Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks

Abstract

This study investigated the ways in which two groups of four adult learners of English as a second language (ESL) responded to unfamiliar words they encountered in four communication tasks and the effect that different levels of engagement with these words (including negotiation of form and meaning) had on subsequent recall of word meaning. Of the four tasks, two were information gap tasks and two were opinion gap tasks. The results showed a strong task type effect on both the amount and type of negotiation, with more negotiation of the form of words (including spelling and pronunciation) in the information gap tasks and, conversely, more negotiation of meaning in the opinion gap tasks. Through the negotiation process, the learners in the study provided accurate information to each other on word meaning. However, only a small proportion of the total number of unfamiliar words in the tasks were actually negotiated for meaning. The prediction that negotiated words would be more likely to be learnt was confirmed, although the learners also showed improved recall of many words that had not been negotiated. Averaged across learners and tasks, the post-test gains approximated to four instances of word learning per 30 minutes of task work, a gain measured three days after the words were met in the tasks. Seen as a proportion of unfamiliar words in the pre-test these are gains of around one in every three unfamiliar words met in the tasks. The finding that much of the improved recall of word meaning was for words that had not been negotiated indicates that the role of negotiation in learning through communication tasks needs to be viewed from a wider perspective.

Second language vocabulary learning through extensive reading with audio support: How do frequency and distribution of occurrence affect learning?

“…It may be that frequent encounters with unknown or partially known words in a single text leads to an immediate gain in vocabulary knowledge, but it is the use of these words by the students after reading that contributes to more durable long-term gains. Research has indicated that using words in speech or writing can have a positive effect on vocabulary learning gains (Joe, 1998;Newton, 2013). After reading, some of the frequently encountered words might be used and retained, while others might not be used and are forgotten.…”

TBLT and L2 Pronunciation

“…In TBLT, these gains are often discussed in terms of measuring changes in complexity, accuracy, and/or fluency (CAF; for a thorough review of CAF measures see Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2012; for an empirical example see Kim & Tracy-Ventura, 2013). Task-based manipulations with the goal of promoting L2 development have focused on instruction (e.g., De Ridder et al, 2007), task type(s) (e.g., Newton, 2013;Révész & Han, 2015), task complexity (e.g., Nuevo, Adams, & Ross-Feldman, 2011), interlocutor (e.g., Kim & McDonough, 2008), and mode (most often FTF as compared to SCMC; e.g., Baralt, 2014). Empirical research has found these task-based manipulations to promote the development of L2 accuracy, at least for lexis and grammar.…”

The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development

“…The results of this study, along with several other studies (e.g., Tian & Macaro, 2012), suggest that intentional FFI is superior to incidental vocabulary exposure in classroom contexts. However, note that a number of studies have shown that a limited amount of vocabulary can also be learned incidentally (e.g., Bisson, van Heuven, Conklin, & Tunney, 2014;Gablasova, 2014;Liu & Todd, 2016;Newton, 2013;Pellicer-Sánchez, 2016).…”