A Comparative Study Of Employing Focused Versus

Unfocused Tasks On The Retention Of Receptive And

Productive Vocabulary Knowledge Of Iranian Advanced
EFL Learners

Advisor: Farahnaz Liaghat (Ph.D.)

Reader: Roya Khoii (Ph.D.) 
Reader: Mojgan Rashtchi (Ph.D.)

By
Hannaneholsadat Miraboutalebi
Tehran
Winter, 2023
 CONTENTS

01 04

INTRODUCTION RESULTS
03

METHOD
02 05

LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSIONS

AND
IMPLICATIONS
 “
“Speak a new
language so that
the world will be a
new world.”

Rumi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Farahnaz

Liaghat, for all her help, especially for being patient with
me during the process. Indeed, I thank my reader, Dr.
Roya Khoii, for being so patient in guiding me with her
wisdom and expertise. I also would like to thank my
examiners for their valuable comments. I am very
grateful to my family members, especially my parents,
for their constant support, wisdom, and kindness. They
taught me the importance of working hard, not giving
up, and having a good outlook on life. I also want to
thank my friends who helped and encouraged me while I
worked on this project.
 01

Introduction One of the most significant components of language is

vocabulary, which aids in language comprehension and
production (Kvrak & Uygun Gökmen, 2019). In English
as a foreign language (EFL) circumstances, attention to
form during task performance becomes even more
critical. This is because EFL learners frequently need to
catch up on vocabulary gained in a short period of time.
The role of input, intake, and output on vocabulary
retention has grown in recent years. The current study
evaluated the effects of focused and unfocused tasks on
Iranian EFL learners' retention of receptive and
productive vocabulary.
 Background and Purpose

• An increasing number of studies have examined many aspects of

vocabulary.
• L2 teachers and students want to learn vocabulary, yet recovering
previously taught vocabulary is one of the hardest parts of second-
language acquisition.
• For years, specialized language teaching approaches have ignored
vocabulary teaching and acquisition, yet now everyone agrees that
language learners need to learn more vocabulary.
• Form is even more important for ESL learners who lack context.
• This study examines the effects of focused versus unfocused tasks on
productive and receptive vocabulary retention, given the importance of
form-focused education in language learning.
 Statement of the Problem

 There is a growing interest in the impact of vocabulary on learning L2/FL, and

scholars have underlined the need for a well-established technique of language
instruction and acquisition.
 Therefore, acquiring vocabulary should involve elaboration and efficient methods
that enable learners to rapidly store and maintain fresh phrases with minimal risk of
internalization.
 This study examined the effect of focused and unfocused tasks on the retention of
the receptive and productive vocabulary of Iranian EFL learners.
 It has been established that knowledge of syntactic principles is not required for
communication and that a limited vocabulary can hinder communication.
 This topic must be covered in EFL schools in Iran, where English language study
has become a need.
 Significance of the Study

 ELT's vocabulary training needs students to understand word meaning,

form, and relationship.
 TBLT, a popular teaching method, is used to improve students' receptive and
productive knowledge.
 Focused and unfocused tasks are important for L2 growth, but vocabulary
development research are scarce.
 This study examined how focused and unfocused tasks affect advanced EFL
learners' receptive and productive vocabulary.
 This study shows how teachers, material developers, and practitioners can
employ a variety of task types to help students improve their vocabulary.

8
Research Questions
The following questions were addressed in this study:

To what extent does the use of focused vs. unfocused tasks affect
advanced EFL learners' retention of receptive vocabulary?
• RQ1

To what extent does the use of focused vs. unfocused tasks affect
advanced EFL learners' retention of productive vocabulary?
• RQ2
Literature Review

02
 Previous studies and areas of weakness in previous research

 Studies have examined the role of focused and unfocused tasks in L2 grammar learning.

  Alavinia, Shafaei, and Salimi looked at how focused and unfocused audio-appended reading

tasks affected the acquisition of passive voice and prepositions of 90 intermediate female EFL
learners.

 Zarei and Moftakhar Rezaei examined the efficacy of four different vocabulary teaching
methods in 120 primary school boys. 

 Ahour and Ghorbani Shemshadsara explored how focused versus unfocused tasks affected the
syntactic accomplishment of 60 first-year English translation students.

 Lee investigated how TBLT affected the immediate and delayed recall of target English
vocabulary. 
 Lee's study was limited by the small number of participants and did not examine the potential
impacts of different activities on short-term and long-term vocabulary and noun retention.

 There is a need to examine how the use of different task

types differentially impacts vocabulary learning.
Method

03
 Research Design And Variables

Non-equivalent quasi-experimental
The design of the study
can be illustrated as
follows:

O1 X1 O3 O5
o The study's independent
O2 X2 O4 O6
variables consisted of focused
O1, O2= Vocabulary pretests and unfocused tasks
O3, O4= Vocabulary posttests
O5, O6= Vocabulary delayed posttests o The study's dependent variable
X1= Treatment to focused tasks
was the retention of productive
X2= Treatment to unfocused tasks
and receptive vocabulary
13
 Participants

• The participants of this study were 40 Iranian EFL learners whose ages ranged
from 17 to 22.
• They were put into two homogeneous groups, each containing 20 EFL
learners.
• Based on the results of OPT, all learners were at the advanced level of
proficiency C2 according toInstrumentation
the Common European Framework of References.

• An oxford placement test (OPT)

• A picture description test followed by a true/false comprehension test
as pre-test
• A picture description test followed by a true/false comprehension test
as post-test
• A picture description test followed by a true/false comprehension test
as delayed post-test
 Focused Task
Materials Interactive Glossary

Textbook
Sixty vocabulary
items from 
The Oxford 5000™
by CEFR level 

Unfocused Task
Picture Difference
15
 Procedure
Pre-test
Treatment
To ensure that all • Two experimental groups
40 participants • Eight sessions of 35
minutes
started with the • Focused tasks involving
same vocabulary collaborative output tasks,
vocabulary exercises, and
knowledge.
unfocused tasks.
Post-test
 Immediate post-tests
after the treatment 
 Delayed post-tests two
weeks later
As with the pretest, the
posttests included picture
descriptions and
comprehension tests.
16
 Results

04

Data Analysis, Summary of Findings

 Data Analysis for the First Hypothesis

• An ANOVA was run to see if there were any differences between the
focused and unfocused groups in their receptive vocabulary learning.
• The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test verified the normal distribution of the
data.
• The Levene test verified the homogeneity of variance, and the Mauchly
test verified the assumption of sphericity.
• An independent samples t-test verified the equality of the focused and
unfocused groups in their receptive vocabulary pretest.
• A series of t-tests where the experimental result shows that the focused
participants have higher receptive vocabulary learning than the unfocused
group. 18
 The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test verified the normal distribution of the
data.

Table 4.1.

Results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Pretest Immediate Delayed Pretest Immediate Delayed
receptive respective receptive productive productive productive
N 20 20 20 20 20 20
Normal Mean 7.35 6.95 6.95 7.30 7.40 7.65
Parametersa Std. 1.59 1.53 1.39 1.59 1.72 1.72
Deviation
Most Absolute .20 .20 .22 .17 .23 .28
Extreme Positive .10 .14 .16 .09 .12 .16
Differences Negative -.20 -.20 -.22 -.17 -.23 -.28
Kolmogorov-Smirnov .93 .90 1.00 .76 1.05 1.25
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .35 .38 .26 .61 .21 .08
a. Test distribution is
Normal.

19
The Levene test verified the homogeneity of variance.
Table 4.2.

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances for Receptive Scores

F df1 df2 Sig.

Pretest .07 1 38 .78
Immediate 5.27 1 38 .09
Delayed 3.07 1 38 .08
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across
groups.
a. Design: Intercept + groups
Within Subjects Design: time

The Mauchly test verified the assumption of sphericity.

Table 4.3.

Mauchly’s Test Results for Receptive Scores

Within Mauchly's Approx. df Sig. Epsilona

Subjects W Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-
Effect Square Geisser Feldt bound
factor1 .95 1.69 2 .42 .95 1.00 .50
20
 Table 4.4.

Descriptive Statistics for Groups’ Receptive Vocabulary Learning

An ANOVA was run to
see if there were any Groups Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest Focused 6.60 1.46 20
differences between the Unfocused 7.35 1.59 20
Total 6.97 1.56 40
focused and unfocused Immediate posttest Focused 8.90 1.68 20
groups in their receptive Unfocused
Total
6.95
7.92
1.53
1.87
20
40
vocabulary learning. Delayed posttest Focused 9.30 1.78 20
Unfocused 6.95 1.39 20
Total 8.12 1.97 40

Table 4.5

Repeated Measures ANOVA for Receptive Vocabulary Learning

Source Time Type III df Mean F Sig. Partial Eta

Sum of Square Squared
Squares
time Linear 26.45 1 26.45 14.89 .000 .28
groups Linear 42.00 1 42.00 13.96 .001 .26
time * Linear 48.05 1 48.05 27.05 .000 .41
groups
Error(time) Linear 67.50 38 1.77
21
 Table 4.7.

Within-group Comparisons for Receptive Vocabulary Learning in Focused Group

An independent
Paired Differences t df Sig.
samples t-test verified Mean Std. Std. 95% (2-
Deviation Error Confidence tailed)
the equality of the Mean Interval of the
Difference
focused and unfocused Pair Pretest-
Lower Upper
-2.30 2.20 .49 -3.33 -1.26 -4.66 19 .000
groups in their 1 immediate
posttest
receptive vocabulary Pair
1
Pretest-
delayed
-2.70 1.94 .43 -3.61 -1.78 -6.19 19 .000

pretest. Pair
posttest
Immediate- -.40 2.43 .54 -1.54 .74 -.73 19 .472
1 delayed

Table 4.8.

Within-group Comparisons for Receptive Vocabulary Learning in Unfocused Group

A series of t-tests were the
Mean
Paired Differences
Std. Std. 95% Confidence
t df Sig.
(2-
experimental result shows
Deviation Error
Mean
Interval of the
Difference
tailed)
that the focused participants
Lower Upper have higher receptive
Pair Pretest- .40 2.21 .49 -.63 1.43 .80 19 .428
1 immediate vocabulary learning than the
posttest
Pair Pretest- .40 1.81 .40 -.45 1.25 .98 19 .338 unfocused group.
1 delayed
posttest
Pair Immediate- .00 2.05 .45 -.96 .96 .00 19 1.00
1 delayed 22
The results of statistical analyses for the first research question indicated
the significant superiority of the focused group over the unfocused group in
enhancing their receptive vocabulary knowledge.
 Data Analysis for the Second Hypothesis

 To answer the second research question, a

 Levene's and Mauchly's tests
repeated-measures ANOVA was run with time
confirmed homogeneity of
(pretest, immediate posttest, delayed posttest)
variance assumption and
as a within-subject variable, task type
Sphericity, and descriptive
(focused, unfocused) as a between-subject
statistics for focused and
variable, and participants' productive
unfocused groups' productive
vocabulary learning as the dependent variable.
vocabulary learning.

 The focused group achieved a higher

productive vocabulary score than the  The focused group performed
unfocused group. better than the unfocused
group on both immediate and
 The focused group significantly improved their
delayed posttests, as shown by
productive vocabulary scores from pretest to
repeated measures ANOVA.
posttest, while the unfocused group showed no
changes. 24
 The focused group
outperformed the Summary of Findings
unfocused group in
improving vocabulary
knowledge.  The study found that
focused tasks had a
significant effect on
advanced EFL learners'
retention of receptive and
productive vocabulary, but
unfocused tasks did not.
CONCLUSIONS
AND
IMPLICATIONS

05
 Introduction

This study examined the impact of Discussion

focused vs. unfocused tasks on
This study provides new insight into the
Iranian advanced EFL learners'
effect of focused and unfocused tasks on
vocabulary knowledge
the retention of Iranian advanced EFL
development.
learners' receptive and productive
Restatement of the Problem
vocabulary knowledge. It confirms the
This study evaluated the effects of focused TBLT theory that learners need
and unfocused activities on the productive opportunities to concentrate on form
and receptive vocabulary learning of EFL throughout task execution.
learners, based on the requirement for
vocabulary acquisition and task-based
instruction and the necessity of learning
English in Iran. 27
 Conclusions Pedagogical Implications

This study investigated the effect of Teachers of English as a foreign language

focused and unfocused tasks on the
retention of receptive and productive
vocabulary in English language
instruction, providing guidance for pre-
service instructors to better prepare for
teaching English language vocabulary to
EFL students.
(TEFL) should incorporate focused tasks and
realistic resources into their lessons to
encourage receptive and productive
vocabulary retention.
Future research should investigate the effects
of various educational modalities on the
vocabulary development of EFL students.

Suggestions for Further Research

Future studies could use the findings of this study to build a deeper understanding of the
effects of various task types on vocabulary acquisition.
Future research should investigate the influence of concentrated versus unfocused work
on various language abilities, such as pragmatic knowledge and linguistic conversation.
28
Thank you for listening