TBLT 2005 LEUVEN Elke Peters Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Word relevance and task instruction. Do they make a difference for word retention?

TBLT 2005 Introduction Aim Design Research questions Results Conclusion

TBLT 2005 Aim Task instruction: Can we foster vocabulary acquisition by forewarning students of a vocabulary test? Word relevance: Can we have students notice the lexical gap in their voc. knowledge by reading comprehension questions? Text as opportunity for new vocabulary and cultural knowledge?

TBLT 2005 Design Experimental design on computer Task instruction Forewarned or not forewarned of an upcoming vocabulary test Incidental versus intentional vocabulary learning (Hulstijn 2001, 2003) Single versus dual

TBLT 2005 Design Word relevance: Plus-relevant target words need to be consulted in the online dictionary in order to answer comprehension questions Minus-relevant target words are not related to comprehension questions

TBLT 2005

Materials Text < Die Zeit Online dictionary Target words = pseudowords;  relevant Quantitative data 3 vocabulary tests (recall, recognition) 3 test moments (short & longterm) Qualitative data Tracking technology Retrospective questions Think-aloud protocols

TBLT 2005 Research questions Effect of task instruction on Effect of word relevance on Students' look-up behaviour Students' word retention recall (2 tests) versus recognition (1 test) on the short and on the long term Interaction task instruction - word relevance

TBLT 2005 Hypotheses Task instruction Forewarned of a vocabulary test more intensive look-up behaviour better word retention on the short term better word retention on the long term

TBLT 2005 Hypotheses Word relevance Plus-relevant words will be looked up more frequently Plus-relevant words will be retained better on the short term on the long term Interaction: minus-relevant words

TBLT 2005 Procedure 84 participants (upper-intermediate/advanced) Reading task instruction Reading text - looking up words - answering reading comprehension questions Vocabulary tests Retrospective questions Vocabulary size test

TBLT 2005 Results: task instruction ancova-analyses (vocabulary size = covariate) : no significant difference between group 1 and group 2

TBLT 2005 Results: word relevance p <.0001

TBLT 2005 Results: interaction Group 1Group 2 + look-up time voc1_ voc2_ voc3_ look-up0.53*0.83* - time1.20*2.11* - voc1_ voc2_ voc3_ * = p<.05 plus - relevant minus - relevant

TBLT 2005 Results: in summary No effect of task instruction Significant effect of word relevance Plus-relevant > minus-relevant words on look-up behaviour (p<.0001) short-term word retention (p<.0001) long-term word retention (p<.0001) Interaction : Dictionary use - minus-relevant target words

TBLT 2005 Discussion: task instruction "It is not the presence or absence of a voc.test which determines word retention and processing" (Hulstijn, 2001: 275) Comprehension questions  priority for meaning (VanPatten, 1990)  vocabulary Not trained to read text with vocabulary learning aim  focus on content Target words not visually enhanced

TBLT 2005 Discussion: word relevance Comprehension questions highlight new, unknown words (FonF) Noticing Attention Looked up Repetition/frequency More elaboratively engaged Corroborates Hulstijn 1993

TBLT 2005 Pedagogical implications Enlarging vocabulary size attention to individual lexical items attention to form-meaning connections comprehension questions  noticing dictionary information for acquisition easy access to dictionary inferability of words text = content + form

TBLT 2005 Conclusion Dual task instruction does not foster vocabulary acquisition Comprehension questions can foster vocabulary acquisition Further research