خلاصة:
Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) and Technique Feature Analysis (TFA) are two frameworks which operationalize depth of processing of a vocabulary learning task. However, there is dearth of research comparing the predictive power of the ILH and the TFA across second language (L2) vocabulary learning tasks. The present study, therefore, aimed to examine this issue across four vocabulary learning tasks (i.e., reading with glosses, keyword techniques, word card, and reading and finding the words in text) ranked differently by the ILH and the TFA. To this end, 80 English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were randomly assigned to one of four tasks of learning 16 target words. The results of one-way ANOVA, LSD Post hoc tests, and multiple regression analyses showed that the TFA had a better explanatory power than the ILH in predicting vocabulary learning gains. The findings highlight the TFA as a more powerful framework.
ملخص الجهاز:
ir Abstract Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) and Technique Feature Analysis (TFA) are two frameworks which operationalize depth of processing of a vocabulary learning task.
However, there is dearth of research comparing the predictive power of the ILH and the TFA across second language (L2) vocabulary learning tasks.
The results of one-way ANOVA, LSD Post hoc tests, and multiple regression analyses showed that the TFA had a better explanatory power than the ILH in predicting vocabulary learning gains.
Keywords: Involvement Load Hypothesis, Technique Feature Analysis, Vocabulary Learning Task, Vocabulary Learning, EFL Learners Introduction Vocabulary has been regarded as the building block of second language (L2) learning (Knight, 1994; Nation & Webb, 2011).
Literature Review The differences between the ILH and the TFA can lead to different weights given to their components, resulting in variations in prediction as to what vocabulary tasks or activities are more effective in L2 learning (Nation & Webb, 2011).
The Score of Four tasks based on the TFA and ILH Frameworks (adopted from Nation & Webb, 2011) {مراجعه شود به فایل جدول الحاقی} {مراجعه شود به فایل جدول الحاقی} Involvement Load Index (need, search, evaluation) 1+0+0= 1 2+0+0= 2 2+1+0= 3 1+2+1= 4 / Target Words and Tests Initially, 25 words were selected from two reading texts at pre-intermediate level obtained from www.
Discussion The results revealed that different tasks with different ILH indices and TFA scores had different effects on the participants’ vocabulary learning which is in line with a number of studies (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Keating, 2008).