Research Into The Factors Influencing The Efficacy On Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition

This dissertation is a research into the elements influencing the efficacy on incidentalvocabulary acquisition (IVA). It consists of two major aspects. The first sectionexamines vocabulary learning modes, and the second section focuses on the fourinvolvement modes or task types that influence IVA efficacy. The former sectioncould serve as major explanations for each task type IVA efficacy as a result ofemploying any of the four involvement modes in the latter section, and the latter is theresult of interactions between the former and other variables.With respect to the case study of vocabulary learning modes, a questionnaire wasdistributed to282non-English major undergraduates. The questionnaire wasconstructed on divisions of vocabulary learning modes designed by O’Malley&Chamot in1990. The results indicate that it was intentional vocabulary learningmodes rather than incidental ones that were most frequently adopted by the subjects.Moreover, the five vocabulary learning modes were further investigated and analyzed,which deserve topmost attention in this research.In respect of the case study concerning the four involvement modes or task typesinfluencing IVA efficacy, Paribakht&Wesche’s (1997) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale(VKS) was adopted during any of the four vocabulary pretests or one of the fourlexical posttests to elicit40out of160subjects’29target vocabulary knowledgeconcerning any one of the four task groups twice. On the basis of data collection viaExcel and making use of VKS scoring categories--meaning of scores,16lexical tests’results were contrasted and analyzed through SPSS. In terms of contrastiveresearch,IVA efficacy resulting from the reading+Q&A task (RQAT) was contrastedwith that resulting from the reading+writing task (RWT) or with that resulting fromthe reading+translation task (RTT). In the meanwhile,IVA efficacy resulting from themaximizing lexical exposure task (MLET) was contrasted with that resulting from anyof the three above mentioned tasks. The research addresses four key questions.Question1: Was there a correlation between the participants’ vocabulary learningmodes and either their English proficiency―levels‖or course choices?Question2: To what degree was IVA efficacy impacted by the four different tasks?Question3: For each of the four task groups, was there a difference in IVA efficacyfor different parts of speech or different affixes?Question4: Was it possible to influence IVA efficacy for the Vocabulary Group byvarying target vocabulary frequency?The research findings were fourfold.First, the direct vocabulary learning mode was decidedly the most frequently used.While there was no significant difference in vocabulary learning modes regardingEnglish proficiency levels, there was significant difference among task groupsespecially the translation task group.Second, different task involvement modes varied in their degree of influence uponIVA efficacy for students in different task groups: the writing task group performedbetter than the vocabulary group; the translation task group performed better than thereading and writing groups; the translation task involvement mode influenced theIVA efficacy most.Third, research results from the vocabulary pretests and posttests reveal that differentparts of speech influenced IVA efficacy for students in different task groups. Thetranslation group’s IVA efficacy was superior to the other three task groups. Prior to implementing the four tasks, the lexical pretests showed a significantdifference in the lexical efficacy among the three different parts of speech making itimpossible to identify the part of speech that would result in the best IVA efficacy.In the writing task, the IVA efficacy concerning nouns was inferior to verbs andadjectives，whereas the IVA efficacy of verbs and adjectives themselves was almostthe same; in contrast, in the translation task, the IVA efficacy concerning verbs wasinferior to that of nouns and adjectives. There was no significant difference in the IVAefficacy among the three different parts of speech related to the other two tasks.Furthermore, the IVA efficacy concerning suffixes was superior to that concerningprefixes. The reading task was the only task in which there was significant differencein the IVA efficacy between prefixes and suffixes; the latter was better than theformer. The IVA efficacy concerning prefixes was the best in the Translation groupwhile no significant difference was produced in the IVA efficacy of suffixes amongthe four tasks.Fourth, number of exposures definitely influenced IVA efficacy;6exposures to targetvocabulary for Vocabulary Group was far superior to that of1exposure to the targetvocabulary.Lastly, interviews with both teachers and students indicated that nearly all students’vocabulary was gained from direct vocabulary learning; the translation taskinvolvement mode was somewhat familiar to participants; the vocabulary taskinvolvement mode was an incidental mode that needed more encouragement andpractice; different parts of speech and affixes influenced the IVA efficacy for differenttask groups; while number of exposures influenced the IVA efficacy for theVocabulary Task Group.