The Effect of Evaluation Factor on the Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading

Abstract

This empirical study investigates the respective effectiveness of three factors (need, search and evaluation) included in task-induced involvement load on the EFL vocabulary learning and retention. Three tasks with the same amount of involvement load but containing different factors are assigned to 108 non-English majors at Beijing Institute of Petrol-chemical Technology in China. After these reading tasks, the participants are given an unannounced immediate posttest. One week later, the participants are given the delayed posttest. A 3 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) is employed to process the scores and identify the relationship between the EFL incidental vocabulary learning and the three factors contained in the involvement loads. The results are assumed to show that the Evaluation factor is more decisive and crucial than the other two factors (need and search). Learners benefit more by using the target words in their original contexts. That means vocabulary instruction should focus on tasks that require high degrees of evaluation.

To What Extent Does the Involvement Load Hypothesis Predict Incidental L2 Vocabulary Learning? A Meta‐Analysis

“…This suggests that the effect of IL might not be observed when examining the long-term retention of words. Many other studies have also reported results that differ across different test formats and timings (e.g., Bao, 2015;Rott, 2012;Wang et al, 2014;Yang et al, 2017).…”

“…However, not all findings have been in line with the ILH. Tasks with higher ILs were not necessarily found to lead to greater vocabulary learning than tasks with lower ILs (e.g., Martínez‐Fernández, 2008; Yang, Shintani, Li, & Zhang, 2017), and sometimes tasks with lower ILs outperformed those with higher ILs (e.g., Bao, 2015; Wang, Xu, & Zuo, 2014).…”

Involvement Load Hypothesis Plus

“…Several studies found that activities with higher ILs did not outperform activities with lower ILs (e.g., Martínez-Fernández, 2008; Yang et al, 2017), or activities with the same IL led to significantly different learning gains (e.g., Zou, 2017). Moreover, in some studies, activities with lower ILs outperformed activities with higher ILs (e.g., Bao, 2015; Wang et al, 2014). It is important to note that contrasting results have also occurred when recruiting multiple samples of participants or measuring learning gains with multiple test formats and/or different test timings.…”

Investigating the effectiveness of involvement load in acquisition and retention of ESL learners’ collocational knowledge

“…It was also concluded that although the need factor (i.e., the motivation factor) was important, it was less important than either the search or evaluation factor (i.e., the cognitive factors). Wang, Xu, and Zuo ( 2014) established that higher degrees of evaluation in processing vocabulary would result in better retention, as they found that task 2 (with moderate evaluation) and 3 (with strong evaluation) resulted in better vocabulary acquisition than task 1 (with no evaluation).…”

“…Their study confirms Laufer and Hulstijn's (2001, p. 21) suggestion that the weight of search might be lower than that of need and evaluation. Wang, Xu, and Zuo ( 2014) compared three tasks with the same amount of involvement load, but different distribution of the three factors need, search, and evaluation: Task 1 which was reading with True/False questions (no evaluation) with the involvement index of (2 + 1 + 0). Task 2 which was reading with meaning choosing (moderate evaluation) with the involvement index of (1 +1 + 1), and Task 3 which was reading with sentence writing (strong evaluation) with the involvement index of (1+0+2).…”