Learning Vocabulary Through Reading, Listening, and Viewing: Studies in Second Language Acquisition July 2020

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/336652618
LEARNING VOCABULARY THROUGH READING, LISTENING, AND VIEWING
Article in Studies in Second Language Acquisition · July 2020

DOI: 10.1017/S0272263119000494
CITATIONS READS
47 3,942
2 authors, including:
Yanxue Feng
The University of Western Ontario
1 PUBLICATION 47 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Yanxue Feng on 15 May 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Learning vocabulary through reading, listening, and

viewing: Which mode of input is most effective?
Fo
Journal: Studies in Second Language Acquisition

rP
Manuscript ID SLA-RA-2019-0048.R2
Manuscript Type: Research Article
Incidental vocabulary learning, Prior vocabulary knowledge, Mode of

ee
Keywords:
input, Frequency of occurrence
rR
ev
iew
Cambridge University Press

Page 1 of 48 Studies in Second Language Acquisition
VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 1
Learning vocabulary through reading, listening, and viewing: Which mode of input is most
effective?
Abstract
This study used a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design at one-week intervals to determine
the extent to which written, audio, and audiovisual L2 input contributed to incidental vocabulary
learning. Seventy-six university students learning EFL in China were randomly assigned to four
groups. Each group was presented with the input from the same television documentary in
Fo
different modes: reading the printed transcript, listening to the documentary, viewing the
rP
documentary, and a non-treatment control condition. Checklist and multiple-choice tests were
designed to measure knowledge of target words. The results showed that L2 incidental
ee
vocabulary learning occurred through reading, listening, and viewing, and that the gain was
rR
retained in all modes of input one week after encountering the input. However, no significant
ev
differences were found between the three modes on the posttests indicating that each mode of
input yielded similar amounts of vocabulary gain and retention. A significant relationship was
iew
found between prior vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning, but not between frequency
of occurrence and vocabulary learning. The study provides further support for the use of L2
television programs for language learning.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition Page 2 of 48
Introduction
Among the different types of input that L2 learners may encounter, viewing television and
movies, listening to songs, and playing video games appear to be the preferred sources of L2
input outside of the classroom for learners (Lindgren & Muñoz, 2013; Peters, 2018). For
example, Peters (2018) found that the most commonly encountered types of L2 input that L2
learners in Belgium were exposed to were television and movies, songs, and computer games.
She reported that 40% of the learners who were surveyed watched L2 television and movies
several times a week in their free time, whereas in contrast, only 1% of these learners read L2
Fo
books to the same extent. Moreover, in a survey of young L2 learners from seven European
rP
countries, Lindgren and Muñoz (2013) found that the amount of time participants were exposed
to L2 input through listening to songs and viewing television and movies was more than three
ee
times that of reading.

rR
Because exposure to L2 television, movies and songs might be greater than written input
ev
outside of the classroom, we might expect there to be a great deal of research on language
learning through these sources of input. However, surprisingly there are almost no intervention
iew
studies of L2 learning through viewing L2 television and movies and listening to L2 songs.
There are a small number of studies investigating these sources of L2 input which suggest that
viewing L2 television and listening to L2 songs also contribute to L2 vocabulary learning (See
Pavia, Webb, & Faez, 2019, for a study of listening to L2 songs; Peters & Webb, 2018; Rodgers
& Webb, 2019, for studies of viewing L2 television). There are several reasons why there is little
research investigating alternative sources of input apart from written text: historically they have
not been as commonly encountered in the classroom, they can be difficult to manipulate for

research, and they are typically perceived as forms of entertainment rather than learning. Another
reason why studies investigating alternative sources of L2 input are lacking might be that reading
is seen as the most effective form of input for L2 vocabulary learning (Krashen, 1989).
The value of reading for L2 vocabulary acquisition has been well established (e.g., Brown,
Waring, & Donkaewbua, 2008; Horst et al., 1998; Pellicer- Sánchez & Schmitt, 2010; Waring &
Takaki, 2003). The efficacy of other modes of input for L2 vocabulary learning is less clear. In
comparison to learning words through reading, there are relatively few studies investigating L2
vocabulary learning through listening (van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2013; Vidal, 2003, 2011) and
Fo
viewing (Neuman & Koskinen, 1992; Peters & Webb, 2018). The extent to which these different
rP
modes help to develop vocabulary knowledge in comparison to reading remains to be
determined. Research has indicated that reading leads to greater incidental learning of single-
ee
word items than listening (Brown et al., 2008; Vidal, 2011), but that there is no difference in the
rR
amount of learning of multiword items between these two modes (Webb & Chang, 2019). Only
ev
one study has compared vocabulary learning through viewing (with and without captions) and
reading-while-listening. Interestingly, Neuman and Koskinen (1992) found that viewing with
iew
captions led to greater word learning than reading-while-listening.
There are two main cognitive schemes that suggest that vocabulary learning through viewing
may be effective. Multimedia Learning Theory is based on the idea that there are separate
channels in the working memory to process words and pictures (Mayer, 2009). Dual Coding
Theory indicates that human cognition consists of two coding systems, a verbal system that
processes objects encoded in verbal modality, and an imagery system that processes objects
encoded in nonverbal modality (Sadoski & Paivio, 2001; Sadoski, 2005). Both theories suggest

that presenting information in verbal and pictorial forms together can improve learning,
suggesting that learning through viewing might be superior to reading and listening. However,
there are no empirical studies comparing the three modes of input in the ways they are
encountered most frequently, that is, reading-only, listening-only, and viewing without captions.
Without any empirical studies comparing the extent to which the different modes of L2 input
(reading, listening, and viewing) contribute to language learning, it is impossible to know their
relative values for L2 learning. The primary aim of this study is to partially fill this gap in the
research literature by investigating the extent which audiovisual, aural and written L2 input
Fo
contribute to vocabulary learning. A full-length TV documentary presented in the three modes

rP
was used as the research materials. L2 television was chosen as the source of L2 input, because
in recent years, researchers have begun to advocate extensive viewing of L2 television both
ee
inside and outside of the language learning classroom (Peters & Webb, 2018; Rodgers & Webb,
rR
2019; Webb, 2015; Webb & Nation, 2017). However, if L2 television is to be used regularly as
ev
the material for language learning in the classroom, then it is important to determine the extent to
which it contributes to learning in relation to other types of input such as spoken and written text.
iew
A secondary aim of the study was to examine how frequency of word occurrence and prior
vocabulary knowledge influence vocabulary learning in these different modes of input.
Literature Review
Incidental Vocabulary Learning through Reading
Many researchers have argued that reading is the most important source of L1 vocabulary
acquisition (e.g., Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987; Nagy et
al., 1985). Although the vocabulary gains shown in L1 reading studies have been rather small,

L1 learners experience a rapid and substantial vocabulary growth during their school years
because they receive a large amount of written input (Elley, 1989; Nagy et al., 1987). Research
has also revealed the value of reading for L2 incidental vocabulary learning (e.g, Horst et al.,
1998; Hulstijn, 1992; Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2010; Waring & Takaki, 2003). Incidental
learning occurs when unknown words are encountered repeatedly in meaning-focused input.
During reading, learners may gain knowledge of written form, part of speech, collocation, and
gain some knowledge of the word meaning from the context. Knowledge of encountered words
may accumulate as they meet the words in various contexts. Therefore, to increase the potential
Fo
for incidental vocabulary learning through reading, a large amount of written input is needed.
rP
One solution to increase the amount of written input is extensive reading.
Extensive reading is a language learning approach that involves learners reading a large
ee
quantity of materials for pleasure. Research has shown that extensive reading is an effective
rR
approach for L2 learners to increase their vocabulary knowledge (Horst, 2005; Pigada &
ev
Schmitt, 2006; Webb & Chang, 2015b). An obvious advantage of extensive reading is the
repeated occurrence of words across texts. Empirical studies have confirmed that repeated
iew
encounters with unfamiliar words are needed for L2 incidental vocabulary learning to occur
through reading (Hu, 2013; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Waring & Takaki, 2003). Nation and Wang
(1999) examined the vocabulary load of 42 graded readers, which are commonly used as
extensive reading materials for L2 learners, and found that the books at each level had almost
40% of the vocabulary at that level occurring ten times or more. This indicated the potential
value of graded reading material to contribute to vocabulary learning.
Research on L2 incidental vocabulary learning through reading other types of texts has also

indicated that more encounters with unfamiliar words is likely to result in greater vocabulary
gains (Chen & Truscott, 2010; Rott, 1999; Webb, 2007). Various frequency of occurrence
thresholds have been suggested for incidental learning to occur. For example, Webb (2007) used
sets of short sentences as reading materials to control the frequency of occurrence of target
words. His results showed positive correlations between vocabulary knowledge and the
frequency of occurrence of target words. He suggested a minimum of 10 encounters to ensure a
relatively large increase in vocabulary knowledge to occur through reading. Chen and Truscott
(2010) used self-composed short stories as reading materials. They found that words that
Fo
occurred seven times had significantly higher learning rates than the words that only occurred
rP
once. On the other hand, in a study examining incidental word learning through reading a graded
reader, Waring and Takaki (2003) concluded that it may take more than 20 encounters with
ee
words for vocabulary knowledge to be retained. Taken together, the research suggests that there
rR
is not a threshold of frequency of word occurrence that can ensure vocabulary learning because
ev
some words are learned after few encounters while others are not learned after many encounters
(Saragi, Nation, & Meister, 1978; Webb, 2020). However, the more often that words are
iew
encountered during reading, the more likely they are to be learned.
Incidental Vocabulary Learning through Listening
Werner and Kaplan (1950) reported that listening is children’s sole source of learning L1
words before they acquire the ability to read. Research has also indicated that listening to aural
input can contribute to L2 incidental vocabulary learning (Brown et al., 2008; van Zeeland &
Schmitt, 2013; Vidal, 2003, 2011). Similar to reading, repeated encounters are needed for
learning to take place. For example, through listening learners may gain knowledge of the

spoken forms of unknown words, their grammatical functions, collocations, and derive their
meanings from the contexts in which they occur (Webb & Nation, 2017). The potential for
learning words through listening is also a function of the amount of spoken input encountered;
the greater the amount of input, the more likely that words will be encountered enough times for
learning to occur. However, the comparison between L2 vocabulary learning gains through
reading and listening has revealed an unfavorable position for listening. Brown et al. (2008)
compared the vocabulary gains occurring through reading, listening, and reading-while-listening
to graded readers. They found that both written and combined written and aural input modes
Fo
contributed to significantly larger gains in vocabulary knowledge than aural input. Vidal (2011)
rP
compared incidental vocabulary learning through reading and listening to academic texts. The
results indicated that incidental vocabulary learning occurred through both input modes, but the
ee
reading mode resulted in significantly higher scores than the listening mode in the study. Taken
rR
together, these studies indicate that the mode of aural input may be inferior to the mode of
ev
written input for incidental vocabulary learning. One reason why written input might contribute
to larger gains in vocabulary knowledge than aural input is that listening requires faster
iew
processing and it may therefore be difficult for learners to attend to unknown words in aural
input (Goh, 2000; Renandya & Farrell, 2011; van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2013). Vidal (2011) also
argued that written input has the advantage of enabling learners to dwell and re-read while
listening requires real-time processing.
Research on L2 incidental vocabulary learning also indicates that a higher number of
encounters with words is required for learning to take place through listening compared to
reading. Brown et al. (2008) found that words that were met 15 to 20 times in aural input only

had a 3% chance to be learned, while words that were met 10 to 13 times had a 20% chance to be
learned through reading, and a 21% chance to be learned through reading-while-listening. Brown
et al. reported that words should be encountered more than 20 times in aural input for incidental
learning to occur. They also suggested that 50 or even 100 encounters may not always be enough
for incidental vocabulary learning to take place through listening. Van Zeeland and Schmitt
(2013) found support for this claim. Their results indicated that even when target words were met
15 times, there was relatively little learning that occurred through listening to aural input. This
suggests that L2 learners may need to receive a considerable amount of aural input for listening
Fo
to be a useful source of incidental vocabulary learning.

rP
Incidental Vocabulary Learning through TV Viewing
L1 research has revealed that children can incidentally acquire vocabulary knowledge
ee
through viewing (Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995; Rice & Woodsmall, 1988) and that it may have
rR
a positive effect on children’s vocabulary growth (Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990). A
ev
series of L2 studies have revealed that viewing may also contribute to L2 incidental vocabulary
learning (d’Ydewalle, 2002; d’Ydewalle & Pavakanun, 1997; d’Ydewalle & Poel, 1999;
iew
Neuman & Koskinen, 1992; Rodgers & Webb, 2019).
In fact, viewing television may offer the same potential for L2 vocabulary acquisition as
reading. TV shows are popular among L2 learners and are easily accessible. Surveys of EFL
learners’ out-of-class exposure to English showed that L2 learners watch L2 television a lot more
than they read books (Lindgren & Muñoz, 2013; Peters, 2018). Moreover, research indicated that
television programs provide repeated encounters with both high and low frequency words and
could thus potentially fuel L2 vocabulary growth with regular viewing (Rodgers & Webb, 2011;

Webb, 2010, 2015; Webb & Rodgers, 2009). Research on incidental vocabulary learning through
viewing television programs provides some support for this. Peters and Webb (2018) found that
L2 learners could learn 14% of the unknown words after watching one full-length TV
documentary. Rodgers & Webb (2019) investigated incidental vocabulary learning through
watching 10 episodes of a TV series and found that participants could learn 25% percent of the
unknown target words. Together, the research suggests that viewing large amounts of L2
television for pleasure (i.e. extensive viewing) could have a similar potential to extensive reading
to contribute to L2 vocabulary growth (Webb, 2015). However, as there have yet to be any direct
Fo
comparisons of learning between the two modes of input, it remains to be determined whether L2
rP
viewing could be as useful for word learning as L2 reading.
Neuman and Koskinen (1992) conducted the only study that compared incidental vocabulary
ee
learning through audiovisual and written input. Nine short segments of a TV program about
rR
science for children was viewed as part of a science class for bilingual children. In a between
ev
participants design, a control group read science textbooks, and three experimental groups read
and listened to the audio input from the videos, watched the videos without captions, and
iew
watched the videos with captions. Participants were tested on form recognition, form-meaning
connection, and meaning recognition of selected target words after the treatments. The results
revealed significantly higher scores for the captioned viewing group than those in the reading-
while-listening group on all three types of word knowledge test. Neuman and Koskinen’ study
provided empirical evidence that viewing might be a useful source of incidental vocabulary
learning. However, the extent to which the most common modes of encountering L2 input
(reading, listening, and viewing) have yet to be compared.

For viewing to be a valuable mode of L2 incidental vocabulary learning input, words need to
be encountered multiple times and this likely requires viewing large quantities of television.
While research has suggested that in reading and listening input, the more that words were
encountered, the more likely they could be learned (Brown et al., 2008; Horst et al., 1998; van
Zeeland & Schmitt, 2013; Waring & Takaki, 2003; Webb, 2007), there are few studies
investigating the relationship between frequency of word occurrence and vocabulary learning
through audiovisual input. Peters, Heynen, and Puimège (2016) and Peters and Webb (2018)
both reported positive correlations between frequency of occurrence and language learning
Fo
through viewing. This suggests that a similar frequency effect may apply to L2 incidental
rP
vocabulary acquisition through viewing. The extent to which frequency of occurrence affects
vocabulary learning in different modes of L2 input has yet to be investigated. A secondary aim
ee
of this study is to help clarify this issue.

rR
There are two reasons why it is useful to investigate the extent to which frequency of
ev
occurrence affects vocabulary learning in different modes of input. First, examining the
relationship between frequency of occurrence and vocabulary learning allows us to better

iew
understand the extent to which different materials may contribute to vocabulary learning. This in
turn may help materials creators to design resources that more effectively promote vocabulary
learning. Second, this line of research should help to reveal the different amounts of input that
are necessary to promote vocabulary learning in different modes. Corpus driven studies have
looked at the extent to which vocabulary learning may occur through encountering different
amounts of input. However, the frequency of occurrence that may indicate that learning may
occur in these studies tends to vary from study to study (e.g., Cobb, 2007; Nation, 2015; Webb,

2010).
Prior Vocabulary Knowledge and Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Prior vocabulary knowledge has been found to have a positive impact on L2 incidental
vocabulary learning through reading (Horst et al., 1998; Tekmen & Dalog̈lu, 2006; Zahar, Cobb,
& Spada, 2001) and reading while listening (Webb & Chang, 2015a). The reason why learners
with larger vocabulary sizes may learn more words than those with smaller vocabulary sizes
could be because greater vocabulary knowledge is likely to yield greater comprehension (Hu &
Nation, 2000; Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe, 2011; Webb & Paribakht, 2015), making the context
Fo
more accessible and help learners to successfully infer the meanings of unknown words (Liu &
rP
Nation, 1985).
ee
Surprisingly there is no research that has investigated the relationship between vocabulary
knowledge and vocabulary learning through listening. However, three studies have examined the
rR
relationship between prior vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning through viewing.
ev
Rodgers (2013) investigated vocabulary learning through viewing 10 episodes of a TV program

iew
with and without captions. He found significant correlations (r = .307 and r = .270 for the two
vocabulary knowledge tests used in the study) between prior vocabulary knowledge and
vocabulary learning for those who viewed TV with captions but not for those who viewed the
program without captions. Montero Perez, Peters, Clarebout, and Desmet (2014) also found
significant positive relationships (b =.12, b = .16, b = .01, and b = .02 for the four vocabulary
knowledge tests used in the study) between vocabulary size and L2 incidental vocabulary gain
when the scores of participants who viewed video clips with captions and participants who

viewed video clips without captions were examined together. Peters and Webb (2018) found a
significant positive correlation (b = .028) between vocabulary size and vocabulary learning for
learners who viewed a full-length documentary TV program without captions.
Taken together, the research indicates that the higher learners’ vocabulary level, the more
likely they could learn new words through reading and viewing. However, the extent to which
prior vocabulary knowledge is related to the amount of vocabulary learning in different modes of
L2 input is yet to be examined. The current study aims to fill this gap in the research literature.
Fo
There are two reasons why it is useful to investigate this question. First, answering this question
sheds light on how individual differences in vocabulary size may affect vocabulary learning in
rP
the most common forms of L2 input (reading, listening, viewing). This in turn may help teachers
ee
to better understand the degree to which their students may learn words through input, as well as
which students are likely to need greater support for their learning. Second, answering this
rR
question can help guide L2 learners to select appropriate learning materials based on their
ev
vocabulary level. This may further increase learners’ motivation and self-efficacy for vocabulary
iew
learning.
The Present Study
The aim of this study was to compare vocabulary learning through reading, listening, and
viewing. A L2 television program was used as the source of the L2 input. Experimental groups
either viewed the television program, listened to the audio of the program, or read a transcript of
the language encountered in aural form in the program. Thus, a direct comparison of learning
vocabulary in different modes of input was possible by prioritizing control of input; participants

encountered the same input in each mode, with the only difference between the conditions being
the mode of input. The research should provide some indication of the extent of learning in the
different modes of input. This is necessary because if television is to be used in the classroom
regularly to promote L2 learning as some researchers have recommended (e.g., Peters & Webb,
2018; Rodgers & Webb, 2011, 2019; Webb, 2011, 2015; Webb & Nation, 2017; Webb &
Rodgers, 2009), research examining its efficacy in relation to reading and listening is clearly
needed.
Research Questions
Fo
This study aims to investigate the effect that input mode has on L2 incidental vocabulary
rP
learning. In particular, it aims to explore how written and audio input contribute to incidental
vocabulary learning in comparison to audiovisual input using a full-length TV documentary. The

ee
following research questions were examined:

rR
1. To what extent does incidental vocabulary learning occur through encountering

ev
written, aural, and audiovisual input? To what extent is vocabulary gain retained one
week after learning?

iew
2. How does vocabulary gain compare across written, aural, and audiovisual input?
How does retention compare among different modes of input?
3. In each input mode, what is the relationship between vocabulary learning and the
following two factors: vocabulary knowledge and frequency of word occurrence?
Method
Participants
The research was a quasi-experimental study in an EFL context with 76 participants ranging

in age from 19 to 21. The participants were students majoring in English Translation at a
university in China. They were in four classes that were randomly assigned by the university,
with 21 second-year students being in one class and 55 third-year students divided into the other
three. Twenty-one participants were assigned to a reading group, fifteen participants were
assigned a listening group, twenty-one participants were in a viewing group, and nineteen were
assigned to a control group. Data collection took place during their class time and their pre-
assigned classes were used as the experimental and control groups.
The updated Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT; Webb et al., 2017) was administered in a paper
Fo
and pencil format to the participants to measure learners’ prior vocabulary knowledge. The test
rP
results indicated that all of the participants had mastered the most frequent 1000 words, 70
(92.1%) of them had mastered the most frequent 2000 words or more, and 46 (60.5%) of them
ee
had mastered the most frequent 3000 words. The total VLT scores of the were used as the
rR
indicator of their vocabulary knowledge in this study. Levene’s test revealed that homogeneity of
ev
variances was met. One-way ANOVA was used to show the relationship between the treatment
group and VLT scores. Results showed that there was no significant difference between the two
iew
variables, F (3, 564.43) =2.717, p = .051. This result indicated that participants’ vocabulary
levels were equivalent among the four groups. Table 1 shows the average scores of each group
and the participants as a whole on the VLT.
Table 1
The Average VLT Scores of Each Group and the Participants as a Whole
Reading Listening Viewing Control All participants

N 21 15 21 19 76

M 111.76 123.40 121.19 122.32 119.30

SD 15.22 12.42 9.79 18.63 14.41
Materials
The documentary, Why the Towers Fell (Kennedy & Klein, 2002), originally broadcast by
the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) was used as the research materials. The program is about
the reasons for the collapse of the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks. The video was 54
minutes and 14 seconds long and the script contained 6240 running words. The script was
obtained from the PBS website (available at

Fo
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html). The script and the vocabulary in the

rP
video were examined to ensure that there were no differences between the spoken and written
language. The script was analyzed using AntWordProfiler (Anthony, 2014) and the BNC/COCA
ee
lists (Nation, 2012) to determine its lexical profile (the proportion of words that are found in
rR
different word frequency lists). Results of the analysis showed that the most frequent 2000 word
ev
families plus proper nouns, interjections, and transparent compounds (e.g., airplane, firemen)
provided 81.65%, 90.30%, and 95.80% coverage of the most frequent 1000, 2000, and 3000
iew
word families, respectively.
Researchers have proposed different lexical coverage targets for comprehension, ranging
from 90% to 98%, depending on the type of discourse (Hu & Nation, 2000; Laufer, 1989;
Nation, 2006; Webb & Rodgers, 2009; Van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2013) or the benchmark on
which the comprehension level was based (Hu & Nation, 2000; Stæhr, 2008). Schmitt, Jiang, &
Grabe (2011) found a linear relationship between lexical coverage and reading comprehension
with reading comprehension tending to increase as coverage increased from 90% to 100%. Van

Zeeland and Schmitt (2013) found that coverage levels of 90% and 95% tended to provide
adequate listening comprehension to L2 learners. In a study examining how lexical coverage
affected comprehension of television programs, Rodgers (2013) found a lot of variation in
comprehension among EFL students with different levels of coverage, and that many learners
with less than 94% were able to adequately understand episodes of television programs. In his
Input Hypothesis, Krashen (1985) suggested that in order for vocabulary learning to happen, the
input needs to be one level higher than the learner’s current level yet still be comprehensible. It is
important to note that because the measure of vocabulary knowledge used in this study (VLT)
Fo
uses a written format, it might have overestimated the participants’ knowledge of spoken
rP
vocabulary. This in turn may have provided further learning chances for the listening and
viewing groups. Based on these findings, we believed that the participants’ lexical coverage of
ee
the transcript was at a level that was appropriate for the participants in each group.
rR
Target Words
ev
Forty-three words encountered in the transcript of the TV documentary were selected as
target items. The frequency of the target words in the script ranged from 3 to 33 occurrences.
iew
Most of the target items (39/43) were words that were less frequent than the most frequent 2000
word level in Nation’s (2012) BNC/COCA lists. The target words, their word frequency levels,
and their number of occurrences in the transcript is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Target Words and Their Frequency of Occurrence in Why the Towers Fell
Target Word (Word Family) Word List (1,000) Number of Occurrences

Strike 1 6
Steel 2 31
Flame 2 4
Trap 2 4
Collapse 3 33
Column 3 22
Core 3 21
Structure 3 16
Fuel 3 9
Fo
Aircraft 3 7
rP
Crew 3 7
Elevate 3 6
ee
Emergency 3 6
Jet 3 6
rR
Occupy 3 5
ev
Reveal 3 5
Concrete 3 4
iew
Component 3 3
Crucial 3 3
Destruction 3 3
Essential 3 3
Fragment 3 3
Initial 3 3
Severe 3 3
Terror 3 3

Trigger 3 3
Evacuate 4 10
Ladder 4 10
Bolt 4 5
Vertical 4 5
Intact 4 3
Exterior 5 7
Ignite 5 3
Lateral 5 3
Fo
Lurch 6 3
rP
Truss 9 17
Stairwell 9 4
ee
Stalwart 9 3
Squeegee 16 4
rR
Skyscraper 33 6
ev
Sheetrock 33 3
Drywall Not in The List 10
iew
Fireproofing Not in The List 7
Instruments
The VLT. The VLT (Webb, Sasao, & Ballance, 2017) measures receptive knowledge of
form-meaning connection of 5 word frequency levels from Nation’s (2012) BNC/COCA word
lists: 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 5000. Each level of the test contains 30 questions. Schmitt,
Schmitt, and Clapham’s (2001) suggestion of 26/30 correct answers or higher was used as the

cutting point for mastery of a level.
Checklist test. This paper and pencil test required participants to respond yes or no to
indicate whether they knew the provided words. Adapted from the yes/no EFL vocabulary test
designed by Meara (1992), this test consisted of 60 test items, the 43 target words, 10 words that
were expected to be known, and seven nonwords (See Appendix 1 in supplementary material).
Including 10 words that were likely to be known should have helped to encourage the
participants to complete the test. Analysis of these words was excluded from the results. The
seven nonwords were selected from the ARC Nonword Database (Rastle, Harrington, &
Fo
Coltheart, 2002). All the nonwords in the database are based on the phonotactic and orthographic
rP
constraints of Australian English and Standard Southern British English monosyllables, therefore
they looked and sounded like real English words. Nonwords were included to reduce the
ee
limitation caused by test takers overestimating their vocabulary knowledge or not taking the test
rR
seriously by ticking the words as they pleased. A “yes” response to a nonword was marked as a
ev
“false alarm”; a “yes” to a target word was marked as a “hit”. The proportion of words truly
known, p(k), was calculated using the formula from Anderson and Freebody (1982) and Shu,
iew
Anderson, & Zhang (1995):
𝑝(ℎ𝑖𝑡) ― 𝑝(𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑚)

𝑝(𝑘) =
1 ― 𝑝(𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑚)
A maximum score of 100% could be achieved on the checklist test.
The items were randomized across a pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest. The
participants heard the spoken forms of the test items and saw their written forms to ensure that

the testing mode was not biased against any of the treatment modes. This should have helped to
maintain the reliability of the data (Brown, et al., 2008). Giving all groups both aural and written
forms of test items provided internal consistency of the tests and may have helped to increase the
sensitivity of the test to reveal potential learning. The audio version of the test was recorded by a
North American English native speaker prior to the study. Each word was read twice with a five-
second pause between items.
Multiple-choice test. This test was a prompted recognition four-choice test with the key and
three distractors in the participants’ L1 (Mandarin, see example in Table 3). An “I don’t know
Fo
this word” option was presented as a fifth option to reduce the effect of guessing. The test items
rP
were randomly ordered across the pretest, immediate, and delayed posttests. The same 10 words
that were likely to be known and 7 nonwords from the checklist test were also included to reduce
ee
the potential that participants tried to intentionally learn items during the test intervals. The
rR
responses for these 17 words were not included in the results.

ev
Table 3
Example of the multiple-choice test

iew
Target word Steel
Options A. 塑料 B. 静止 C. 偷窃 D. 钢铁 E. I don’t know

this word
English A. plastic B. Being C. Take D. A hard, E. I don’t know
Translation inactive and without strong metal this word
quite permission material
Note. English translation was not provided in the test.
Procedure
All participants were told that the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect that

mode of input could have on comprehension. This was to encourage the participants to focus on
the content of the materials rather than paying deliberate attention to any unknown words during
the treatment.
In the first week of the study, all participants completed the VLT followed by a pretest
consisting of a checklist test and then a multiple-choice test. Participants were given as much
time as needed to complete the tests. After seven days, the participants completed the treatment
in their assigned groups in separate classrooms. Each classroom was equipped with a multimedia
system that included a computer, a projector, and speakers. Participants in the Reading Group
Fo
were each given individual copies of the transcript to read. The Listening Group listened to the
rP
documentary without the support of the video or transcript. The Viewing Group watched the
documentary without captions or subtitles. The reading group was given as much time as needed
ee
to finish the treatment. A posttest consisting of the same checklist and multiple-choice tests was
rR
completed by the participants immediately after the treatment. The control group took the
ev
posttest but did not complete a treatment. Participants were given sufficient time to complete all
treatments and tests. After another seven days, all participants took the same checklist and
iew
multiple-choice test again as a delayed posttest. The participants were given sufficient time for
everyone to finish the tests. This was followed by a ten-minute debriefing session, which was to
clarify the real purpose of this study.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive statistics of the checklist and multiple-choice tests at three test time points are
presented in Tables 4 and 5. Cronbach’s alpha showed acceptable reliability for the tests, α =

0.762. From pretest to immediate posttest, all experimental groups showed increased mean
scores on the checklist test and the multiple-choice test, while the control group showed a
decreased mean score on the checklist test and increased mean score on the multiple-choice test.
From pretest to delayed posttest, all four groups showed increased mean scores on both the
checklist test and the multiple-choice test. Inferential analyses were then carried out to examine
if the observed differences were statistically significant. The assumption of normal distribution
was met for all variables using visual inspection of histograms and Q-Q plots. Confidence
interval of 95% was used in all the analyses.

Fo
Table 4
rP
Descriptive Statistics of Checklist Test Scores

ee
Pretest Posttest Delayed posttest

Group N
M SD M SD M SD
rR
Reading 21 0.745 0.106 0.749 0.127 0.781 0.111

Listening 15 0.678 0.087 0.772 0.080 0.816 0.098
ev
Viewing 21 0.592 0.150 0.743 0.096 0.743 0.147

iew
Control 19 0.684 0.155 0.672 0.167 0.755 0.152

Total 76 0.674 0.140 0.732 0.126 0.771 0.131
Note. Maximum score is 1 (100%).

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Multiple-choice Test Scores
Pretest Posttest Delayed posttest

Group N
M SD M SD M SD
Reading 21 25.48 6.32 30.10 7.26 29.86 6.16
Listening 15 28.50 3.43 32.25 4.11 31.63 4.24
Viewing 21 26.05 4.94 30.29 5.16 28.76 6.17
Control 19 26.74 6.01 27.32 7.70 28.37 8.00
Total 76 26.49 5.37 29.84 6.42 29.61 6.36
Fo
Note. Maximum score is 43.

rP
ee
RQ 1: To what extent is vocabulary knowledge learned and retained through each mode?
To answer the first research question, Repeated Measures ANOVA was conducted to
rR
determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in the test scores among the
ev
three test time points associated with treatment. Time (pre, post, and delayed-post) was used as
iew
the within-group factor and Treatment was the between-group variable in SPSS. A Simple
Effects test with Bonferroni correction was followed as the post hoc analysis.
For the checklist test data, the assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by
Mauchly's test of sphericity, χ2(2) = 0.876, p = .009. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction
was applied (ε = 0.889). The results of Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed a significant Time
x Treatment interaction effect on the checklist test scores, F (5.336, 128.068) = 4.888, p < .001,
ηp2 = .169. For the multiple-choice test data, the assumption of sphericity was also violated, as

assessed by Mauchly's test of sphericity, χ2(2) = 0.889, p = .016. Therefore, a Greenhouse-
Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.900). The results of Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed
a significant Time x Treatment interaction effect on the multiple-choice test scores, F (5.402,
129.654) = 3.455, p < .001, ηp2 = .126)
The results of the Simple Effects test with Bonferroni correction revealed where the
differences between Time were in each treatment group. The analysis indicated that for checklist
test the immediate posttest scores were significantly higher than the pretest scores for both the
Listening Group (p < .01) and the Viewing Group (p < .001), but no significant differences were
Fo
detected between the pretest and immediate posttest scores for the Reading Group (p = .889) and
rP
the Control Group (p = .677). Both the Listening and Viewing groups also scored significantly
higher on the delayed posttest than the pretest (p < .001), and no significant differences were
ee
detected between the delayed posttest scores and the immediate posttest scores in either of the
rR
two groups, indicating that the vocabulary gain was retained a week after the treatment. The
ev
delayed posttest scores of the Control group were significantly higher than their scores on the
immediate posttest (p < .05), indicating that some learning took place after the immediate
iew
posttest.
In terms of multiple-choice test data, the results of the Simple Effects analysis with
Bonferroni correction showed that for Reading, Listening, and Viewing groups, the immediate
posttest scores were significantly higher than their pretest scores (p < .001). There were no
significant differences between the pretest score and the immediate posttest scores for the
Control group (p = .463). Simple effects analysis revealed significantly higher scores on the
delayed posttest than the pretest for the Reading Group (p < .001), Listening Group (p < .001),

and Viewing group (p < .005), indicating that the vocabulary knowledge gained by these three
groups was retained a week after the treatment. No significant difference was detected for the
Control group (p = .065) from the pretest to the delayed posttest.
RQ2: How does vocabulary acquisition and retention compare across different modes?
To answer the second research question, one-way ANCOVA was conducted separately in
the prediction of Posttest scores and Delayed Posttest scores with Treatment as the between-
group variable. Pretest scores and VLT were entered in the modal as covariates, though VLT had
to be excluded because it has a significant correlation with Pretest scores (Pearson’s r = .32 for
Fo
Checklist test and Pearson’s r = .648 for Multiple-choice test).

rP
Before conducting ANCOVA, the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was
assessed by the interaction term between Treatment and Pretest scores when predicting each
ee
dependent variable. The results showed p-values > .05 for Checklist Posttest, Checklist Delayed
rR
Posttest, Multiple-choice Posttest, and Multiple-choice Delayed Posttest, indicating the

ev
assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was met for each dependent variable.
The results of ANCOVA showed that there was a significant difference between the four
iew
groups on the posttest score after controlling for the pretest score both for the checklist test, F (1,
71) = 4.562, p < .01, ηp2 = .162, and the multiple-choice test, F (3,71) = 5.604, p < .005, ηp2 =
.191. The pretest score, as the covariate, was significantly related to the posttest score for the
checklist test, F (1,71) = 26.323, p < .001, and for the multiple-choice test, F (1, 71) = 173.594, p
< .001. There was no significant difference between the four groups on the delayed posttest score
on the checklist test (p = .280) and the multiple-choice test (p = .131), indicating that the
retention rate of the gained vocabulary knowledge after a week was not significantly different

between the groups.
A Bonferroni post hoc test of the immediate posttest revealed that the Listening Group and
the Viewing Group both had significantly higher scores on the checklist posttest than the Control
Group, p < .05 and p < .01, respectively. There were no significant differences between the
immediate posttest scores of the Reading Group and the Control Group on the checklist test, p =
1.000. For the multiple-choice test, a Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that the Reading,
Listening, and Viewing groups all scored significantly higher than the Control Group on the
immediate posttest, p < .005, p < .05, and p < .05, respectively. No significant differences were
Fo
detected between the three experimental groups, indicating that the learning effect on incidental
rP
vocabulary acquisition through written, audio, and audiovisual input was not significantly
different. The complete results of the Bonferroni post hoc test on the immediate posttest scores
ee
are displayed in Table 6.

rR
Table 6
ev
The p Values in Pairwise Comparisons using the Bonferroni Post Hoc Test
Group Control Viewing Listening

iew
CL MC CL MC CL MC
Reading 1.000 .003** .326 1.000 1.000 1.000
Listening .039* .044* 1.000 1.000
Viewing .007** .008*
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.CL = Checklist test. MC = Multiple-choice test.
RQ 3.1 The Relationship between Prior Vocabulary Knowledge and Vocabulary Learning
Pearson’s r correlation test was carried out to examine the relationship between the VLT

scores in the three experimental groups and their Posttest scores. When all three groups were
tested as a whole, the results showed that the VLT scores had significant positive correlations
with the Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest scores on both test formats. Significant
positive correlations were also found for the Reading and Viewing groups, but not the Listening
group. The results suggested that the more vocabulary the participants in the reading and viewing
groups knew, the greater their vocabulary learning gains. These findings are presented in Table
7.
Table 7
Fo
Pearson’s Correlation r on VLT scores and the Test Scores

rP
Group Checklist test Multiple-choice test

ee
Immediate Immediate
Delayed posttest Delayed posttest
posttest posttest
rR
Reading (n = 21) .601 (p < .005) .511 (p < .05) .455 (p < .05) .420 (p = .058)
Listening (n = 15) .305 (p = .268) -.079 (p = .780) .291 (p = .293) .126 (p = .654)
ev
Viewing (n = 21) .391 (p = .080) .482 (p < .05) .706 (p < .001) .567 (p < .005)
iew
All experimental
.462 (p <.001) .322 (p <.01) .480 (p < .001) .383 (p <.005)
groups (N = 57)
RQ 3.2 The Relationship between Frequency of Occurrence and Vocabulary Learning
In order to analyze the relationship between incidental vocabulary learning and frequency of
occurrence, the proportion of participants who learned each word (learning rate) was used as the
indicator of vocabulary learning. The average frequency of occurrence was 7.44 with SD =

7.196. The assumption of normal distribution was met for all variables by visual inspection of
histograms and Q-Q plots. Pearson’s r was used to investigate the correlation between frequency
of occurrence and the learning rate of each word. Results did not find any statistically significant
correlations between the two variables in any group on either of the tests. Descriptive Statistics
and the results of the Pearson’s r correlation test are displayed in Table 8 and Table 9.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for the Proportion of Participants Who Learned the Word
All Experimental
Fo
Reading Listening Viewing
Groups
M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD N
rP
Checklist Test 0.635 0.326 39 0.500 0.412 42 0.625 0.317 40 0.600 0.268 43
ee
Multiple-
0.431 0.290 42 0.540 0.371 40 0.424 0.325 42 0.492 0.220 43
choice Test
Note. The numbers of target words varied because there were words that were known by all the
rR
participants in the pretest in each group. These words were marked as missing when analysis was
ev
carried out in SPSS.

iew
Table 9
Pearson’s Correlation r on frequency of occurrence and the learning rate of each word
Checklist test Multiple-choice test

Viewin All Viewin All
Reading Listening Reading Listening
g groups g groups
Frequency r .071 .057 .124 .194 .235 -.050 -.038 .247
of p .668 .721 .445 .213 .135 .758 .809 .111
occurrence n 39 42 40 43 42 40 42 43
Note. The numbers of target words varied because there were words that were known by all the
participants in the pretest in each group. These words were marked as missing when analysis was

carried out in SPSS.
Discussion
This study fills research gaps in two ways. It is the first study to compare incidental
vocabulary learning through written, audio, and audiovisual input. Several studies have
compared written and audio input but did not include audiovisual input (e.g., Brown et al., 2008;
Vidal, 2011; Webb & Chang, 2012). Only one study has compared audiovisual input and
reading-while-listening but did not include written-only and audio-only input (Neuman &
Koskinen, 1992). This study is also the first to use a full-length TV documentary to compare the
Fo
incidental learning outcome through different modes of input. Earlier studies either used short
rP
video segments as viewing material or listening input (Neuman & Koskinen, 1992; Vidal, 2011),
or simplified texts such as graded readers as reading input (Brown et al., 2008). Therefore, the
ee
present study should provide greater evidence to illustrate the extent to which each mode of input
rR
could contribute to incidental vocabulary learning.

ev
Incidental Vocabulary Learning in each Mode of Input
In answer to the first research question, the results show that significant vocabulary learning
iew
can occur through encountering written, audio, and audiovisual input. The results were consistent
with the findings of earlier research where vocabulary knowledge was gained incidentally
through reading written input (e.g, Nagy, et al., 1985; Waring & Takaki, 2003), listening to audio
input (e.g., Elley, 1989; van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2013; Vidal, 2003) and through viewing
audiovisual input (e.g., Montero Perez, et al., 2014; Neuman & Koskinen, 1992; Peters & Webb,
2018). In terms of retention, the learned vocabulary knowledge was retained one week after the
treatment in all three learning conditions. This is consistent with Brown et al.’s (2008) findings

for retention of vocabulary knowledge in reading-only and listening-only modes on a one-week
delayed posttest.
Apart from supporting the beneficial effects of the more widely researched modes of input
(i.e., reading and listening) for incidental vocabulary learning, the results also provided more
evidence in support of learning vocabulary through viewing L2 television, a mode of input that
learners appear to be highly motivated to learn with (Gieve & Clark, 2005; Rodgers, 2013). This
is particularly useful because many earlier studies have investigated incidental vocabulary
learning through viewing specialized materials such as academic speeches (e.g., Vidal, 2003,
Fo
2011), and short segments of videos (e.g., Montero Perez et al., 2014; Sydorenko, 2010), which
rP
might be considered to be less common forms of viewing. The finding in this study showing that
viewing L2 television contributes to incidental vocabulary learning is consistent with Peters and
ee
Webb’s (2018) showing that EFL learners in Belgium incidentally learned words through
rR
watching a one-hour TV documentary.

ev
The Comparison of Vocabulary Learning across Different Modes of Input
In answer to the second research question, the results indicated that reading, listening, and
iew
viewing were equally effective for incidental vocabulary learning. This suggests that second
language TV programs could contribute to similar amounts of vocabulary learning no matter
what kind of input the learners choose to learn from and indicates that viewing L2 television
should be considered a useful alternative or supplement to reading. Reading graded readers has
been widely advocated as the key resource for L2 vocabulary learning (e.g., Nation, 2001;
Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Webb & Macalister, 2013). Because research suggests that L2 learners
tend to watch L2 television more than read L2 text as a recreational activity, the results provide

powerful evidence in support of the use of L2 television programs for lexical development.
It might be considered surprising that audiovisual input did not lead to superior vocabulary
gain to the other input modes because Multimedia Learning Theory (Mayer, 2009) and Dual-
coding theory (Sadoski & Paivio, 2001) suggest that multimodal input should result in greater
vocabulary learning than unimodal input. One explanation for this contrast is that the participants
may not have had as much experience learning in the viewing mode in comparison to learning
through reading and listening, because L2 television is not commonly used for learning in EFL
classrooms in China while the latter two modes are used for learning on a daily basis.
Fo
The finding that listening and reading led to similar vocabulary learning gains contrasts
rP
earlier studies that compared vocabulary learning through reading and listening. Brown et al.
(2008) found that EFL learners learned more words incidentally through reading graded readers
ee
than listening to graded readers. Vidal (2011) found that students in an ESP program made
rR
greater vocabulary gain through reading academic texts compared to listening to academic
ev
lectures. The difference in findings between the present study and the earlier two studies
suggests that more research comparing these two modes of input is warranted.
iew
The Relationship between Vocabulary Learning and Frequency of Occurrence
In answer to the third research question, the results indicated that frequency of occurrence
was not significantly related to incidental vocabulary learning in any of the three modes. This
contrasts earlier findings indicating that a word is more likely to be learned if encountered more
times in written texts (Brown et al., 2008; Waring & Takaki, 2003), in spoken texts (Brown et
al., 2008; Vidal, 2011), and in viewing materials (Peters & Webb, 2018; Rodgers & Webb,
2019).

There are several reasons for the inconsistency in findings. First, the material was originally
designed to present information with both audio and visual support, making it less ecologically
appropriate to serve as reading material alone. The lack of visual support in reading mode could
lead to the material becoming less informative and interesting. Overlap between the occurrence
of images in the video and the use of the word in the audio (or written input in the case of
captions) would likely increase the potential that the meanings of unknown words are learned
(Rodgers, 2018). The lack of visual support may have also caused the participants to become less
engaged and pay less attention to the unknown words, thus reducing the impact of frequency of
Fo
occurrence on learning. As for listening, the results are in line with van Zeeland and Schmitt
rP
(2013)’s finding that the relationship between frequency of occurrence and listening was not
clear. Perhaps other factors such as salience and relevance were more important than the
ee
frequency of word occurrence in the non-reading modes, given how densely the information is
rR
provided in a documentary. Ellis (2006) suggests that words may need more salient cues in the
ev
contexts around them to arouse the learning attention. For example, Vidal (2011) argued that
when encountering cognates, words that are similar to L1 words, it is easier to notice them in
iew
audio input than in written input. As much as repeated encounters are needed, salience may also
be necessary for successful guessing from context to happen.
The Relationship between Vocabulary Learning and Prior Vocabulary Knowledge
The analysis revealed that there were significant relationships between learners’ prior
vocabulary knowledge and incidental vocabulary learning for the reading and viewing groups, as
well as the three groups combined. This is supported by earlier studies that have found positive
correlations between prior vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary gain through reading (Horst et

al., 1998; Tekmen & Dalog̈lu, 2006; Zahar, Cobb, & Spada, 2001) and viewing (Peters & Webb,
2018). The result for viewing contrasts Rodgers & Webb (2019) study which found no
significant correlation between the two factors for EFL learners who viewed 10 episodes of a TV
drama. The variation in findings suggests that there may be other influential factors affecting
incidental vocabulary learning through viewing and perhaps impacted the results more strongly
than prior vocabulary knowledge in the earlier study. Research suggests that learner variables
such as L2 proficiency, age (primary, secondary, postsecondary) and treatment conditions such
as text type, intended text audience, and lexical coverage may moderate incidental vocabulary
Fo
learning (Webb, Uchihara, & Yanagisawa, 2019). For example, Vidal (2003) suggested that
rP
students with higher levels of English proficiency tend to acquire more vocabulary knowledge
through listening. In terms of the current study, participants with higher vocabulary levels may
ee
not necessarily have higher English proficiency levels because the latter is a superordinate
rR
concept of which vocabulary knowledge is just one aspect. It would be useful to investigate
ev
which different aspects of language skills other than prior vocabulary knowledge affect
incidental vocabulary learning in a follow-up study.

iew
The lack of a significant correlation between prior vocabulary knowledge and word learning
for the listening group might be explained in two ways. First, it may be that because the VLT
measures knowledge of written form-meaning connections, these results do not accurately
represent prior vocabulary knowledge of the spoken form-meaning connections of words.
Research has revealed that knowledge of spoken form-meaning connections and written form-
meaning connections varies (Milton & Hopkins, 2006). It may be that variation between prior
knowledge of spoken and written form-meaning connections make VLT scores too imprecise to

reveal a relationship between prior knowledge and learning for listening. It would be useful to
compare the relationships between knowledge of spoken and written form-meaning connections
and learning words through listening in a follow-up study.
A second explanation for the lack of significant correlation is that perhaps other factors such
as familiarity with L2 spoken input, speech rate, and the amount of connected speech have a
greater impact on vocabulary learning through listening than prior vocabulary knowledge.
Investigating the extent to which different factors are correlated with vocabulary learning
through listening would be a useful follow up to the present study.

Fo
Pedagogical Implications
rP
Pedagogically, the findings suggest that there is value in learning in all three of the input
modes examined in this study. In the classroom, it would be useful for teachers to familiarize
ee
their students with a range of modes of input and help to support their reading, listening, and
rR
viewing comprehension. This may have the dual effect of revealing to students which mode of
ev
input best suits their learning preference, and encourage students to learn with their choice of
input outside of the classroom. Relatively few words are likely to be learned incidentally within
iew
the classroom, because large amounts of input are necessary for many words to be learned
through encountering meaning-focused input. However, if students encounter large amounts of
input on their own outside of the classroom, there is the potential for meaning-focused input to
fuel L2 lexical development (Webb & Nation, 2017). Moreover, in contrast to a great deal of
literature claiming that reading is the primary contributor to lexical development (e.g., Krashen
1985; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985), the findings suggest that vocabulary growth may not
depend on extensive reading. The present study provides further empirical evidence to support

the positive impact that extensive listening and extensive viewing may have on vocabulary
development.
Future Directions
One limitation of this study is that while the audiovisual material had ecologically validity
(L2 television is commonly viewed by learners), the reading and listening materials were less
common forms of spoken and written input. The documentary was designed to come with audio
input and imagery support. This could thus have a positive effect on learning in the audiovisual
mode, yet the script alone and the audio alone may lack contextual information that may
Fo
encourage attention or help understanding of unknown words. However, the fact that vocabulary
rP
learning still occurred in the reading and listening modes suggests that perhaps any negative
effect of the materials may have been minimal. Ecological validity is likely to be an issue in any
ee
study that compares different modes of input that include viewing, because learners are unlikely
rR
to encounter the same language for the same content in audiovisual and written modes. In her
ev
comparison of vocabulary learning from reading and listening, Vidal (2011) tried to deal with
this by controlling content, but not language. However, in this case, it cannot be clear whether
iew
words are learned because of the mode or the linguistic variables that moderate learning such as
the presence of more contextual clues in one mode. More research comparing learning through
different modes of input is clearly necessary in order to have a more precise understanding of
how mode influences learning.
It would also be useful for future research to compare incidental vocabulary learning through
viewing a full-length TV program with and without captions as there are a large number of
English TV programs with captions available now. It is very common for L2 learners to access

these viewing materials through various online platforms, and it could be easy to utilize these
materials as extensive viewing input for vocabulary development. Rodgers (2013) is the only
study to examine vocabulary learning through viewing complete TV programs with and without
captions. However, that study involved viewing 10 episodes of one program over 13 weeks and
so the degree to which learning occurs through viewing an individual program remains to be
determined. Investigating whether captions increase vocabulary learning through viewing full
length TV programs would expand on earlier studies of viewing short segments of video with
captions (e.g., Montero Perez et al., 2014; Sydorenko, 2010). Moreover, it would also be useful
Fo
to look at how learner-related variables play a role in viewing with and without captions to better
rP
understand to what extent captions may contribute to learning across L2 learners.
Another limitation of this study is that the only aspect of vocabulary knowledge measured
ee
was form-meaning connection. Research indicates that different modes of L2 input may also
rR
contribute to incidental gains in other aspects of vocabulary knowledge. For instance, Webb
ev
(2007) found that reading contributed to incidental learning of five different aspects of
knowledge: orthography, grammatical functions, association, collocation, and form-meaning

iew
connection. Hsu (2014) also found that audiovisual input contributed to improvement in the use
of target words in a writing task, whereas, Webb et al. (2013) and Pellicer-Sanchez (2017) found
that participants gained knowledge of collocation incidentally through reading with audio
support, and reading, respectively. The results of these studies suggest that the vocabulary gains
from different modes of input may also be revealed through tests measuring different aspects of
vocabulary knowledge. It would be useful to measure multiple aspects of vocabulary knowledge
in future research comparing modes of input.

A final limitation is that only 76 participants learning EFL in China took part in this study. It
would be useful to carry out follow up studies that compared vocabulary learning in different
modes of input with participants in different contexts to determine the extent to which the results
of this study can be generalized across different learner populations.
Conclusion
Overall, this study showed that viewing a full-length TV documentary, reading its transcript,
and listening to its audio could all contribute to significant incidental vocabulary learning and
that there were no statistically significant differences in the amount of vocabulary knowledge
Fo
gained through the three modes. The results suggest that there is value in learning with all three
rP
modes of input within the classroom with perhaps an aim towards enabling students to learn
extensively with their preferred mode of input. While there has long been support and programs
ee
designed to promote extensive reading, the findings suggest that perhaps there should also be
rR
programs developed to encourage extensive listening and extensive viewing.

ev
iew

References
Anthony, L. (2014). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan:
Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/
Brown, R., Waring, R., & Donkaewbua, S. (2008). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from
reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. Reading in a Foreign Language,
20(2), 136–163.
Chen, C., & Truscott, J. (2010). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental
Fo
vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31(5), 693–713.
http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq031
rP
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning &
ee
Technology, 11(3), 38–63.

rR
d’Ydewalle, G. (2002). Foreign-language acquisition by watching subtitled television programs.
Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research, 4, 59–77.

ev
d’Ydewalle, G., & Pavakanun, U. (1997). Could Enjoying a Movie Lead to Language
iew
Acquisition?. In P.Winterhoff-Spurk & T. Van der Voort (Eds.), New Horizons in Media
Psychology (pp. 145–155). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher-Verlag GmbH.
d’Ydewalle, G., & Poel, M. Van De. (1999). Incidental foreign-language acquisition by children
watching subtitled television programs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(3), 227–
244.

Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24(2), 174–187. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/747863
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency,
cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual
learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015
Gieve, S., & Clark, R. (2005). “The Chinese approach to learning”: Cultural trait or situated
response? The case of a self-directed learning programme. System, 33, 261–276.

Fo
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.09.015
rP
Goh, C. C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension
problems. System, 28, 55–75.

ee
Horst, M. (2005). Learning l2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study. The
rR
Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 355–382.

ev
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: acquiring second
iew
language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 207–223.
Hsu, W. (2014). The effects of audiovisual support on EFL learners’ productive vocabulary.
ReCALL : The Journal of EUROCALL, 26(1), 62–79.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000220
Hu, M. & Nation, I.S.P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430.

Hu, H. M. (2013). The effects of word frequency and contextual types on vocabulary acquisition
from extensive reading: a case study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3),
487–495. http://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.3.487-495
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental
vocabulary learning. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied
Linguistics (pp. 113–125). Basingstoke: Macmillan. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-
12396-4_11
Fo
Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading.
American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 767–787.

rP
Kennedy, G. (Producer), & Klein, L. (Director). (2002, April 30). Why the towers fell [Television
ee
broadcast]. Public Broadcasting Service.

rR
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London and New York: Longman.
ev
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the
iew
input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.
Lindgren, E., & Muñoz, C. (2013). The influence of exposure, parents, and linguistic distance on
young European learners' foreign language comprehension. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 10(1), 105-129.
Liu, N., & Nation, I. S. P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC
Journal, 16(1), 33–42.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Meara, P. (1992). EFL Vocabulary Tests (2nd ed.). Swansea: Centre for Applied Language
Studies, University College Swansea.
Milton, J., & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary size: Do
vocabulary tests underestimate the knowledge of some learners? Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63(1), 127-147.
Montero Perez, M., Peters, E., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2014). Effects of captioning on
video comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning &

Fo
Technology, 18(181), 118–141.

rP
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context
during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 237–270.

ee
http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312024002237
rR
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading
ev
Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253. http://doi.org/10.2307/747758

iew
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–81. http://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
Nation, I. S. P. (2012). The BNC/COCA word family lists. Retrieved from
https://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation#vocab-programs
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd eds.). New York, NY:
Cambridge University press.

Nation, I. S. P. (2015). Principles guiding vocabulary learning through extensive reading.
Nation, P., & Wang, M. K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 12(2), 355–380.
Neuman, S. B., & Koskinen, P. (1992). Captioned television as “comprehensible input”: Effects
of incidental word learning from context for language minority students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 27(1), 95–106. http://doi.org/10.2307.747835

Fo
Oetting, J., Rice, M. L., & Swank, L. K. (1995). Quick Incidental Learning (QUIL) of words by
rP
school-age children with and without SLI. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38,
434–445. http://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3802.434
ee
Pavia, N., Webb, S., & Faez, F. (2019). Incidental vocabulary learning through listening to
rR
songs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1-24. Advance online publication.

ev
doi:10.1017/S0272263119000020
iew
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2017). Learning L2 collocations incidentally from reading. Language
Teaching Research, 21(3), 381-402.
Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic
novel: Do Things Fall Apart?. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31–55.
Peters, E. (2018). The effect of out-of-class exposure to English language media on learners’
vocabulary knowledge. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(1), 142-168.

Peters, E., Heynen, E., & Puimège, E. (2016). Learning vocabulary through audiovisual input:
The differential effect of L1 subtitles and captions. System, 63, 134–148.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.10.002
Peters, E., & Webb, S. (2018). Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition through Viewing L2
Television and Factors that Affect Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1-27.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study.

Fo
Rastle, K., Harrington, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: the ARC Nonword
rP
Database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1339–1362.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000099
ee
Renandya, W. A., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2011). “Teacher, the tape is too fast!” Extensive listening
rR
in ELT. ELT Journal, 65(1), 52–59. http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq015

ev
Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright, J. (1990). Words from “Sesame Street”:
iew
Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 421–428.
Rice, M. L., & Woodsmall, L. (1988). Lessons from television: Children’s word learning when
viewing. Child Development, 59(2), 420–429.
Rodgers, M. P. (2013). English language learning through viewing television: An investigation
of comprehension, incidental vocabulary acquisition, lexical coverage, attitudes, and
captions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/2870/thesis.pdf?sequence=2

Rodgers, M. P. H., & Webb, S. (2011). Narrow Viewing: The vocabulary in related television
programs. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 689–717.
Rodgers, M. P. H., & Webb, S. (2019). Incidental vocabulary learning through watching
television. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental
vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21(4), 589–619.

Fo
Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
21(3), 221–238. http://doi.org/10.1080/10573560590949359

rP
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text. A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and
ee
Writing. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

rR
Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and
ev
reading. System, 6(2), 72-78.

iew
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and
reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26–43.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two
versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–88.
http://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800103
Shu, H., Anderson, R. C., & Zhang, H. (1995). Incidental learning of word meanings while

reading: A Chinese and American cross-cultural study. Reading Research Quarterly, 76-95.
Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language
Learning Journal, 36(2), 139–152. http://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389975
Sydorenko, T. (2010). Modality of input and vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning &
Technology, 14(2), 50–73.
van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Incidental vocabulary acquisition through L2 listening: A
dimensions approach. System, 41(3), 609–624. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.012

Fo
Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: a source of vocabulary acquisition?. Applied Linguistics,

rP
24(1), 56–89.
ee
Vidal, K. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidental vocabulary
acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 219–258. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

rR
9922.2010.00593.x
ev
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from
iew
reading a graded reader?. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 130–163.
http://doi.org/10.1177/003368828501600214
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28(1),
46–65. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml048
Webb, S. (2010). A corpus driven study of the potential for vocabulary learning through
watching movies. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 497–519.
http://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.03web

Webb, S. (2011). Selecting television programs for language learning: investigating television
programs from the same genre. International Journal of English Studies, 11(1), 117–135.
Webb, S. (2020). Incidental vocabulary learning. In S. Webb (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of
Vocabulary Studies (pp. 225-239). New York: Routledge.
Webb, S., & Chang, A. C.-S. (2015a). How does prior word knowledge affect vocabulary
learning progress in an extensive reading program?. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 37(4), 651–675. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000606

Fo
Webb, S., & Chang, A. C.-S. (2015b). Second language vocabulary learning through extensive
rP
reading with audio support: How do frequency and distribution of occurrence affect
ee
learning?. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 667–686.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814559800
rR
Webb, S., & Chang, A. C-S. (2019). How does mode of input affect the incidental learning of
ev
multiword combinations. Manuscript submitted for publication.

iew
Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.
Webb, S., & Paribakht, T. S. (2015). What is the relationship between the lexical profile of test
items and performance on a standardized English proficiency test?. English for Specific
Purposes, 38, 34-43.
Webb, S., & Rodgers, M. P. H. (2009). The lexical coverage of movies. Applied Linguistics,
30(3), 407–427. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp010

Webb, S., Sasao, Y., & Ballance, O. (2017). The updated Vocabulary Levels Test: Developing
and validating two new forms of the VLT. ITL - International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 168(1), 34-70.
Webb, S., Uchihara, T., & Yanagisawa, A. (2019). How effective is incidental vocabulary
learning? A meta-analysis. Manuscript in preparation.
Werner, H., & Kaplan, E. (1950). Development of word meaning through verbal context: An
experimental study. The Journal of Psychology, 29, 251–257.

Fo
Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: effects of
rP
frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 541–
572.
ee
rR
ev
iew

Checklist Test 1
Checklist Test
Read and listen to the words carefully.
For each word: if you know what it means, write Y (for Yes) in the box; if you don't know
what it means, or if you are not sure, write N (for No) in the box.
1. ☐component 2. ☐stalwart 3. ☐levy

4. ☐collapse 5. ☐reveal 6. ☐skyscraper
7. ☐rhipps 8. ☐emergency 9. ☐terror
10. ☐return 11. ☐trigger 12. ☐concrete

Fo
13. ☐fireproofing 14. ☐strike 15. ☐truss

rP
16. ☐staff 17. ☐trap 18. ☐souz
19. ☐ignite 20. ☐bolt 21. ☐jet

ee
22. ☐manks 23. ☐steel 24. ☐structure

rR
25. ☐fuel 26. ☐lateral 27. ☐lurch
28. ☐state 29. ☐computer 30. ☐stairwell

ev
31. ☐core 32. ☐destruction 33. ☐essential

iew
34. ☐sheetrock 35. ☐phleeze 36. ☐drywall
37. ☐koax 38. ☐aircraft 39. ☐occupy
40. ☐skous 41. ☐gene 42. ☐ladder
43. ☐choice 44. ☐fragment 45. ☐squeegee
46. ☐crucial 47. ☐vertical 48. ☐note
49. ☐evacuate 50. ☐flame 51. ☐quaks
52. ☐crew 53. ☐severe 54. ☐elevate
55. ☐initial 56. ☐intact 57. ☐exterior
58. ☐column 59. ☐mutual 60. ☐photograph
Session 1
View publication stats

Learning Vocabulary Through Reading, Listening, and Viewing: Studies in Second Language Acquisition July 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning Vocabulary Through Reading, Listening, and Viewing: Studies in Second Language Acquisition July 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

LEARNING VOCABULARY THROUGH READING, LISTENING, AND VIEWING

Article in Studies in Second Language Acquisition · July 2020

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Learning vocabulary through reading, listening, and

Journal: Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Manuscript Type: Research Article

Incidental vocabulary learning, Prior vocabulary knowledge, Mode of

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 1

This study used a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design at one-week intervals to determine

television programs for language learning.

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 2

times that of reading.

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 3

modes help to develop vocabulary knowledge in comparison to reading remains to be

captions led to greater word learning than reading-while-listening.

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 4

contribute to vocabulary learning. A full-length TV documentary presented in the three modes

vocabulary knowledge influence vocabulary learning in these different modes of input.

Incidental Vocabulary Learning through Reading

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 5

One solution to increase the amount of written input is extensive reading.

value of graded reading material to contribute to vocabulary learning.

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 6

frequency of occurrence of target words. He suggested a minimum of 10 encounters to ensure a

encountered during reading, the more likely they are to be learned.

Incidental Vocabulary Learning through Listening

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 7

listening requires real-time processing.

Research on L2 incidental vocabulary learning also indicates that a higher number of

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 8

to be a useful source of incidental vocabulary learning.

Incidental Vocabulary Learning through TV Viewing

Neuman & Koskinen, 1992; Rodgers & Webb, 2019).

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 9

viewing could be as useful for word learning as L2 reading.

(reading, listening, and viewing) have yet to be compared.

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 10

of this study is to help clarify this issue.

relationship between frequency of occurrence and vocabulary learning allows us to better

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 11

Prior Vocabulary Knowledge and Incidental Vocabulary Learning

Rodgers (2013) investigated vocabulary learning through viewing 10 episodes of a TV program

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 12

learners who viewed a full-length documentary TV program without captions.

The Present Study

Cambridge University Press

VOCABULARY LEARNING THROUGH DIFFERENT MODES 13

vocabulary learning in comparison to audiovisual input using a full-length TV documentary. The

following research questions were examined: