly and spend more effort in comprehension of the texts and target words. 3.2.3 For. Vocabulary-enhancing Exercises the. reading-plus. group,. after. reading. each. main. text,. three. vocabulary-enhancing exercises (see Appendix C) were employed on the target words; in other words, students had three more encounters with each target word. The three vocabulary exercises were intended to encourage conditions of noticing, retrieval, and generation, respectively. The first exercise was to arouse selective attention to particular word forms (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996), which required students to read the list of five target words and locate them by underlining them in the main texts. This is to draw students’ attention to the target words and thus control for the noticing effect on subsequent vocabulary acquisition and retention. The second exercise was Paribakht and Wesche’s recognition exercise in which students retrieved the meaning of target words elicited from the context in the reading of the main text, and matched them with appropriate definitions. There were more definitions than target words.. 39.