The Effects Of Input-output Practice On Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Learning

It is universally recognized that vocabulary plays an indispensable role in secondlanguage acquisition. Input and output are two fundamental types of practice in secondlanguage acquisition. Reading and listening, as two major types of input practice, havebeen focused on their respective, comparative or combined effects on second languageincidental vocabulary learning. Speaking and writing, as frequently employed outputpractice in classrooms, cannot be ignored for their facilitative effects. As a result, thefour types of input or output practice, listening, reading, speaking and writing all bearon second language incidental vocabulary learning, which raises the question thatwhether or not the combined input and output practice make a difference on secondlanguage incidental vocabulary learning. Moreover, the importance of attention hasbeen found in input and output practice and second language acquisition. Differentinput and output practice may lead to different attention distribution and learners’attention may correlate with second language acquisition to some extent. Thus, thispaper, from the perspective of cognitive processing, probes into the effects of differentinput-output practice on second language incidental vocabulary acquisition and the roleof learners’ attention between input-output practice and incidental vocabulary learning.Three research questions are thereby proposed as follows:1) Will different input-output practice have different effects upon second languageincidental vocabulary learning?2) Will second language learners’ attention to the target words differ underdifferent input-output practice conditions?3) Does second language incidental vocabulary learning correlate with learners’attention to the target words?A controlled comparison experiment was conducted on105English majorsophomores. The participants were randomly divided into five groups, involving fourexperimental groups and one control group. Firstly, their language proficiency and familiarity with the target words were checked to be comparable in the pre-test. Andthen the four experimental groups were assigned to:1) read and speak the sentences(R+S),2) read and write the sentences (R+W),3) listen to and speak the sentences(L+S), or4) listen to and write the sentences (L+W). Each sentence was practiced twice.After the practice, a modified Vocabulary Knowledge Scale and the Noticing test wereseparately employed to measure the immediate vocabulary learning and learners’attention to the target words. And the questionnaire and the stimulated recall were usedto further investigate learners’ background information, learning strategies and attentionallocation. One week later, their delayed vocabulary learning was measured. During theexperiment, the control group took no practice and only accepted the pre-test, thepost-test and the delayed post-test, and the questionnaire.The results are summarized as follows:1) In immediate vocabulary post-test, all the input-output practice investigated ledto incidental vocabulary learning. The R+S practice was the most beneficial to theincidental vocabulary learning. The R+W and L+W practice, with no significantdifference between them, took the second place. The L+S practice was the leastbeneficial. In the delayed vocabulary post-test, word retention decreased significantlybecause there was no subsequent practice, with the exception to the L+W practice. Butmore words were still attained through the R+S and the R+W practice than the L+Spractice.2) Different practice triggered different attention to the target words. The R+S andR+W types of practice were the most effective in drawing learners’ attention to thetarget words. The L+W practice were less effective. And the L+S practice were the leasteffective. In addition, the results of the questionnaire and stimulated recall showed thatlearners were inclined to pay attention to both the visual and audio information of thetarget words in the L+W and the R+S practice, while preferred to attend to the visualinformation of the target words in the R+W practice, and the audio information of thetarget words in the L+S practice.3) A moderate positive correlation was found between the overall incidentalvocabulary learning and attention. As for each type of input-output practice, there was a moderate positive correlation between the immediate vocabulary learning and attentionin the L+S and L+W practice, while no correlation was found in the R+S and the R+Wpractice.The results indicate that input plays a dominant role in promoting second languageincidental vocabulary learning and drawing learners’ attention to the new words in thefour types of input-output practice. Moreover, due to the unbalanced development andessential differences between listening and reading, visual input contributes more ontriggering learners’ attention to the new words and facilitating incidental vocabularylearning. Although audio input shows disadvantages in these aspects, it is found that thewords noticed through audio input can be acquired more effectively.