Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Incorporating Different Designs of Interaction into Vocabulary Instruction: Its Effect on Learners' Lexical Depth in an EFL Context
Abstract
This study examined the effect of the interaction approach on young EFL learners’ lexical depth in a private language institute in Talesh, Iran. To achieve this, a Michigan test was administered to 40 EFL learners. Those language learners who met the selection criterion, i.e., performed one standard deviation above and below the mean on the test were divided into two classes (N=28): group A (N=14) and group B (N=14). In both groups, the interaction approach was incorporated into vocabulary instruction. However, the design of the interaction was different in each group. In group A, interactions were mostly between learners. On the other hand, in group B, learners mainly interacted with the teacher. After 18 weeks of instruction, a test of lexical depth, word association tasks (WAT), was administered to the both groups. The results of statistical analysis showed that the standard deviation (SD) was almost the same in both groups. However, the mean in group B significantly outperformed group A. A t test was used to compare means of test scores between groups. The findings of this study suggest that learner-teacher interaction is a more effective design in the improvement of learners' knowledge of vocabulary depth in comparison with learner-learner interaction.
Keywords: Comprehension, Interaction, Negotiation for meaning, Knowledge of vocabulary depth, Word association task
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Dóczi, B. (2006). Mapping the mental lexicon of pre-intermediate learners: Word associations in a depth of word knowledge elicitation task. In M. Nikolov & J. Horváth (Eds.), UPRT 2006: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics, 117-137.
Ellis, N. (2009). The psycholinguistics of the interaction approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (11–40). New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language acquisition in the second/foreign language classroom (Anthology Series 28, pp. 179–211). Singapore: SEMEO, Regional Language Centre.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005).Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jafarpour, M. (2014). The effect of incorporating the extensive reading approach into vocabulary instruction on learners' lexical depth in an EFL context. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5 (3), 162- 169.
Hashemi Shahraki, S., & Kassaian, Z. (2011). Effects of learner interaction, receptive and productive learning tasks on vocabulary acquisition: An Iranian case. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2165–2171.
Hatami, S. & Tavakoli, M. (2012). The role of depth versus breadth of vocabulary knowledge in success and ease in l2 lexical inferencing. TESL Canada Journal, 30 (1), 1-21.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman
Long, M. H. (1983a). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. (1983b). Native/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M. Clarke and Handscombe (Eds), Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Loschky, L. C. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–325.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
Marzban, A. & Hadipour, R. (2012). Depth versus breadth of vocabulary knowledge: assessing their roles in Iranian intermediate EFL students' lexical inferencing success through reading. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 5296 – 5300.
Nassaji (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61 (1), 107–134.
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 1-25.
Qian, D. D. (1998). Depth of vocabulary knowledge: assessing its role in adult's reading comprehension in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ramezanee. A. & Hakimi. Kh. (2004). The Speaking Test of IELTS. Tehran: Rahnama Press.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355-371.
Read, J. (1998). Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. Validation in Language Assessment, 41-60.
Read, J. (2004). Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be defined? In P. Bogaards, & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp. 209-227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Read, J. (2007). Second language vocabulary assessment: Current practices and new directions. International Journal of English Studies, 7 (2), 105-125.
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
Schmitt, N. (1998). Quantifying word association responses: What is native-like? System, 26, 389-401.
Schmitt, N., Wun Ching Ng, J., & Garras, J. (2011). The word associates format: Validation evidence. Language Testing, 28 (1), 105–126.
Sen, Y. & Kuleli, M. (2015). The effect of vocabulary size and vocabulary depth on reading in EFL context. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 555 – 562.
Shen, Z. (2008). The roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in EFL reading performance. Asian Social Science, 4(12), 135-137.
Soler, E. (1996). Interaction, foreign language production and development. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 17, 1-16.
Wang, S. (2013). Effects of different negative feedbacks on language output capacity of Chinese EFL learners. Frontiers in Language Teaching and Research (FLTR), (1), 11-15.
Xiao, Z., & McEnery, A. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied linguistics, 27(1), 103-199.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2010-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
Advances in Language and Literary Studies
You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.