Effects Of Different Reading Plus Word-focused Tasks On L2Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition Of Vocational College Students

The central and paramount role which vocabulary plays in language learning is evident and obvious. Based on the results of many studies concerning vocabulary, a consensus has been reached-most vocabulary can be acquired incidentally. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) proposed a motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement and the involvement load hypothesis (ILH). The combination of the presence or absence of the three involvement factors (need, search, and evaluation) with their degrees of prominence is defined as involvement load. Different learning tasks induce various involvement loads and result in different incidental vocabulary acquisition (IVA). The basic proposition of ILH is that IVA is contingent upon a task’s involvement load and the greater the involvement loads in vocabulary induced by a task, the better the vocabulary retention.The present study aims to test ILH with empirical data if tasks with hypothetically the same level of involvement load yield similar IVA.104non-English-major freshmen from a vocational college in Changsha took part in the experiment. They were randomly assigned to perform one of the three reading plus word-focused tasks and were unexpectedly tested on the short and long-term retention of eight target words in an immediate posttest and a delayed posttest one week later. All experimental data were submitted to the analysis of SPSS15.0.With regard to the short and long-term retention of productive word knowledge as well as long-term retention of receptive word knowledge, the results of this study fully support the ILH, since tasks with hypothetically identical involvement loads lead to similar results of IVA. While the short-term retention of receptive word knowledge does not support the hypothesis for a significant difference found between Task2(Reading comprehension plus filling in text blanks) and Task3(Reading comprehension plus completing sentence translation).Three major findings have emerged from this study:1) in general, short-term word retention is much more than long-term word retention, and receptive word knowledge is retained better than productive word knowledge;2) input-oriented tasks tend to generate more receptive word retention; while the effects which output-oriented task exerted on the incidental acquisition of productive word knowledge faded over time;3) involvement load is not the determining factor in task effectiveness. With regard to IVA, task effectiveness is subjected to many factors such as the learners’ English proficiency level and their learning ability, type of task, time on task, and so forth.Pedagogically, it is suggested that teachers take such factors into consideration as task-induced involvement load, type of task, and depth of word knowledge in vocabulary learning and teaching. Besides, for an overall mastery of word knowledge and a better long-term retention, repeated exposure to various contexts and intentional memorization of new words are indispensable supplements to IVA.