“Digging Deep”: Using the Task Involvement Load Hypothesis to analyse textbooks for vocabulary learning potential

 Rachael Ruegg, Cherie Brown

Abstract


In the process of vocabulary acquisition, the extent to which tasks require depth of processing, termed ‘task-induced involvement’ by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), and the potential effects of this on subsequent vocabulary retention, deserve greater attention. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) claim that when ‘need’, ‘search’ and ‘evaluation’ are required in order to complete a task, learners engage with words more deeply, thus optimizing potential for successful vocabulary retention. This study was designed to ascertain the extent to which tasks, in commonly used reading textbooks and integrated skills course books, induce ‘deep’ involvement with vocabulary, thus facilitating vocabulary retention. Tasks in 10 reading textbooks and 10 integrated skills course books were analysed in terms of the elements identified by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001). The results were then compared between the two types of textbooks in order to determine whether one is more effective than the other for vocabulary retention.  The study found that the frequency of exposure to target vocabulary was insufficient for vocabulary acquisition. It was also found that many of the vocabulary activities investigated required little task-induced involvement, and more specifically, very few productive activities were found. 

Keywords: task-induced involvement, depth of processing, vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary retention, vocabulary learning


Keywords


task-induced involvement, depth of processing, vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary retention, vocabulary learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alderson, J. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. Continuum.

Anderson, J. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. New York: Freeman.

Baddeley, A. (1997). Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Hove: Psychology Press.

Brown, C. & Ruegg, R. (in press). From woe to go: Using commercial textbooks more effectively for vocabulary acquisition and retention. Akita International University Press Global Review, 10.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2): 213-238.

Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. (1972). ‘Levels of Processing: A framework for memory research.’ Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior, 11: 671-84.

Eckerth, J. & Tavakoli, P. (2012). The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research, 16(2): 227-252.

Ellis, N. (1994). ‘Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition’ in J. H. Hulstijn & R. Schmidt. (Eds.). Consciousness in Second Language Learning” AILA Review, 11: 37-56.

Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21: 285-301.

Folse, K. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2): 273-293.

Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow: Longman.

Huang, S., Eslami, Z. & Willson, V. (2012). The effects of task involvement load on L2 incidental vocabulary learning: A meta-analytic study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4): 544-557.

Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M. & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language learners: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80: 327-339.

Hulstijn, J. & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3): 539-558.

Jacobs, G., Dufon, P. & Hong, C. F. (1994). L1 and L2 glosses in L2 Reading Passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 17: 19-28.

Keating, G. (2008). ‘Task Effectiveness and Word Learning in a Second language: The Involvement Load Hypothesis on Trial.’ Language Teaching Research, 12: 365-368.

Kim, Y. (2011). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1): 100-140.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.

Laufer, B. & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2011). Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type, word occurrence and their combination. Language Teaching Research, 15: 391-411.

Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 22(1): 1-26.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Qian, D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52: 513-536.

Rott, S. (2007). ‘The Effect of Frequency of Input-Enhancements on Word learning and Text Comprehension.’ Language Learning, 57(2): 165-199.

Schmidt, R. (2000). ‘Attention’ in P Robinson (ed.) Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seifert, K. (2010). Students' priorities as authors of their own text about Educational Psychology. Teaching Educational Psychology, 6(1), 1-19.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidhofer, B. (Eds.). Principles and practices in the study of language (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tinkham, T. (1993), The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21: 371-380.

Tok, H. (2010). TEFL textbook evaluatıon: From teachers’ perspectıves. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(9), 508-517.

West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman, Green and Co.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.

Yamada, H. (2018). Exploring the Effects of Metacognitive Strategies on Vocabulary Learning of Japanese Junior High School Students. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 15(4), 931-944.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/lingped.v1i1.18481

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Lingua Pedagogia, Journal of English Teaching Studies

Our Journal has been Indexed by:

 View My Stats

 Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.