2011 International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics

IPEDR vol.26 (2011) © (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore

EFL Task-induced Involvement and Incidental Vocabulary Learning:

Succeeded or Surrounded?

Sayyed Mohammad Karimi Behbahani1,∗, Natasha Pourdana1, Mitra Maleki2

and Zabihollah Javanbakht,
1
Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Iran
2
Islamic Azad University, Research and Science Branch, Khuzestan, Iran

Abstract. This study was carried out to investigate the impact of involving in three different types of
language tasks, i.e., (1) a reading comprehension task followed by multiple-choice items, (2) a reading
comprehension task followed by fill-in-the-blank items, and (3) a sentence-writing task on the incidental
vocabulary learning of three intact groups of Iranian EFL learners at high school level. The participants’
performance on two immediate and delayed vocabulary post-tests was evaluated with a test of ANOVA
(analysis of variances) and a Scheffe post-hoc test. Statistics revealed that the EFL learners’ retention of
newly learned vocabulary was progressively improved because of involvement in Task 1 to 3 as an evidence
of successful incidental vocabulary learning. Higher average scores of the participants for the sentence-
writing task indicated a deeper load of language processing in EFL learners and a longer retention of the
incidentally learned vocabulary.
Keywords: EFL, Task, Involvement, Retention, Incidental, Vocabulary

1. Introduction
Undoubtedly, with no profound vocabulary knowledge, language learners’ performance on other
language skills and components is dramatically declined. Read [1] believes that second language learners’
are typically conscious of the fact that limitations in their vocabulary knowledge affects their ability to
communicate effectively in the target language. This fact gives vocabulary studies a salience for language
learners. The primary consideration in vocabulary acquisition process, as Schimtt [2] states, is to establish
form-meaning link. There is not a consensus among the researchers, however, that effective vocabulary
instructions should go beyond stereotyped strategies such as helping learners to look up unknown words in
dictionaries. While Scott [3] states the students learn more when they are given explicit clues to an unknown
word in the surrounding context, Ellis [4] believes that implicit instruction is directing learners to infer the
rules without awareness, in contrast with explicit instruction in which internally-motivated awareness is
absent. He advocates incidental learning wherein an absence of intentionality to learn vocabulary may
involve ad hoc conscious attention to other features of second language.
In application of incidental learning to pedagogy, a significant point is whether language learners are
aware of being tested; the point that Laufer and Hulstijn [5] refer to as the presence or absence of a warning
for an upcoming test after performing on an information-processing task. They propose designing pedagogic
tasks in which the involvement load for all the new words are identical and conclude that tasks with higher
involvement load will be more effective in retention of newly learned vocabulary.

2. Method
∗
Seyyed Mohammad Karimi Behbahani. Tel: 0098 919 527 3184
Email: m.behbahani@kiau.ac.ir
323
 As vocabulary-focused tasks vary in degree of involvement and subsequent retention of vocabulary they
induce, three different types of tasks were designed and administered in this study to explore their impacts on
induced vocabulary learning. Adopted from Martinez-Fernandez [6], (1) a reading comprehension task
followed by five multiple-choice items, (2) a reading comprehension task followed by five fill-in-the-blank
items and (3) a sentence-writing task were employed as the instruments in this study. Sixty-eight participants
in this study were all junior high school students ranging from 13 to 15 years of age in Qazvin, Iran. They
were divided into three groups of second- and third-year students with approximately identical educational
conditions and social background.
• Task 1 was a short reading passage about watching a football match. The content of the text did
not contain any abstract concepts or ambiguous sentences. Persian equivalents for 10 unfamiliar
words were glossed at the end of the task.
• Task 2 was a a short reading passage about living in metropolitans. Five fill-in-the blanks with 10
distracters to decrease the by chance filling of the blanks followed the text. Persian equivalents
for 15 unfamiliar words were glossed at the end of the task.
• Task 3 was a list of 10 words introduced in Task 1 as the cues for writing meaningful sentences in
English with minor attention to mechanics and grammaticality in scoring.
Participants’ degree of familiarity with the target words was evaluated with two pilot groups (n=25),
similar in age and proficiency levels to the experimental groups. Homogeneity of the groups was determined
with the standard Key English Test (KET) as the best-fitting test of proficiency for English learners at
elementary levels. Trusted on test results, researchers eliminated 20 participants with lower proficiency
levels from the following steps in this study. Unannounced Immediate and delayed vocabulary post-tests
were conducted after administering individual tasks. Participants were supposed to provide the Persian
equivalents for the given English words. The time interval between the immediate and delayed post-tests was
one week. The test scoring method was adopted from Laufer and Hulstijn [5] with point 1 for correct Persian
equivalents, 0.5 for partially correct Persian equivalents and 0 for incorrect or absence of Persian equivalents.

3. Results and Discussion

Three experimental groups who received two immediate and delayed vocabulary post-tests with one
week interval provided the researchers with results summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Immediate and Delayed Post-test

Task Group N Immediate Post-test Delayed Post-test

Mean SD Mean SD

1 1 23 3.36 2.27 2.39 1.82

2 2 22 5.86 3.09 2.39 2.72
3 3 23 8.39 2.08 6.56 2.06
As Table 1 demonstrates, Group 3 outperformed the two other groups in both immediate and delayed
post-tests for three tasks. The considerable difference for means and standard deviations in immediate and
delayed post-tests for Task 3 (sentence-writing) needed the researchers to verify the results with test of
analysis of variances (ANOVA).
Table 2. ANOVA for Immediate and Delayed Post-test

Test Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F Sig.

Immediate Between Groups 290.010 2 145.005 22.923 .000

Post-test Within Groups 411.178 65 6.326
Total 701.188 67
Delayed Between Groups 200.620 2 100.310 19.964 .000
Post-test Within Groups 326.596 65 5.025
Total 527.217 67
As shown in Table 2, the obtained results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in
the immediate post-tests performance among Group 1 (M = 3.36, SD = 2.27), Group 2 (M = 5.86, SD = 3.09),
and Group 3 (M = 8.39, SD = 2.08), F1 65 = 22.92, p < .001. Similarly, it was demonstrated that there was a
324
statistically significant difference in the delayed post-tests performance among Group 1 (M = 2.39, SD =
1.82), Group 2 (M = 4.61, SD = 2.72), and Group 3 (M = 6.56, SD = 2.10), F2 65 = 19.96, p < .001.
In Scheffe post hoc test, the effect size or eta square of the tasks involvement on the students’
performance in immediate and delayed post tests was considerably high (Es1= 0.414, Es2 = .381), as shown in
Table 3. The higher amount of eta square for immediate post shows the higher impact of performance on
Tasks 1, 2 and 3 in the immediate post tests.
Table 3. Scheffe Post hoc test

Measures of Association
Eta Eta Square

Immediate Post test * Tasks 1, 2, 3 .643 .414

Delayed Post test * Tasks 1, 2, 3 .617 .381

4. Conclusion
Findings in this study successfully supported the evidence of incidental vocabulary learning in
elementary EFL learners as a result of task-induced involvement. Participants in this study who demonstrated
a better performance on Task 3 (sentence-writing) had higher scores in both immediate and delayed post
tests which might be interpreted as a higher degree of involvement load for Task 3. Moreover, higher scores
for immediate and delayed post tests as a result of involvement in Task 3 might be interpreted as better
retention of newly learned vocabulary comparing to Task 1 and 2 (Table 1, 2). Better performance of the
participants on immediate post tests might also be interpreted as the negative effect of one-week time
interval between performing on the tasks and taking delayed post tests (Table 3).
An important theoretical implication in this study is the impressive role of incidental vocabulary learning
for EFL learners, specifically at elementary proficiency levels. As Huckin and Coady [7] state, incidental
vocabulary learning is (a) contextualized with a deeper sense of words’ use, (2) pedagogically efficient and
(c) learner-centered, since learning vocabulary is the outcome of the learners’ own efforts.
The vocabulary-focused tasks, as the powerful constructs in language course designing, might be
reconsidered from a different point of view. Tasks types with high involvement loads, such as reading
passages with marginal glosses, matching words in the context, and creating ideas through sentence writing
can be highly motivational and interactive to elementary EFL learners.
It is noteworthy that this study did not examine the participants’ opinion about their own experience in
performing vocabulary-induced tasks. Neither, the EFL teachers’ attitude on practicality and usefulness of
the vocabulary incidental learning in their classes was the researchers’ concern in this study.

5. References
[1] J. Read. Research in Teaching Vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 2008, 24: 146-161.
[2] N. Schmitt. Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research. 2008, 17 (3): 329-363.
[3] J. A. Scott. Creating opportunities to acquire new word meanings from text. In E. H. Heibert & M. L. Kamil (eds.).
Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: Bringing Research to Practice. 2005, pp.115-136.
[4] R. Ellis. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.
[5] B. Laufer, J. Hulstijn. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced
involvement. Applied Linguistics. 2001, 22 (1): pp. 1-26.
[6] A. Martinez-Fernandez. Revising the involvement load hypothesis: Awareness, type of task and type of item. In
M. Bowles, F. Silvia, P. Rakesh (eds.). Second Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum. 2008,
pp. 210-228.
[7] T. Huckin, and J. Coady. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in second language. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 1999, 21: pp. 181-193.

325