Chapter One Literature Review

1.1 Studies on the Relationship Between Tasks and L2Vocabulary Acquisition

Many researchers have explained why certain tasks can bring aboutmore effective results than others in producing L2 vocabulary acquisition,.For instance, Fuente (2002) analyzed different communicative tasks andmade a conclusion that if the learners had a chance to negotiate andproduce the target words, they can gain both receptive vocabularyacquisition and productive vocabulary acquisition better than they werejust exposed to target vocabulary.Joe (1995，1998) held a similar view and defined "generativeprocess" as a central feature. She believed tasks that induced higherdegree of generative process prompted more effective incidentalvocabulary acquisition than tasks which induced lower degree ofgenerative process, or even no generative process happens. She agreedthat: while doing the tasks with high generative process, the learners haveto process the new information at semantic levels and integrate priorknowledge into the new knowledge. Therefore, she concluded thatcognitive processing of new information led to higher level of generativeprocess in prompting vocabulary acquisition and could help the learnersto gain the unknown target words better.Paribakht and Wesche (1993) pointed out that tasks required learnersto practice the target words in exercises where the target words areinvolved after reading a text Reading plus" group, for example,Reading plus gap-filling activity produced better retention of the targetvocabulary than learners who only read the text without doing anyexercises related to the target words.

…………..

1.2 Studies on Task-induced Involvement and L2 Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition

In the following section, some studies related to the effect oftask-induced involvement on L2 incidental vocabulary acquisition, willbe discussed, covering the studies at home and abroad. More details willbe presented as follows. In regard to the effect of the task-induced involvement on the L2vocabulary acquisition and vocabulary incidental acquisition, there aresome studies abroad setting foot in this field first. For example, Lauferand Hulstijn (2001) put forward ILH. They chose Dutch and Israeli asresearch subjects, and asked them to finish three tasks {ReadingComprehension Task, Reading Comprehension plus Gap-filling Task,Writing Task) with different levels of task-induced involvement. Theresults of the study showed that the Israeli group completely verified thehypothesis-the vocabulary which was processed in higher level oftask-induced involvement could be grasped better than that in lower levelof task-induced involvement. While the research of the Dutch groupcould partly verify it: Task 3 could bring better retention than Task 1 andTask 2, but Task 2 did not produce better retention than Task 1. Besides,they proposed to count the degree to which the task is processedaccording to two dimensions which are motivational dimension andcognitive dimension. The involvement load is composed of threecomponents: Need, Search and Evaluation. Involvement load index willbe adopted to express the level of the task-induced involvement. At thesame tine, they did several studies and proved that the higher thetask-induced involvement was, the better the vocabulary incidentalacquisition was.

………….

Chapter Two Theoretical Framework

2.1 Incidental/Intentional Vocabulary Acquisition

Vocabulary acquisition is the central task of second languageacquisition. Every language skill must be based on vocabulary. There aretwo different ways of acquiring second language vocabulary: directacquisition and indirect acquisition. Direct acquisition means the learnersdo some tasks and practice that can attach their attention to thevocabulary acquisition, such as memorizing vocabulary intentionally, dovocabulary practice, etc. While indirect acquisition means the learnersacquire the vocabulary incidentally while doing other learning tasks (suchas reading or listening). Incidental vocabulary acquisition is defined asthe acquisition of vocabulary as a by-product of any activity not explicitlyrelated to lexical acquisition. Laufer (2003) states;Incidental learning does not mean that the learners do not attend tothe words during the task. They may attend to the words (for example,using them in sentences, or looking them up in dictionary), but they donot deliberately try to commit these words to memory.

………..

2.2 Depth of Processing Model

The Theory of Depth of Processing or Depth of Processing Modelwas first put forward by Craik and Lockhart (1972) and it was borrowedfrom cognitive psychology. They tried to find out the processes which canfoster retention of input explicit information. In 1972, they discovered thememory of human being is greatly related to the depth of processing theinformation and the processing level. While we finish a proper originaltask, it is more effective to acquire the information incidentally than leamit intentionally, which shows the intensity of learners' memorizing theinformation is related to task types. The very key point is how deeply theinformation is processed and it is very essential for informationinternalization. According to Craik and Lockhart (1972), there are twolevels of cognitive processing; the former one is superficial levelprocessing, and the latter one is deep level processing. The deeper thelearners process the new information, the better effect it can keep.Nevertheless, as for this theory, two problems are unsolved. The first oneis "What constitutes the processing level"? The second one is "How dopeople know one level is deeper than another one?"Based on the Theory of Depth of Processing, Wittrock (1974) putforward the view of Generative processing for semantic processing: heheld the view that productive processing prompts the fusion and unity ofnew and old information. The Generative Processing Model is aprocessing process that a learner switches, explains the unfamiliarconcepts, information and events positively and constructs meaningaccording to prior knowledge, experience, abilities, attitude andbackground knowledge. This kind of processing form is of great help forlearners to acquire vocabulary incidentally.

………….

Chapter Three Research Methodology...........33

3.1 Research Questions........ 33

3.2 Research Subjects........ 34

3.3 Instruments ........39

3.3.1 Reading Text........ 39

3.3.2 Target Words........ 41

3.3.3 Tasks ........42

3.3.4 Vocabulary Tests........ 46

3.4 Research Procedures........ 50

3.4.1 Data Collection ........50

3.4.2 Data Analysis ........51

Chapter Four Results and Discussion........ 53

4.1 Results........ 53

4.2 Discussion........ 66

4.3 Summary ........73

Chapter Four Results and Discussion

4.1 Results

The first experiment is to study the effect of the different levels oftask-induced involvement on Junior High School students' Englishincidental vocabulary acquisition when the learner proficiency is of thesame level. Just as explained before, ILH believed tasks with higher level oftask-induced involvement could bring better L2 incidental vocabularyacquisition than those with lower level of task-induced involvement.According to this hypothesis, the involvement load index of Task 1{Reading + T/F comprehension questions Task) is 1, of Task 2 (Reading +Gap-filling Task) is 2 and of Task 3 (Reading + Sentence-writing Task) is 3. As follows, the research data will be presented to show the effects ofthe level of task-induced involvement on English incidental vocabularyacquisition in immediate posttest and delayed posttest respectively in4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2.

……………

Conclusion

Vocabulary acquisition has become a significant part in L2acquisition studies for a long time. There have been many studies about it,but more are needed to further understand the field. In this section, threeparts are included: major findings, implications and limitations andsuggestions for future studies. The current study focuses on two research questions. The majorfindings of the study are as follows;1) When the learners are at the same proficiency level, theSentence-writing Task (Task 3) with the highest level of task-inducedinvolvement produced the best English incidental vocabulary acquisition.And the effectiveness of the Gap-filling Task (Task 2) is better than T/FComprehension Questions Task (Task 1) which has the lowest level oftask-induced involvement. The results are similar in both the immediateand delayed posttest. It showed that the level of task-induced involvementhas an obvious influence on Junior High School students' Englishincidental vocabulary acquisition.

…………

Reference (omitted)