an experimental study of task-based l2 lexical learning by chinese efl learners

Download An Experimental study of Task-based  L2 lexical Learning        by Chinese  EFL learners

Post on 01-Feb-2016

38 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

An Experimental study of Task-based L2 lexical Learning by Chinese EFL learners Zhou Weijing School of Foreign Languages Jiangsu University. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • An Experimental study of Task-based L2 lexical Learning by Chinese EFL learners Zhou Weijing School of Foreign Languages Jiangsu University

  • An Experimental Study of Task-based L2 Lexical Learning by Chinese EFL LearnersOutline Introduction Literature review Methodology Major findings and discussions Contributions & Limitations

  • Introduction

    Motivation of the study

    Need for the study

    Orientation of the study

  • Introduction1. Motivation

    Vocabulary plays a central role in L2 learning and teaching, however, L2 teachers are often unsure about how best to incorporate L2 vocabulary into their daily teaching. pedagogical requirements for efficient L2 teaching

    Pedagogical vexation results from theoretical inadequacy. (Read,2004). Although theres been a boom in L2 vocabulary studies since 1990s, the mechanism of L2 lexical learning remains one of the most intriguing puzzles in SLA (Reed, 2004).

    theoretical urge for sound understanding of L2 lexical learning Personally, being an L2 teacher and researcher, I have been impelled to do research on L2 lexical learning. personal experience of L2 lexical learning and teaching

  • Introduction2. Need for the study

    Despite increasing interest and efforts in L2 vocabulary in the past 10 years, basic issues remain unsolved. How do L2 learners acquire L2 lexicon?

    How do L2 learners acquire new vocabulary via learning tasks?

    What factors affect L2 lexical learning in or outside classroom?

    How to tract L2 learners incremental lexical learning?

    Consequently, our knowledge of L2 lexical learning has mainly been built upon fragmental studies and there isnt an overall theory of how L2 vocabulary is acquired (Schimitt, 1998, Read, 2004).

    Crying need to explore L2 lexical learning, theoretically, pedagogically, and methodologically.

  • Introduction3. Orientation of the study

    Handicaps hindering the studies up to date :

    No consistent or inclusive definition of the basic unit of L2 vocabulary, which makes the research domain a tricky and muddy area to explore.

    No solid evidence for an efficient way to enhance L2 learners lexical knowledge, in addition to controversies over incidental and intentional L2 approaches.

    Task-based L2 lexical learning seems to be an optimal area to investigate L2 lexical learning. Nevertheless, there is far from sufficient understanding of task-based L2 lexical learning according to the literature to date.

    Lopsided focus of present-day research on L2 lexical vocabulary learning.

    Inadequate support, either theoretically or empirically, for the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001), the newly-born theoretical construct targeting at L2 lexical learning.

    Besides word-based factors, few studies explored learner-related factors

  • Literature reviewKey termsTheoretical frameworkPrevious empirical findings

  • Literature reviewKey terms

    ---To get rid of problems of word and word familiar, the present study adopted lexical unit (LU) as the basic unit of L2 vocabulary covering single words and multi-word chunks and idioms.

  • Literature reviewTheoretical framework

    Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985,1989)Output Hypothesis (Swain,1985, 1995) Nations (2001) construct of L2 lexical knowledge 3 aspects: form, meaning, usage 2 levels: receptive & productive Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 ) ---the latest and sole theoretical construct ---targeting at L2 lexical learning.

  • What is involved in knowing a word

    Form Spoken R What does the word sound like? P How is the word pronounced? Written R What does the word look like? P How is the word written and spelled? word parts R What parts are recognizable in this word? P How word parts are needed to express the meaning?Meaning Form & meaning R What meaning does this word form signal? P What word form can be used to express this meaning? Concept & referents R What is included in the concept? P What items can the concept refer to? Associations R What other words does the word occur? P What other words could we use instead of this one?Use Grammatical functions R In what patterns does the word occur? P In what patterns must we use this word? Collocations R What words or types of words occur with this one? P What words or types of words must we use with this one? Constraints on use R Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this word? P Where, when, and how often can we use this word?

  • Its basic contention :

    --- The retention of unfamiliar words is, generally, conditional upon the degree of involvement in processing these words.

    Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )

  • Its 3 assumptions :Retention of words, when processed incidentally, is conditional upon the following factors in a task: need, search and evaluation.

    Other factors being equal, words which are processed with higher involvement load will be retained better than words which are processed with lower involvement load.

    Other factors being equal, teacher/researcher-designed tasks with higher involvement load will be more effective for vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower involvement load.

    Task-induced involvement does not have much to do with whether it is an input or output task.

    Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )

  • Motivational-cognitive construct of involvement: need, search & evaluation.

    L2 lexical learning is conditional upon task-induced involvement.

    The higher involvement, the better acquisition and longer retention of unknown words.

    Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 )

  • Literature review Empirical findings

    Majority: looking for evidence for task-based L2 lexical learning A few: on effects of task type. Few: on effects of task frequency, word and learner factors

    indicating: task type, task frequency, word and text factors as well as learner factors affect L2 lexical learning

    Reading-based complex tasks : the most facilitative for L2 lexical learning.

    Involvement Load Hypothesis: only partially supported. 1) Motivational-cognitive construct : problematic. 2) Involvement Load Hypothesis : needs further rectification.

  • Methodology

    Based on previous studies, an experimentalstudy of task-based L2 lexical learning was designed and conducted.

  • Methodology Research Questions

    How do Chinese EFL learners acquire L2 vocabulary through learning tasks?

    1. Effects of task type on L2 lexical learning?Overall effects Modify effects Role of task-induced involvement2. Effects of task frequency on L2 lexical learning? - Overall effects - Modified effects - Optimal task frequency

    3. Effects of lexical presentation on L2 lexical learning? - Overall effects - Modified effects - Most or least acquired LUs? Why?

  • TASK-BASED FACTORS Task type

    Task frequency

    Lexical presentation

    LEARNER-BASED FACTORS

    English proficiency

    Prior lexical knowledge

    Task-basedL2 Lexical learningRead silently + comprehensionRead aloud + comprehensionRead silently + reproductionRead aloud + reproductionFirst exposureSecond exposureThird exposure

    Lexical formationContextual elaboration Design

    Pretest-posttest experimental design

    Notes: refers to the effects of independent variable on dependent variable

    refers to the effects of moderator variable on dependent variable

  • MethodologySubjects

    4 EGs: 119 English majors (EG 1/2/3: 30; EG 4: 29)

    Homogenous in age, learning background, motivation.

    Pretests: No significant differences between 4 EGs in 1. English proficiency 2. vocabulary size, and 3. baseline knowledge of target LUs.

  • MethodologyMaterial

    A treatment text

    Length: 411 words

    No of target LUs: 21

    Coverage of known LU: 95%

  • MethodologyInstruments

    PretestExperimentPosttest4 weeks before1 afternoonAfter the experiment

    1. TEM-42. V size test3. Spelling test of target LUs

    4 tasks EG1: (RS+C) 3EG2: (RA+C) 3EG3: (RS+R) 3EG4: (RA+R) 31.V acquisition test32. Spelling test of target LUs3. Interviews

  • Data collection and analysis

    Data collection: i

Recommended

View more >